Already kind of knew this, but first time that I've actually thought about it:

Quote:our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all.

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

Think what you want about Coulter, but it is an intersting point.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter060508.php3

that is not too surprising considering the amount of proponents for states rights when the document was written

wow, I could only read about 5 paragraphs before I got tired of her usuall BS

T-Monay820 Wrote:Already kind of knew this, but first time that I've actually thought about it:

Quote:our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all.

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

Think what you want about Coulter, but it is an intersting point.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter060508.php3

If you watch the John Adams series HBO ran, you'll see that is how they did elect the president back then.

Coulter has a degree in Constitutional Law and was a Law Clerk for Clarence Thomas(any SCOTUS clerkship is a prized job), she knows what she's talking about with legal and constituitonal matters.

read her Column last week, "Bush's America"....I don't even quite agree with all of it.

GGniner Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:Already kind of knew this, but first time that I've actually thought about it:

Quote:our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all.

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

Think what you want about Coulter, but it is an intersting point.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter060508.php3

If you watch the John Adams series HBO ran, you'll see that is how they did elect the president back then.

Coulter has a degree in Constitutional Law and was a Law Clerk for Clarence Thomas(any SCOTUS clerkship is a prized job), she knows what she's talking about with legal and constituitonal matters.

read her Column last week, "Bush's America"....I don't even quite agree with all of it.

I would never question her intelligence or background....She is obviously a sharp person....but...She is one annoying broad.

and, she likes to do the childish namecalling bit. That stuff gets so tiring from both sides of the argument.

Much of Coulter's inflammatory stuff is just an act.

I met her through friends at CPAC 2007 and she is totally different when she is "off the clock"...

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I would never question her intelligence or background....She is obviously a sharp person....but...She is one annoying broad.

Yeah, and she needs to eat a sammitch, or 7 or 8.

No one will be able to pull the wool over here eyes when she starts talking about policy and the US Constitution. The only thing people can debate with her are her stances on issues she "feels" are correct. The ones she knows, she knows. I don't personally like her, but no way in hell would I debate her on the US Constitution.