1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Constitution of the United States of America

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Nakia, May 25, 2007.

Page 3 of 3
  1. Nakia

    Nakia The night is mine Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    5,575
    Media:
    102
    Likes Received:
    136
    Gender:
    Female
    Remove all ads!
    But why do we have to be limited to only two candidates. For the last few presidential elections I have been voting for what is IMO the lesser of two not-so-great candidates. Once I did vote for a third candidate (not Nader or Perot).

    Times have changed. TV is a big influence in peoples lives. Why do people vote for someone? I think that an important thing is they can relate to the candidate. Truman won because people could accept him as one of them. Being smart and well educated might seem like good qualities but they don't get votes. Charisma, looks, personality as well as good speech writers and a good delivery and lots of sound bites are the important things.

    Just my :2c:
     
    Nakia, Jun 5, 2007
    #41
  2. Chandos the Red

    Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,252
    Media:
    82
    Likes Received:
    238
    Gender:
    Male
    Good thing too! :grin:

    And you might be getting him and her again....
     
    Chandos the Red, Jun 5, 2007
    #42
  3. Saber

    Saber A revolution without dancing is not worth having! Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,905
    Likes Received:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    Perot dropped out in '92 and only got 8 percent of the popular vote in '96, the same margin of victory Clinton had. So if anything, it would just have been a tight race in 1996.
     
    Saber, Jun 5, 2007
    #43
  4. Drew

    Drew Arrogant, contemptible, and obnoxious Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,605
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    190
    Gender:
    Male
    Exactly, and ironic though it may be, Perot took votes from both sides.
     
    Drew, Jun 5, 2007
    #44
  5. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with others that Clinton didn't win in 1996 because of Perot. He won because he was popular, the economy was doing great, and the Republicans put up a less than inspiring canidate in Bob Dole. When everything is going smoothly and the opposition nominates a rather weak canidate you can bet the incumbent is going to win.

    On the other hand, 1992 is a different story. While Bush was certainly not doing well in the polls, and the economy was similarly not doing well, I'm not sure Perot's presence in the race didn't have a great effect indeed. The only state in which a majority of the people voted for a single canidate was Clinton's home state of Arkansas. Clinton did win easily in the electoral college, but the popular vote breakdown was (some rounding here) 43% Clinton, 37% Bush, 19% Perot. Now Perot certainly took votes away from both sides, but I'm thinking he probably took more votes away from Bush than Clinton. The question is did he take enough votes away to make up the 6% margin. That no one can answer definitively, because we can't be sure those who voted for Perot would still have voted if Perot wasn't in the race.
     
    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot, Jun 5, 2007
    #45
  6. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    On the topic of the US Constitution: The original purpose of the Constitution was to limit the federal government's powers. Is that relevant at all after the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn decision?

    To recapture: The Supreme Court ruled that, under the Interstate Commerce clause the government had the right to regulate a farmer's access to grow wheat on his own land solely for his and his family's consumption. The reasoning was that the farmer would not buy wheat on the "open" market, thereby affecting interstate commerce. :whoa:

    If anything and everything that affects interstate commerce can be regulated by the government, is the Constitution not pointless?
     
    Montresor, Jun 6, 2007
    #46
  7. Chandos the Red

    Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,252
    Media:
    82
    Likes Received:
    238
    Gender:
    Male
    The original intent of the Constitutional Convention was to make the federal government stronger, not to limit it. The Articles of Confederation were too weak to forge the collected states into a nation, which many of the so called "Founding Fathers" came to realize. An excellent read on the framing of the Constitution is Jack Recove's book, James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic.

    Both Madison and Hamilton wanted to expand the scope of federal power, while many within the states wanted it to be limited. The Convention was held in secert because the Framers of the Constitution did not want the states to know just how far they were going in redefining government. Madsion keep the only notes of what actually went on during the Convention and they were published after his death.
     
    Chandos the Red, Jun 6, 2007
    #47
  8. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    Jefferson, on the other hand, said that government had to be tied down by the Constitution. Clearly not all the framers wanted a strong central government. Even though Madison and Hamilton wanted the federal government to be stronger than under the Articles of Confederation, they certainly didn't want to grant it unlimited powers. Article 1 Section 9 specifically states a number of things that Congress may NOT do, and the Bill of Rights states a number of rights that people have vis-a-vis government.
     
    Montresor, Jun 6, 2007
    #48
  9. Chandos the Red

    Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,252
    Media:
    82
    Likes Received:
    238
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Jefferson was not one of the Framers of the Constitution. He was in Europe at the time the Constitution was framed. But it was Jefferson who insisted on the Bill of Rights, which was added after the original document was crafted and ratified. Although Hamilton's vision of America has largely prevailed in recent years, I still agree with Jefferson's perspective and consider myself to be a Jeffersonian on most issues - but not all. Hamilton, a brilliant and accomplished man, was right on some of the issues, which divided him and Jefferson, as well.

    [ June 07, 2007, 03:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]
     
    Chandos the Red, Jun 7, 2007
    #49
Page 3 of 3
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.