Comments by "Robert Morgan" (@RobertMorgan) on "PowerfulJRE"
channel.
-
The direct democracy voting idea has it's positives, but the problem is it's impossible to implement and very likely unconstitutional. There are no Federally ran national elections in the US. Every state makes their own laws regarding their elections and runs them independently, as per the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to hold elections, therefore it's solely the Right of the States.
A direct democracy vote like he wants could disenfranchise millions of people if, for example, their state itself votes not to put those questions on their ballots, so no votes on the national issue get cast from that State. The State could get a court ruling that changes the issue question and basically nullifies the votes of other states. Such a system would also be strongly biased against non-populated areas and favor population centers. It's a top-down authoritarian plan disguised as freedom of choice, and with nowhere to escape to. At least with 50 states and 50 sets of laws, if you don't like what's going on where you live you have 49 other options. With big government national votes, you might end up fucked with no recourse.
Additionally, what if the vote on one of the 'three issues' is affirmative yet the result is a law in violation of the Constitution? SCOTUS would still be able to strike down such a law, nationwide majority vote or not. So why have that vote, at IMMENSE polling expense, in the first place?
Large groups of FAR more intelligent lawyers, scholars, and thinkers spent years crafting our Constitution, and it's been through centuries of revision, and the fact that nationwide voting on issues in a direct democratic style has not once entered into it seems like an indication that maybe it's not the best idea. Our system goes to great length to PREVENT the Tyranny of the Majority, not to empower it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:07:00 Tulsi is full of shit, and that's a blatant, self-serving LIE. I do this for a living, I'm licensed to run just about any water treatment plant in the US, and the EPA certified method to properly test the lead content of SUPPLIED water to a household STARTS with running the tap for at least 2-5 minutes to clear out stagnant water in the household pipes. This will give you the true level of lead in the actual SUPPLIED water. Next, you take that same house and don't use any water for at least 8 hours, then you pull a sample immediately after the tap is opened. This sample tells you how much the home's plumbing is adding lead. If the second sample tests higher than the first, guess what, it's your own fucked up jankey pipes poisoning you.
When my own water system does this testing, which is mandatory every year, we test almost 20 homes out of our thousands of customers, and the source water reads zero lead, and depending on the house it can vary from little to nothing, to over the 15ppm limit. It's always the older houses with higher levels, and it's 100% out of the control of the utility. Some cities pass laws making such lead-containing plumbing illegal.
If she can't even look deeper on that and just uses it as a throwaway line, how can she be trusted on important matters? It's a no for me. In fact, I kind of despise her now for spreading disinfo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1