Comments by "Matthew Loutner" (@Matthew_Loutner) on "" video.

Actually there is no requirement to have elections at all. The legislatures can just assign electors and send them to Congress. That would solve the gerrymander problem.
9
Both sides do it -- no one is "guilty" for it. It is legal.
4
There are no women's rights.
2
Do not be ridiculous -- no one is going to vote blue. 🤷‍♀️ 🤷‍♂️
2
No. But I know one when I see one. 😎👍🇺🇸 ✝️
1
Scotus does not make laws.
1
A democrat named Gerry Mander invented gerrymandering.
1
@slushymatis Conservative party? You mean believing in slavery is conservative? Passing the Social Security Act is conservative?
1
@Maya-ls3ky Imagine anyone being fair and balanced. When I was an auto mechanic, many of my customers considered their skills equal to mine. When I was a computer repair technician, many of my customers considered their skills equal to mine. And when chatting in the comment section EVERYBODY gives their own opinion as if it is the best one. Politicians become politicians because they believe they are the best person for the job.
1
@ricklodestein1101 What analogy of mine are you trying to counter and why? What point are you trying to make and why? If you can not explain yourself clearly and understandably the first time so that I have to ask for clarification, why am I even chatting with you? Why would I believe that what you are saying has any credibility? What are your credentials? Why would you be qualified to "counter" anything I say? Your attempt to do so just proves my original point that "everybody thinks they are an expert." I am a journeyman auto mechanic with book-learning education and 50 years of practical experience. When I was a teenager in high school I could explain the inner chemical workings of a car battery to 45 year old mechanics working beside me who had not studied chemistry. So shoot.
1
@BWolf00 Whenever I make a blanket generalization it is not intended to apply to every single specific case -- so you do not need to "take exceptions" to my generalizations. Yes I think Joe Biden in his own mind believes that he is the best man for the job.
1
@rwhunt99 Where in the Constitution does it say that we the people have the right to vote?
1
@BWolf00 My general opinion is that about 55% forget why they are there and about 45% remember. But they all think they are the best person for the job.
1
The Constitution says that the state legislatures send the electors.
1
@mikeburke7053 The state legislature has to do things according to state law and the state supreme court can rule about it. But you have to remember that the state legislature is elected by the people and they are the ones who write the state laws.
1
@mikeburke7053 There can be a state law regulating gerrymandering. But the state legislature would have to pass the law. Gerrymandering was invented by a democrat named Gerry Mander over a hundred years ago and both sides have been implementing gerrymandering since then. It is considered normal procedure. Basically there is no limit on gerrymandering and it is state-legal and state-constitutional. However, there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that says that if the states do not hold their elections fairly, Congress can pass a law about it. This clause has never been implemented. Congress cannot "overrule" a specific state action. But they can pass a general law.
1
@mikeburke7053 You are talking yourself in circles and contradicting points in which I am right. Never mind about all of that. The United States Constitution states that the state legislatures choose and send the electors. That is the ONLY THING it says in the Constitution. How the state legislatures perform that task is the state's business. They have a responsibility to their own citizens to act according to their own laws. The United States Supreme Court has only one sentence in the Constitution that they can rule on. It says that the decision is up to the state legislature -- so that should be the ruling. They will basically just tell the state legislature to go figure it out.
1
@astronitium2781 What "independent legislature theory" are you talking about? Why couldn't the state courts review it? That is their job. If courts cannot review things to make sure they comply with the law, why do we have courts? Who says legislatures could "rule by decree"? The state constitution defines how the legislature rules -- they pass laws according to the procedure that is defined in their Constitution. (Fundamentally speaking laws ARE decrees so I guess they do). Ridiculous election maps? In whose opinion are they ridiculous? Subjective. The Constitution says that if a state's elections are not fair, Congress can pass a law about it. So why are you saying they can't? Gerrymandering is not voter suppression -- everybody gets to vote. How would voter suppression be legal? States run their elections according to their own state election laws. (Excepting Pennsylvania and Georgia who failed to do that in the last election.) We already do have minority rule. I used to live in a town of 5000 population. Only about 200 people voted in the city election -- that is minority rule. So what? The people who voted were the people who CARED about the future of the city. So what is the problem with that?. **************** Ultimately, the state legislature runs the state. They can pass ANY law for that state. The only limitation is that is has to comply with their own state constitution. But state constitutions really do not say much -- they are not particularly limiting. The legislature passes a law -- the court interprets it. If the legislature does not like the court's interpretation, they can amend the law. Then the court is stuck with interpreting the new law. If the legislature does not like the new interpretation, they can amend the law again. You cannot get around the fact that the legislature makes the law and they can make it any way they wish and keep changing it. The court cannot do that -- the legislature runs the state and is not "bound by the courts." ************************ You are wrong about originalism. "Originally" no one ever had the idea that a legislature would be sued in court, that a law would be challenged in court, or a state would sue another state. These are all modernist ideas. The first time that a law was challenged in court, it was a big surprise to everybody. The courts were instituted to settle disputes among the populace -- not the law itself.
1