Richard,

>>>>I would suggest, as always, that folks go back and read the Federalis Papers.
>>>
>>>Acknowledging their brilliance, but bearing in mind that these were white, male, prosperous slaveowners in the 17th century, and times have changed considerably. Note that we have amended the constitution many times.
>>
>>Bruce,
>>
>>I have no trouble with ammending the Constitution as long as people don't try to change the rules like they did with the ERA.
>
>Amending the Constitution is, by definition, changing rules. Eliminating slavery, allowing an income tax, granting women the right to vote all changed the rules.

Sure, but when the rules state that the ammendment must be ratified within 'n' years and after that legal and official period of time has elapsed that the pro-ERA members of Congress violated that by extending the time allowed, well, then you have people who think of themselves as being above the law..

My poing was not that we adapt and change the laws but that we do not undermine the very foundation of our nation which I would interpret as such by the elimination of the Electoral College. Can we make the process of vote counting better? You bet! but then continue to respect the sovereignity of each state via the Electoral College system.

>
>>
>>As far as your remark about "white, male, prosperous slaveowners" goes... I cannot even imagine how indignant some people would rightly get if you said, "black, female poor free people" as though that were a justification for some argument you were making.
>>
>>Since when does one's race or level of prosperity or social status have any bearing on whether something is right or wrong?
>>
>
>It doesn't. But it does explain the context in which they frame their thoughts. The framers of the Constitution WERE white, male, prosperous - but very divided over the slavery issues.

And because they were a) white, b)prosperous and c) divided about the slavery issue we toss everything they do out??

That's pretty silly.

Let's toss out all our code when we discover one bug right? No! We fix the bug. We do not change the rules of programmimg.

>They had very definite thoughts about what classes should enjoy certain rights.

So? Seems to me that as highly educated people that they did a dang good job.

> As the nation has evolved, many of those thoughts were modified. I think some of the arguements in favor of the Electoral College are still valid. But the coutry for which the Constitution was written has obviously changed drasticly and arguements in favor of a national president voted in a national election being determined by the total national vote are hard to ignore.

Sure the country has changed but that's not a rationale for tossing out the foundation of those very rules I'd think

>
>
>>I will presume that you do not have a racist bone in your body but your remarks are clearly higly racist. Imagine, if someone is white or wealthy they are automatically morally presumed to be "bad". Stupid, illogical political correctness raises its ugly head once again.
>>
>>What about all those rich dead white guys who set slaves free? Remember, it was the southers Liberal Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights movement in the 60's including Al Gore's father. And the southern Liberal Democrats who enacted all the bad voting laws.
>>
>>Bruce, you need to get your facts straight I think. <g>
>
>Calling the Southern Democrats of the 60's Liberal is a gross mis-statement of fact. They were Democrats for a century largely as a reaction to the Republican imposed Reconstruction period after the Civil War. There was almost no ideological agreement with their Liberal Northern Democrat brethern.

Well, I guess we'd disagree here. Facts are that they a) Were Democrats and b) they did indeed fight against opening up society to blacks. Can't argue with facts..