Nuttdan wrote:
Yeah. I'm not in favor of the electoral college, but I'm not in favor of removing it either. I mean, if we remove such a basic constitutional thing, what's next? Separation of powers? Freedom of speech? A very slippery slope.
One might argue that with the congress and the executive branch controlled by one political party, and the two of them putting extreme pressures on the 3rd branch of government to the point of attempting something as radical as Constitutional amendments, we no longer have separation of powers. Corporations control everything anyway.
One might also argue that with the 7 (?) people controlling the companies that own all forms of mass media that we no longer have freedom of the press, and freedom of speech is lovely to say but when the government can (PATRIOT act) legally spy on its own citizens communications without notifying them of it, who's to say retribution won't conveniently come from a cooked excuse on a different front?
But really the problem is the fallacy of a
slippery slope. We can't ban all changes to the Constitution on the argument that even desirable changes will lead to undesirable ones. The best you can do is argue on a case-to-case basis. I'm not in support of DOMA (Denial of Marriage Act), but might consider an amendment to solve the Electoral College conundrum for instance. And the "right to form a well organized militia" is a bit outdated what with us spending 49% of our federal budget on our military. Like a friend of mine said on gun control, "If you want to play with big guns, join the army. We have lots of guns there."