Thursday, November 10, 2016

A Post Election Essay Test

First, I want to apologize to the folks whose comments were hung up in comment moderation purgatory, I have not been very attentive to this blog. I have no excuse for much of the summer. Lately, however, I have been trying to keep up with young'uns learning about China, qualified immunity, the Internet of Things, Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, The Grapes of Wrath, excerpts from the Aeneid, and a bunch of Norse mythology. I will do my best to keep the post free of Ragnarok references.

Please answer all of the following in complete sentences and provide concrete details to support your answers.

Question 1: As of this writing, Donald Trump has won the electoral votes necessary to be elected President, but Hillary Clinton is leading in the popular vote. Paul Ryan has claimed that Donald Trump has a mandate to lead. What mandate does losing the popular vote provide?

Question 2: Part 1: Given his desire to "open up libel laws, has Donald Trump provided any assurances that he will actively work to protect the entirety of the First and Fourth amendments? Part 2: Is there any evidence that Mr. Trump knows what an ex post facto law is or that such laws are blatantly unconstitutional?

Question 3: This one is for my evangelical brothers and sisters. In your efforts to keep Hillary Clinton, a woman frequently viewed as Jezebel, out of the Oval Office, what assurances can you give that you have not elected Rehoboam?

2 comments:

PNR said...

1. Winners always claim a "mandate to lead," no matter how they win. The country was just as divided when Obama won, but as he said at the time, "I won." That kind of approach merely exacerbates the division, but it didn't matter to Obama and I don't think it matters to Trump.

2. Part 1: Since nothing Trump says is a reliable indicator of what Trump will do, we have no particular assurance that Trump will actively work to protect or threaten the first, fourth, or any other amendment. Part 2: Nothing Trump says is a reliable indicator of what he knows or does not know, either, so we have no evidence that he knows, or does not know, what an ex post facto law is or its constitutionality but, as far as this latter goes, see the answer to part 1 above.

3. I can give no such assurance. But then, presented with a choice between Rehoboam and Jezebel, it's very much Hobson's choice.

Kal Lis said...

Trying to avoid politics during Thanksgiving while with my mother, so was slow to look at blog.

There should be a difference if one has won the popular vote versus winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote. Through my Twitter timeline, I see Hugh Hewitt has invoked the Tilden loss. Given the corrupt deal that gave the Presidency to Harrison, I'm not sure that's a good precedent.

I agree with most of what you said on #2.

I'm not sure how many Trump supporters will agree with your 3rd point. I find it accurate.