That is where you and I disagree fundamentally. I believe African-Americans and Native Americans ALWAYS HAD claims to those rights, but they were denied them. That doesn't make their claims to them any less legitimate. If 51% of society decided that gay people should have to wear rainbow tattoos, would that negate the right of gay people not to be tattooed or identified? Of course not.Given that I'm a 15 minute train ride away from that building, it isn't all that different either... except for the skyscrapers, highways, rail lines and other forms of development that have transformed the Delaware Valley. Rights absolutely are transitory - they depend on what society agrees they are. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had to act to extend those rights to African-Americans and Native Americans.
Decide how? Amending the Constitution? That would be one thing. Not by ceding power and money all the time, thereby ignoring the supreme law of the land.It's difficult to understand because you're asserting an opinion as God-given fact. Rights are an abstract concept, bound by none of the laws of science (unless you are a hard materialist, and then, it's iffy). What happens when we decide that solving some of those problems are part of the duty of the federal government? What prevents the population from doing such a thing?
The shenanigans in 1960 were the result of corrupt local machine politics, which can't really be remedied by reforming the Electoral College. More vigorous federal oversight and harsher punishment might work, though.If the system does not prevent a given harm from occurring, then the system is at fault. You can't just say that because of shenanigans, that we should absolve the system's role in it - part of its purpose is to correct such errors and flaws.
And I believe in both procedural and substantive due process, so I am sensitive to your argument. I also believe, though, that the end result was "correct" given our election laws. I don't believe that about 1876.The big issue in Bush v. Gore was that there had been a federal injunction prior to the state deadline, and that the court ruled there to no applicable remedy, since that deadline passed. In essence, state law trumped federal law, in clear violation of the Supremacy Clause, after the court ruled that the state law violated the 14th. That's a terrible miscarriage of justice. It may have been the right result, but the way it was done was horribly wrong.
I would disagree with that parallel, but OK.If you believe that's the purpose of government, which is not a question of practicality, but of ideological belief. I'd prefer not to debate ideology, because it's as pointless as debating the validity of one's religion.
Restraining the power of the government and the people whilst still protecting individual rights? Well, it hasn't been perfect at that in the past 200+ years, clearly. It still has worked pretty damn well compared to other forms of government, if you ask me. In the end, a system is a slave to the humans that employ it. I think our system has suffered as our quality of those in power has declined and the power they wield has increased.If anything, why is it the MOST compatible system with these goals? Can you not think of anything that would be a better way of doing this?