The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Interesting, how so? The right of states to select their electors is an internal state decision, not involving any other state.

That would show the lower courts in a bad light. The Article, section, and clause I cited, further goes on to say that if such a compact is made to further political power, that too would also be in violation of the constitution.

I’m forced to disagree with you here my friend. As the former is unconstitutional, while the latter process is entirely constitutional. In fact, it could be used to amend the constitution in order to change the election process for president, but I honestly can’t see 3/4 of the states agreeing to that. A funny note, the states that have entered this so called compact haven’t voted for a Republican in at least the last three presidential elections.

I agree, it is genius. To your question: that’s a big one for me as well. The provisions for qualification for President and Vice President are very simple. Which leaves the vetting process pretty much up to the people. How do we know how someone will govern, when they have no governing history. Contestants can run on one platform, making campaign promises, but once elected, completely change their stance(s). That was an excellent question, sir. (Always making me think)

woodguru

FEMA is still sitting on $20 Billion of the $43.5 Billion allocated for Puerto Rico... Dorian is creating a massive storm of toxic oversight for FEMA and Trump. Trump and FEMA will have microscopes up their colons.

woodguru

Besides dems rolling out millions of new voters, and the tank being empty in regard to new Trump supporters, and many many past Trump supporters likely not voting for him again, and alienating just about every demographic...he has no chance of winning the popular. So if he loses the popular by ten million, it would really be something if enough red states pulled off electoral wins, huh?

https://dennismichaellynch.com/video-msnbcs-chris-hayes-if-the-electoral-college-wasnt-in-the-constitution-it-would-be-unconstitutional/

The point actually can be made that the electoral contradicts the very heart of constitutional core values

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Please attempt to make that point. Bear in mind, constitutional core values are based in (con)federalism, and republicanism.

booboo

That is exactly what those cry babies would do! The only reason they object to the EC is because Hillary lost the election because of it. Had she won, that genius of geniuses, AOC, wouldn't even be talking about this. This is a typical Leftist tactic - when they lose, they then want to change the rules until they win! Poor losers (stating the obvious I guess...).

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

That does seem to be the case...

Funny, when Obama won (twice) because of the EC, not a single complaint made.

(Welcome to OPP, booboo)

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

You raised some fair points. I will answer them....just keep in mind I never claimed to be a constitutional scholar, an ordinary joe, if you will.

Let's start with the big one: that you disagree that a convention of the states is a similar Constitutional animal as the movement by some states to form a national popular vote compact. I am in no position to argue that. I cannot cite chapter and verse of the various legal arguments that underpin what is surely a very complex issue. My layman's knowledge tells me you are technically correct.

I also did not mean to slight the lower courts, nor their roles. I just assumed that both sides will fight to the bitter end with appeal after appeal. That's how I saw it coming to the Supremes.

The conflict I saw going to the high court was this: If in 2020 the President is re-elected with a minority of the popular vote, then the movement for a national popular vote compact will gain strength and more states will pass laws to join if the 270 trigger is hit.

The conflict would involve a state's right to choose it's electors the way they see fit, as stated in the Constitution, or is that compact a violation of the Constitution, as you cited. Since it is a future hypothetical, I'm just playing around with ideas. I do know that what is considered Constitutional changes over time, and the variables are endless. What if the break-up the country were involved in such a ruling....open rebellion, etc.

So I respect your argument and agree with your analysis. But who knows what's coming down the road and reality is often stranger than fiction. Hope this was somewhat cogent. As usual, it's a pleasure...

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

No...I don't think it can. The electoral college is at the very heart of the compromise made to form the union. Change that and you alter the basic structure of the country, it's very constitution.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Same here my friend.

By my statement I just meant, constitutionally, there are no provisions for compacts between states. However, provisions are made for a convention of states, in Article V, which I suppose could be used to amend the constitution and change presidential election procedure. I just don’t see 75% of states getting on board with that.

Oh I didn’t mean to imply that you were slighting them, it was more me doing the slighting lol.

You’re most likely correct there would be quite a push. But I think the fact that it would require a constitutional amendment, would bring that notion to a full stop. But, like you said, sometimes reality can be stranger than fiction.

Your last part here is a real hang up for me. If you’re interested, check out my last topic about the SC, it depicts my position perfectly.

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility. We’re quite fractured even now. I enjoy when you throw out ideas, they make me think, and make for good dialogue.

Quite cogent, sir. The respect and pleasure is mutual, as always. Thank you.

maryjane

Changing the constitution would be a lengthy process. But the democrats and many of the states are working a path to circumvent the EC in 2020. If enough states join the group pledging their electoral votes to the candidate winning the popular vote nationally regardless of the popular vote of the state's citizens, then they will, in essence, make the EC null and void. I have read that these states/group has 170 votes but need about 70, or so, more.

bahmer

That may not be totally legal in regards to the US constitution the Supreme court may wade in on that if this were to happen.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

The sick illogically thinking left wants California, New York to rule over the other 48 states and rule their anti American agenda unimpeded.
This is the bottom line motive.
Wonder if leftist organized groups having hundreds of thousands of blank ballots will again be raided while hundreds caught in the act filling them out.
Or if the million and a half illegally immigrants votes will be caught.

dongreen76

Good afternoon : So we are back to the debate of whether or not we are a democracy or what ever.I have done the research as per stated above"so we are back.... and in doing this research I have read the text of the debates of the founding fathers/framers to determine which political philosophies they should use that should be our laws of governing rule.It was extensive.There were many pros and cons over which type of government we should have.They decided in principle on a democracy;denominative to the democracy; there was inserted a Republic.Keeping in mind they had very little faith in the proletariats ability to govern it self with the wisdom needed to reach the goal of establishing and birthing a new nation and sustain it.The democracy is are foundation in which this country stands.Democracy is prerequisite to the concept of freedom.Democracy is merely the Idea of the people having a say so in how or what they will be governed by as oppose to any type of totaltarian rule -even though we have a republic,it is still denominative to an intrinsic Democracy.This comes about due to true
Democratic elections that takes place on
the domestic local levels -these feed and
Percipatates the Republic.
Lastly,in another post discussing whether or not we were a Democracy or a Republic,You should keep in mind that there does not exist any true Democracy's nor does there exist any true states of Communism, we are more or less the closes thing to it.

debeda

As another average Jane, what would even be the point of the state's voters in this "compact to even vote?

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Not exactly, Don. Because there really isn’t a debate to be had.

I’m not denying that there was much debate about the form of government we would have. The conclusion of your extensive research seems to be in direct conflict with Article IV Section IV of the US Constitution, as well as our charters of freedom, due to the fact that the word democracy, isn’t in any of them. I’m very interested in which sources you scoured that led to your conclusion. Perhaps you could list a few, if you can find the time?

I wholeheartedly disagree. Democracy is the antithesis of freedom. Democracy allows for the disenfranchisement of the minority. A Republic respects the rights of the minority, right down to the individual, freedom of the individual.

Actually it doesn’t. A democracy is defined as mob rule, tyrannical/totalitarian by its very nature. For instance: if a democracy consisted of 100 people, and 51 (51%) of them were in favor of one thing, but the other 49 were not, the 49 have no recourse for appeal, they are stuck with what the 51 want, or don’t want for that matter. Not so in a Republic. A couple of examples of what I mean; ask yourself how many states are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. And, how much of the Congress is needed to override a presidential veto. There are many other examples, but these two should suffice.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. But you seem to be separating state elections from federal elections, and that they are somehow a Democratic process as opposed to a Republican process. Perhaps you would be willing to clarify your statement for me.

This much is mostly accurate. And the reason is that both of those forms of government are proven failures historically speaking. And the Framers (to include most of the colonists at the time) of our constitution knew this much before they even began the framing debates.

Enjoy your evening, Don. I’ll leave you with a quote:

“It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Alexander Hamilton, Speech to Congress, June 21, 1788