Posted on 05/16/2014 9:33:46 PM PDT by Ray76
Yes, and at that time Texas and the states sympathetic to it will have to de-annex the rest of the USA thereby causing a CWII.
In the meantime, Texas will never secede, but they might ignore/suspend the unconstitutional federal government dictates in Texas in order to govern Texas as we see fit.
If Obama and his administration can ignore the Constitution, then we can ignore them and lawfully uphold the Constitution.
The whole point of the Electoral College was to allow a way to elect a president that the people didn’t vote for if the people ever made what the overlords felt was an incorrect decision.
The majority of the population of the US lives in democrat controlled states. That’s why they want to pass this law. It would make republicans extinct.
The next day. I am hoping they get this through and a republican wins the popular vote the next election.
I'd love to find a way to make religion non-partisan. Way too many points of view, don'cha think.
For that matter, I'd like to make entering a traffic rotary (roundabout for you Anglophiles) non-partisan, but everyone else seems to think they got there first.
/s
Another scheme from scheming socialists? Adios, republic.
“a Republic madam, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin recognized the threat posed to a “Representative Republic” by partisan politics, special interests, and unrestrained growth of the central (Federal) government. The Constitution imposed heavy restrictions upon the three separate and equal branches of government and left the fabric of authority for legislation in the hands of the several individual states protected by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
http://libertyssong.com/2011/03/31/what-kind-of-government-have-you-given-us-dr-franklin/
Amnesty is critical to the future of the Democratic party because the birthrate in Red States is significantly higher than in Blue States.
Is it any surprise that bible-believeing Christians have more children on average than abortion-obsessed gay marriage fanatics?
Clearly Soros and the other sponsors of this plan intend to flood the USA with Left-leaning immigrants and permanently take the reigns of government before America’s liberals bugger and abort themselves into oblivion.
How could this pass Constitutional muster?
1) It will nullify the votes of a MAJORITY of some States’ voters, deny the the right to vote to millions of citizens.
2) It allows OTHER States to select the electors for your State. Constitution does not allow that.
3) Illegal voting in one State could throw an election. Cheating would be rampant and competitive.
No way in hell will this Democrat scheme stand.
No Constitution, no peace.
I don’t know why these states even bother with this nonsense. Almost every state that has adopted this NPV measure was already a strong “blue” state, so the stronger likelihood would be that they’d be changing their votes from “blue” candidates to “red” candidates.
“The winners are big population centers and losers are medium and small states. In essence it makes all states losers except for about six.”
Yup. Which is why I think that if any state actually decides to secede, it will be a small state. While I’m not particularly in favor of secession, it makes more sense for a small state that has little representation in the larger whole anyway.
I don’t know why these states even bother with this nonsense.
The fact that so much money is being poured into this scheme indicates that someone thinks it possible that in the future the political desires of a small collection of states with large population centers (i.e. California, NY, Massachusetts) will be different from the political desires of a larger collection of States with less people (i.e. the States that actually grow our food and produce things.).
I think you’re right: Texas will not secede. It’s politicians, while talking the talk, will not actually do the deed. More importantly, there is a large and growing presence of foreign nationals in Texas who would not see it as in their interest.
I do think, however, that one or more states will decide to exit within say 20 years. There are some smaller states that will simply see it in their best interests. I don’t necessarily agree, but I do see that coming.
Unless something is done to stem the tide of illegals Texas will soon become a microcosm of the nation; Houston and Dallas will be highly populated Democrat strongholds who will take all the power away from conservatives throughout the rest of the state.
One of the Left’s primary objectives for this decade is to turn Texas blue.
I think that's obviously the case right now. The population centers are also the welfare pits of the country. They get more from the government than they pay out in taxes. It would be electoral slavery for the periphery if this regime ever came to pass.
“One of the Left’s primary objectives for this decade is to turn Texas blue.”
While several Texans would hotly disagree with me, I think there is a pretty fair chance of that happening.
“It would be electoral slavery for the periphery if this regime ever came to pass.”
It would just exacerbate the existing electoral slavery that already exists. Things are already beginning to look eerily like the political scenario from the Hunger Games trilogy.
That was my first thought.
I’d guess they think they can sneak it through under the noses of the mind numbed sheeple.
The Democrats also learned that if they can manufacture votes in blue states, which would not be necessary in the current electoral college process as they would have won the state anyway, they can offset actual votes in red states. Recalling the Florida fiasco - imagine a nationwide close vote (anything less than 1.5 million) and the nationwide recounts - every precinct in the country could be manufacturing or eliminating votes.
The states that have adopted this "National Popular Vote" measure are almost all deep-blue states that would be electing Democrats anyway. So the real risk for them is that they end up changing their votes from Democrat to Republican, not vice versa.
Let's take one NPV state -- New York, for example -- and see how this plays out. Here are the four potential scenarios in a presidential election:
Scenario #1: Democrat wins national electoral vote (EV) and wins national popular vote (PV)
Scenario #2: Democrat wins EV and loses PV
Scenario #3: Republican wins EV and wins PV
Scenario #4: Republican wins EV and loses PV
For all practical purposes, the NPV scheme only comes into play in Scenarios #2 and #4. Yes, it can happen under Scenarios #1 and #3 but in those two cases it would be completely inconsequential for any state because the change in that state's electoral votes will not change the outcome of the election.
But just for the sake of this analysis, let's look at how each scenario would play out for New York:
Scenario #1 ... I don't think there will ever be a scenario where a Democratic candidate wins both the national electoral vote and the national popular vote, but loses New York. In the outlandish scenario where something like this might occur, New York changes its electoral vote from Republican to Democrat -- which has no impact on the election results.
Scenario #2 ... This is the worst thing that could happen to New York under a National Popular Vote scenario. In this case, New York would have cast many electoral votes for the Democratic candidate who won the national electoral vote, but would have to change the state's EV from Democrat to Republican -- and might even swing the presidential election in favor of a Republican candidate who lost New York's popular vote by a wide margin!
Scenario #3 ... This one might happen with some frequency, but like Scenario #1, it has no bearing on the election results. If the NPV rule had been in place in 2004, for example, New York would have given its electoral votes to George W. Bush even though John Kerry won New York's popular vote by a wide margin. But Bush won even without New York, so it makes no difference other than to turn a close Republican victory into an electoral college landslide.
Scenario #4 ... This is exactly what happened in 2000, but it's of no consequence in a deep blue state like New York. Al Gore won New York by a wide margin, so New York's electoral votes had been cast for him anyway. Like Scenario #2, this one can actually result in a state changing its electoral vote from one candidate to the other, and changing the outcome of a presidential election as a result. But for a state like New York, it's highly unlikely that a Republican candidate could lose the national popular vote and yet win the popular vote in New York.
............
So as I go through these, the scenario that is most likely to occur in a way that requires New York to change its electoral votes in a way that changes the outcome of a presidential election is Scenario #2. The problem for New Yorkers is that they'll end up casting electoral votes for the Republican candidate.
This is why I find it baffling that these "deep blue" states would even consider this National Popular Vote idiocy. In fact, if Scenario #2 were to unfold in New York there would be court challenges attempting to overturn that state law -- even if it took until the end of time.
No.
If your scenario were to happen (that of NY having to switch from communistic (er socialist) to republican BECAUSE of this inter-state agreement, then NY would simply refuse to follow the NPV agreement!
However, if OH were to vote “red” in the election, but PA and IL and NY voted “blue” then MA, PA, NY, IL and CA WOULD combine to “force” / “bribe” / “influence” Ohio’s electors to vote BLUE because of this agreement!
The socialist/communists ONLY follow “agreements” and “the law” WHEN IT AGREES WITH THEIR NEEDS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.