Posted on 04/25/2021 11:04:06 AM PDT by ArizonaStateLine
It requires the consent of Maryland (a certainty), application by a Statehood convention in DC (not by the existing DC “government”, which is unconstitutional), and approval by Congress, which is probable but not a certainty.
Removing the three electoral votes granted to Congress by Amendment XXIII requires a constitutional amendment (repeal of XXIII), but Congress will never pass such an Amendment (why would they?), So New Columbia + DC will have six EV.
What makes it unconstitutional?
I think there are some semantic issues in this discussion.
The constitution indicates that a “district” constituting the seat of government exists. But it doesn’t define the boundaries of said district.
The statehood idea would make most of DC a state, with the remaining federal “district”, as noted in the constitution, being reduced in size to just a few non-residential areas of the current District of Columbia.
I believe 7 of the original 13 states didn’t even have a popular vote for President in the first couple of elections. Their state legislatures voted on their electors for the Electoral College.
I think that’s generally a consistent trend if you go back and look at presidential elections over the last few decades.
Not sure what difference it makes. Most Americans don’t have representation as things currently stand in the Senate but the house is supposed to be their representation anyways. The real problem is the states generally do not have representation in Washington either. Divided government is a myth and the Senate is probably, in all honesty controlled by a very small handful of people.
They might even have Hunter move into the White House to break a tie ... just in case Joe forgets who he is and votes for the GOP candidate in 2024.
absolutely. Local Government. When the Centralized Government becomes too big to be represented by all of its cultures, we need to prune the fed. In fact, we need to ignore the fed, and just govern our own towns, counties and states.
That’s the best idea I have heard so far.
Agreed!! The founders were divinely inspired and a lot smarter than most of the people in Congress today.
ArizonaStateLine Since Mar 25, 2021 |
|
Thank you for posting Night Hides Not.
In order for the post-17th Amendment ratification federal government to steal state powers, Electoral College-related constitutional clauses have been greatly compromised for the last 100+ years imo.
Take state “winner take all” laws for electoral votes for example. The major constitutional problem with such laws is that the states surrendered their power make such laws when the Constitution was ratified, also when they ratified the 12th Amendment (12A).
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added];--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; […]"
In fact, state “winner take all” laws effectively nullify the Houses's power to elect a president from the top three electoral vote winners in case no candidate wins at least a simple majority of electoral votes.
” […] and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President [emphasis added], the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
I wouldn’t be surprised if corrupt federal lawmakers voted against Trump on January 6, 2021 so that patriot voters wouldn’t take a closer look at 12A on this issue.
Probably most federal lawmakers, some state officials too, should lose their jobs under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for their open rebellion against the Constitution on January 6 imo.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphasis added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Insights welcome.
Regarding unconstitutional federal government overreach, patriots need to work with federal and state lawmakers to require judges and law enforcement officials to do the following when someone is accused of violating a federal law.
Judges and law-enforcement officials need to inform the accused of the constitutional clause(s) that arguably justifies the allegedly broken law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where unconstitutional federal peacetime gun control laws are concerned imo.
Horrible thought ............DC + Puerto Rico = 2.
That may happen and that is bad. My point is that it should be something like DC + Eastern Oregon (Outside Portland). That way, it would be one red state and one blue state.
I can’t think of a good reason for winner take all. The most fair way to do it is by congressional district, with the overall state winner getting to two additional electoral votes that come from having 2 senate seats. Studies have shown that the overall result would have been about the same. In 2020 Trump would have gotten 7 of California’s 55 votes. Instead, the will of just over 6 million people who voted for him here counts for exactly nothing.
Hi, thanks for the reply. Yes, essentially we need to go back to local government. Thats where representation occurs. Regarding the Electoral college.... lets say a state has 10 votes. Winner takes all. If the city population totals 100k, and rural population totals 89k, then the state sends 10 blue electoral votes, red is not represented. Population has grown exponentially in 200 years, and since voting system is determined by state legislatures anyway (freely updated), its now time to update this system. One of the purposes of the electoral college, is to give equal weight to the Rural Culture, because by definition Rural is less populated, but just as important a culture. Let’s use the College for this purpose, so our Cities dont dictate the way a state votes.
by the way, the electoral college is determined by the state legislatures. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. The founding fathers did say this explicitly: each state has complete control over the way votes are handled. Separation of powers.
Only conservative states will break up their vote creating a permanent left wing majority.
Keep the EC model. It keeps value in the votes from the middle of the country.
I would make a change, though, in the manner of counting.
There are 435 Representatives, each from a particular House District.
There are 100 Senators, two from each state.
There is EV accorded the State for each Senator and each Representative.
There are three EV accorded to DC.
That is the total 538; half of which is 269, thus making the magic number 270...minimum for an EC Majority.
SO...apportion the EV representing the HOUSE DISTRICT for POPULAR vote winner in that DISTRICT.
Apportion the EV representing the SENATE SEATS for the POPULAR vote winner in the STATE.
And, DC can apportion on the POPULAR vote winner in DC.
That keeps value in EVERY VOTE cast, and addresses the potential for a few major population centers to control the election outcome. Swing States mean nothing. House Districts become the ‘muscle’, without the population centers of the State controlling.
The Founders did not specify how the electors were to be allocated. They specifically left that to the legislatures. All they did was specify that each state shall have a number of electors equal to the number of its senators and House members.
They did not design winner-take-all, and the district system (as the method Maine and Nebraska use is called) could be an effective way to defeat the effect of the Democrats’ push for (unconstitutional) DC statehood.
If the problem is that DC doesn’t have any representation, then retrocede all but the Federal enclave to Maryland. Problem solved.
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.