Posted on 10/16/2008 7:11:15 AM PDT by DrHannibalLecter
Even the DUmmie COmmies now think McCain will get a bounce from his brilliant performance last night.
see the quotes:
"McCain was tougher last night than in the previous debates, and showed a bit more crispness in his assertations than he usually does. -----------------------------------------------------"My point in saying this is to prepare people to ride out the storm. " ------------------------------------------------------- "Thats fine. Then people will see how important it is to get out the vote" -------------------------------------------------------- I agree...last night, Obama won the debate...this morning, it has slid to McCain...I just PRAY the election doesn't follow suit... -------------------------------------------------------- Yes... I agree. I expect that he'll pick up 1 or 2... maybe 3 points.
Yes there are and they all have the approval of Congress, as the Constitution instructs. Most of the time these compacts create a new government agency to oversee them.
37 S 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
Hawaii just pasted theirs via veto. It is worded to:
SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
If the progressive newsletters that are following this are correct, and their target is for 2009 (which our November election is for 2009) I wouldn't be too quick to brush this off. They have 21 states in position to have this signed before our November election.
THIS ARTICLE SHALL GOVERN THE APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS IN EACH MEMBER STATE IN ANY YEAR IN WHICH THIS AGREEMENT IS, ON JULY TWENTIETH, IN EFFECT IN STATES CUMULATIVELY POSSESSING A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL VOTES.
From the Hawaii Bill text:
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
From the California Bill text:
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
The bill takes efffect immediately but the trigger date is set in the body of the bill.
You are about as accurate on this as you were on the POW issue.
The bill is effective immediately but it has conditions and a trigger date which is July 20 of a Presidential election year.
Twenty-one Houses have passed the bill. Now it has to get by the Senates and the Governors.
Many have.
The agreement under discussion appears to be controlled only by state laws wrt how to count the electors. There is no constitutional prohibition of states acting in concord or agreeing with each other.
Hence I do not see this as illegal.
Aside from the 4 states which have adopted it, it has passed the upper house in 8 states. In all of those 8 states it has been stopped by the lower chamber or at the governor’s desk.
You are panicking for nothing. To start with it takes votes by the congress to make this happen also. You have to do more than have the states say they are going to go by popular vote,the constitution says we use electoral college that means there must be a constitutional amendment for it to happen. We have enough problems facing us without adding groundless fears to the pot. Besides that you have it wrong, it would not be pledged electoral votes it would be switching to popular vote instead of electoral college which,as I say, takes more than a state vote.
I don’t think anyone is arguing one should not be very aware that this movement is afoot. However, your interpretation of its immediate impact is incorrect. In addition, as I said, the electors are not even known and could not be pre-pledged to Obama in any case.
But that’s not what they are saying. On their very own website they are calling it an “interstate compact”. Hence, unless they get the permission of Congress, they are violating the Constitution. I’m not the one calling it an interstate compact...they are.
It would require a Constitutional amendment to elect a president by popular vote.
Yes it would. But not the way they are crafting their docs. They are pre pledging their electors to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.
I am the one that said they were pre pledging to Obama. I derived that from the fload of phoney registrations in the HUD areas.
I am in one of the states this was signed in. And my gov is a close campaigner person to Obama. Gov. Patterson said he would sign it. Corzine said this National Vote would be affective immediately upon the other states signing.
No it hasn’t. That is what I’ve been trying to say here.
New York is ready to sign and the ‘chatter’ since I can’t cite the link now that it is broken says California is going to override the veto like HI did.
Except it won't pass enough states. If you tell the people of Georgia that if Sarah Palin wins their state by 300,000 votes that their electoral votes could go to Tinkerbell the Democrat anyway, there will be blood in the streets. Only the most liberal states see an advantage to that.
An interstate “compact” is not forbidden. “...Treaty, Alliance or Confederation...” are forbidden.
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.