Posted on 02/12/2009 2:36:49 PM PST by callthemlikeyouseethem
Chris Dodd and Iowa juxtaposed like this activate a neuron connection in my brain. Iowa is too nice for this crap or him.
Exactly.
And here's my scenario,
The close loser in one State will sue, get the election in another State recounted numerous times.
No State in the pact will be able to cast their electoral votes until that or many States reconcile their vote count.
Imagine if the Presidential election was undetermined by what is happening in Minnesota.
They really haven't thought this through.
It could take years to elect a president.
There is absolutely no reason to vote in a national election anymore unless you live in about five states. Why in the world would any small state think this is a good idea? Why bother holding the caucuses in Iowa anymore?
As I recall, several states have passed such a law (New Jersey?).
However, my recollection is that such laws are constitutionally inoperative. They are only symbolic -- presumably expressing "solidarity with Algore".
Actually, it would take a constitutional amendment to achieve what they want to achieve. And that would require 38 state legislatures to vote against their own state's interests.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
My emphasis.
You're right, the idiots don't. But this will work only once.
Once the voters of a state realize that they voted strongly for one candidate, but their votes were delivered to the candidate that a majority in a different state selected, they'll suddenly realize that they disenfranchised themselves.
Then they'll scream that it was all a trick and demand they get their vote back. It won't be their fault that they were so effing stupid, they thought it was a good idea at the time.
In fact, it would probably occur before they even sat the electors. Any pact between the states would be trumped by the Constitution that says states can decide on their own how they want to select their electors. The "coalition" would die abornin'.
BTW, there is no way to know whether this goofy pact would benefit a Republican or Democrat. It's just being embraced by Democrats because they're much stupider, plus they're still bitter that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election.
The only democrat in my state that voted against it is the one democrat I voted for. (i’m not a fan of straight ticket voting)
So in Iowa, their votes mean nothing? Amazing!
This hands all national elections to the most populous states and the rest can go to hell.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, ,b>enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
My emphasis. This seems to me to be a compact among states, especially since the laws as passed by various states all call for the law to only go into effect after other states have taken a similar action.
I can’t imagine that a law that disenfranchises the voters of the state can be constitutional.
“What the h@$% makes Iowa so leftist?”
Us rightists are not there anymore - the leftists remain.
I would agree with you that there is nothing unconstitional about this movement. However, I do claim that it violates the Voting Rights Act. If a state conducts an election for a slate of Presidential Electors, then they MUST honor the results of that election. So, if a state really wants to join this compact, they must abolish the popular election of Presidential Electors within their own state. Now how far do you think that would fly???
It would make the Presidency permanently in the hands of ACORN.
First, say the census shows 15 million in NYC, and another 3 million in Philly, 7 million in Chicago, etc.
And the Secretar of State in each of these states would certify that the ACORN-backed candidate received 99.94% of the popular vote in that state.
So the states with an honest count would be made irrelevant.
So, from that POV, the Constitution is fighting with itself? Where in Art II Sec 1 does it say how the State shall direct the Electors as to who to vote for?
What if the State passed a law that ordered the Electors to vote for the person the Chairman of the Democrat Party instructed them to vote for? Would that pass Constitutional muster? I mean, it would be a law whereby the State would be determining the manner of the appointment of Electors, as you suggest.
What I’m saying is that the State doesn’t have the power to violate one section of the Constitution just because they are empowering themselves with another section.
I would think the US Constitution would prohibit Iowa or any other state from doing this.
This should be unconstitutional based on the section you quoted...but it would depend on who is on the Supreme Court at the time it reaches them.
Unless?
WIll any eyebrows raise when Scalia suddenly has a bad accident and dies on the way to the Hospital?
A few years back I would have called such a post tinfoil. But after what I have witnessed since September of last year I find such notions gain more and more credibility.
I dont think many people understand what is going on in our country today.
It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. Nothing to do with whether or not Iowa has a voice.
It has to do with “political ideology” and a one standard world.
You see, the electoral college stands in the way of the liberals having there way in certain states.
This is a very scary time in this country right now.
Have you noticed hoew all this liberal stuff is coming at us so fast? All this stuff has been planned for many many years and was just in waiting for the right time. Now, it is being shoved down our throats while peoples attention is focused on making ends meet and not much more.
The stuimulus package, which somehow was renamed “economic recovery act” is not a stimulus bill at all. The reason that most of the provisions in the bill do not become effective until 2010 or 2011 is because it is planned to have an effect on the 2010 and 2012 election cycle.
It is a bill to funnel money to the democrat constituency and keep them voting democrat.
Wake up people!!
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.