Posted on 07/28/2010 1:59:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In their intellectual fashion, the idiots of Massachusetts have abdicated a major state protection. God would I love to see this bite them in the ass.
The Supreme Court will not even hear the case.
They may indeed. But the are entering into this agreement now, without consent. They aren’t casting the votes, but they are agreeing to the deal.
The agreement isn't effective and binding at this point.
“as I said before -— it will all now depend on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up in the morning.”
AND IF HE DOESN’T WAKE UP? THAT’S A REAL NIGHTMARE.
” No grounds... “
Maybe no direct Constitutional grounds to challenge this - but I’d imagine there’d be a wide-open door to go after it on the grounds of voter equity, since it’s very likely that it will, at some time, (say, when a Republican leads the national popular vote) lead to the disenfranchisement of the majority of Massachusets voters (who would, of course, have overwhelmingly voted for the Rat)....
edzo4 wrote “this combined with ammmnesty for illegals is the dems plan to remain in control, if they just add millions of new undocumented democrats in states that are already democrat there will be no need for the new voters,there would be no change in the election results, but if those new voters can swing the popular vote total and the election is decided by popular vote, then you can begin to understand why the weasels are trying to change the rules”
You are absolutely correct. Plus, doing away with the electorial college in favor of the popular vote disenfranchises small states and rural voters. All future elections will be fought in the big cities where turnout can be maximized with minimal dollars. And since big cities are havens for the poor, minorities, libtards and other dumbcrat strongholds, then it is easy to see what the intent is. This is a VERY BAD bill.
It never will be.
These socialist crooks will cast their electoral votes for the marxist Obama in 2012 even if Palin wins the popular vote, and there will be no penalty whatsoever.
This law will never ever ever deny a Republican the Massachussetts electoral votes he rightly earned by virtue of the state's voters. The scenario where a Republican loses the national popular vote but carries Massachussetts is absurd on it's face.
But, of course, there could be a scenario where a Democrat loses the popular vote, after winning Mass by a huge margin. It'll be hilarious to watch all the dipshit massholes howl when their votes are all tossed aside as irrelevant and their electoral votes are given to the Republican candidate, by virtue of his strong showing in the deep south!
Morons.
True, but the states cannot use a system to choose electors that is, in itself, unconstitutional, i.e., such as excluding black voters or electors. Here, the MA law treats voters differently depending upon how the voters in other states vote in violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause.
This is dumb. But coming from the peoples’ republic of Massachusets, no surprise.
Would anyone else find it hilarious if Palin was to win the popular vote and Mass had to give her their electoral votes under this new law?
(yes I know they would change the law before that ever happened)
Each State has the right to choose its electors how it sees fit. However, the Constitution prohibits the States from entering into Agreements or Compacts without the consent of Congress.
MD passed this same law, but it is inoperative unless enough States [representing 270 electoral votes] do the same.
If enough states pass this kind of law, the question is whether it is a tacit Agreement or Compact without the consent of Congress ...
So nevermind what all of the citizens of Mass decide ... just ignore them and go with LA, NY, Miami, etc. want. Whatever.
If a Republican wins in 2012, although MA will obviously NOT have to give its electoral votes to him/her [since the law will not be in effect], MA voters WILL DEMAND that MA change the law.
It will stick in their craw that, had the law been in effect, its electoral votes would go to the loser of their state ...
then why even put the presidential race on the ballot ?
” Barny Frank will be foaming at the mouth, chasing car down the street naked and rubbing shit in his hair “
IOW, just a typical Saturday Night at the Frank House??
It's like when the state legislature decreed that if Kerry were elected president, Mitt Romney couldn't pick his replacement in the Senate and then, when Ted Kennedy died they tried to allow Deval Patrick to handpick his successor. The difference was that Romney was a Republican and Patrick a Democrat.
As soon as it looks like this legislation could put a Republican in the White House you'll find the Boston Globe and the Democratic Party ordering that the law simply be disregarded.
From my reading of contemporary documents (18th century documents) the idea behind the electoral college was to ensure that the smaller sates, most of New England, would have some voice in national politics. You could never tell, when starting a national campaign, when a few electoral votes would mean the difference between victory and defeat.
The democrats of the people's republic are very happy to reduce the importance of Massachusetts from minor to totally ineffective. But then, isn't this the same state that rewrote how they were going to replace Teddy Kennedy in the senate upon his death twice in less than a decade?
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.