Posted on 05/03/2014 6:53:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Just another group of New York lawyers:
“Let’s see if we can find a loophole in the Constitution of the United States and amend the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment.”
“Let’s skip any vote required by Congress, let’s skip the required vote of the states and let’s skip a Constitutional Convention --- oh, and let’s not even ask the people of New York.”
Looking for a loophole. That is what we just love about lawyers, isn’t it?
Governor Cuomo has signed, on behalf of the people of New York, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This Compact would result in the State of New York voting each of its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the actual vote of the citizens of New York.
The Compact would become effective when and if states controlling 270 electoral votes, a number sufficient to elect the President, pass identical contractually binding legislation. State delegates in each of these states would thereafter be required to ignore their constituents and vote their state’s electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote.
Without a vote of the people of New York, the New York legislature and the Governor agreed to essentially change the Constitution of the United States, risk the possibility that the State of New York will vote its electoral votes for a person other than the candidate selected by the people of New York and ultimately cause yet another presidential election to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
There could be no greater irony than Governor Cuomo signing a bill to disenfranchise the roughly 13,000,000 million registered voters of New York. Ignoring all intellectual positions, the Governor must know that if in 2004, 59,300 Ohioans had voted for John Kerry instead of George W. Bush, Senator Kerry would have become President despite having lost the national popular vote by over 3 million votes. New York voted overwhelmingly (58%) for Mr. Kerry. If the National Popular Vote Compact had been in place, every New York electoral vote would have gone to President Bush and made him the President of the United States instead of Mr. Kerry.
This notion that a number of states controlling 270 electoral votes (theoretically possible with the approval of only 11 states) should be able, by a contract among themselves, affect a "poor man's constitutional amendment" to the Constitution of the United States is fascinating. This should be abhorrent to anyone with the slightest interest in the vitality and history of the Constitution. Such a plan would reduce the combined voting impact of the voters of Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota in the presidential race to that of Brooklyn.
The Founders' conceptual framework for electing a President insured that urban voters of a few states could not totally control the selection of the President. Electing a President through a national popular vote would obliterate this concept.
Oh yes, the Compact is likely unconstitutional. Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States does allow each state legislature almost unlimited power to direct their electors in casting their electoral votes for President. However, two other articles of the Constitution individually and collectively trump Article 2.
First, Article 1 of the Constitution specifically prohibits agreements between States without the consent of Congress. While this clause has been judicially narrowed over time, it is unlikely that it has been narrowed sufficiently to allow the National Popular Vote compact without Congressional consent.
Second, this "poor man's constitutional amendment" is specifically designed to circumvent the Constitution. Without reservation, its sole purpose is to avoid the constitutionally necessary and likely unattainable requirement of ratification of this notion by three quarters of the states under Article 5. Would the Supreme Court allow such a result? I think not.
Under either Articles 1 & 5, separately and certainly collectively, the Supreme Court should hold the Compact unconstitutional. But here is the rub. First there would have to be an election, then there would have to be a lawsuit, then the Supreme Court would have to decide if the winner of a presidential election would be the winner according to the Constitution or via a loophole developed by approved by a bunch of New York lawyers. Then, instead of an election determined by the popular vote or the electoral system, the president would be determined by a majority of the then nine Supreme Court judges. Disaster!
The Compact contemplates neither multiple or regional candidates. The proposal does not contemplate a popular third party candidate emerging in 2016 or thereafter. It is not inconceivable that a candidate could win but two or three states, but do well across the country and win the presidency.
That any state legislature could be taking actions to approve a "poor man's constitutional amendment" rather than moving forward with a proper constitutional amendment as envisioned by the Founders is unacceptable. That any state legislature would consider ignoring their constituents' votes through their own affirmative action should be reserved for the fiction section of our local libraries.
You are never going to convince me that concentrated population voting is better than dispersed regional interests of a national people.
The true dispersed diversity of this country, not the racial and ethnic diversity popularized by devious Democrat interests, is what makes it great. To relegate its future a bunch of self serving, self interested ideologues with no real connection to the rest of this country is the worst possible thing that could happen to America in my opinion.
It is true that there are a number of swing states that seem to control the debate and outcome, but one thing you always have to remember: Democrat rule and policies in these areas eventually out themselves and the tide changes.
It is PRECISELY WHY they are hell bent on taking all that out of the equation and want opt for the popular vote so they don’t have to work against a few Governors, a few state legislatures, etc. They’ll only have to enslave NYC, LA County, and Chicago, etc. with Democrat rule and they are in perpetual power.
Hell no.
I think you misunderstood the author.
“It’s also a mass disenfranchisement of voters in a particular state.”
I propose a new voting system that will not change the constitution.
My suggestion is a point system. Every county gets one point. You win the county, you get a point. Most points win the electoral votes of that state. This way if there is 115% of the vote in one county, a firewall is built in that only allows for one point.
You also hold down disenfranchisement in that the votes of one county do not impact the entire state. So Cook County, have at it. You want another 100,000 dead people to vote,go for it.
The rats cannot argue it. They don’t want voter ID, cool. They have an issue with minorities voting? Cool. They dont even have to worry about SCOTUS because there is no issue with the Constitution. It’s a state decision.
What’s great about this is the only argument he rats have is that 83% of the counties in the country vote Republican, which then becomes more representative of the people. 6 cities should not dictate how our government should be aligned.
You don’t know chit about Fred Thompson. You live in Michgan
In that passage, the author is discussing several “what-if” scenarios that would have led to President Bush rather than President Kerry. Since we did, in fact, end up with President Bush following that election, the author failed (IMO) to make his point.
These days the Constitution is what a bunch of rich, scheming Liberal lawyers says it is - not what the Founding fathers drafted and the States agreed to. In our post-modern world, truth is what they say it is and not what it actually is.
That's the way of all tyrants.
Got it
I think the author made his point.
What he's saying is that from an electoral vote point of view, John Kerry very nearly won the election. 60K vote swing in Ohio would have meant President Kerry (I shudder as I type).
However, if this compact had been in place, President Bush would have STILL been re-elected.
As this abomination is being pushed primarily by liberal Democrats, of which the scum of Satan Cuomo is a chief exemplar, it would seem that in the last election where it was electorally close (2004), if the popular results hadn't matched the electoral college results, the backers of this monstrosity would have frustrated their own ends - to elect a president from Hell.
A little circuitous, but not an unreasonable example.
The moral of the argument, in this case, is “be careful what you wish for.”
sitetest
“It’s also a mass disenfranchisement of voters in a particular state.”
Voting for electors is not required. State Legislatures have complete authority over how electors are chosen. Voting by citizens of the states is optional.
“... Voting for electors is not required.
State Legislatures have complete authority over how electors are chosen ...”
-
You are correct, sir,
and that may provide for a counter measure to the “National Popular Vote” foolishness.
Supposing that the legislatures from several States
(Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and others...)
were to decide to create a compact of their own,
wherein the legislatures would directly appoint their presidential electors
(as is within their authority under the Constitution),
then no national popular vote tally would exist for the NPV states to relate to.
I mean, we're not going to ask ABC News who won.
Are we?
Or even a more simple counter measure...
supposing the legislatures from several States directed their secretary of state
to not release their state’s presidential popular vote tally
until after the electoral college had met.
How would the state determine who the electors should be?
The Founders' conceptual framework for electing a President insured that urban voters of a few states could not totally control the selection of the President.
THAT had absolutely zero to do with the Framers' debates on how to select a national executive.
Elections alone will not rid us of the Frankenstein Constitution.
You can announce the winner without announcing the tally.
As Jim Noble (courtesy ping) pointed out in his #32,
How will the states in the NPV compact define “the popular vote”?
Who would validate that enumeration? ABC News?
Fancy bumping into you here!
Hope you are well.
Instead of diffused power among the states, ALL power collected in DC. It is a wonder and testament to the American tradition that it took almost a hundred years for an Obama to appear.
Until powers are once again vertically separated between the states and the government they created, there is zero hope for restoration of freedom.
You betcha!
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.