Posted on 06/06/2019 2:35:04 PM PDT by Kaslin
While you were sleeping, the Democrats (abetted by some deviant Republicans) have been working on a plan that would destroy the diversity of the American political system and bring the nation to the brink of civil war. The plan is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and tens of millions of dollars have already been spent over several decades trying to implement it. Fourteen blue states and the District of Columbia have already joined the Compact, which means they are 70% on the way to making their proposal the law of the land.
The Democrats’ plan is designed to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College in choosing the nation’s president, no doubt because while Hillary won the popular vote she failed win necessary votes in the Electoral College. Eliminating the influence of the Electoral College would end the diversity now embodied in the federal system with its division of powers between Washington and the fifty states. The fact that a party which presents itself as a defender of diversity should be leading the charge to eliminate the nation’s most powerful source of diversity should be all that is required to understand the threat their agenda poses to what has been the nation’s constitutional way of life for 232 years.
The Electoral College and the division of powers are features of the Constitution. But the National Popular Vote movement does not propose to amend the Constitution because it doesn’t have the votes to do that. Instead, in the name of “democracy,” it proposes to circumvent the Constitution and its requirement of large national majorities for amending what has been the fundamental law of the land.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That’s the core of what this and other things are all about these days.
The Left is intent on destroying our Founding Documents and principles.
Am I mistaken that in order for it happen, 2/3rds of the House and Senate would have to vote to amend the Constitution?
Three-fifths of the states have to ratify it to amend the Constitution.
-PJ
Darn, that’s three-fourths.
The Constitution leaves it up to the individual states to determine how the Electors vote (10th Amendment)
Seems to me that they are using the clause that allows states to stay decentralized.
This will happen.. with millions of illegals monthly this year, they will force us to do things we do not like.
We will be annihilated, but better to die in my boots, than on my knees before the nazi’s.
If you want to know the Framers’ intent for the EC, read Federalist 68.
Hint: It has nothing to do with the “two party system.”
There are ways written into the constitution to make changes. This is not one of them. I can’t believe any supreme court would allow this plan to survive and if it did, the objecting states would have free rein to go their own ways since the constitution would be subject to change at the whim of the large population states. Learn this about leftists: they never stop and their goals always move higher. This change would only be the first of many.
It’s actually Article II.
“Congress cannot amend the Constitution, they can only propose amendments to the states.
Three-fifths of the states have to ratify it to amend the Constitution.”
By golly, you’re right. I had to dig for it for little while, and had to go back to the original wording of the 5th Amendment.
Here’s Article V of The Constitution:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
No Taxation Without Representation
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.What they do to control the vote is have two partisan slates of Electors ready to go, and they pick the slate aligned with the party that won.
-PJ
-PJ
Waiting for Romney to come out in favor.
And where are all these additional states to reach 270?
Most of the nations who have direct elections of their president are disaster areas. Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Gabon, Zimbabwe, and Russia, for example.
It was vetoed in Nevada, Dem Gov.
Maine House killed it as well.
Seems the only states supporting this voted Hillary in 2016
Unless my math is wrong, if 3/4’s of the states need to ratify then that equates to 37.5 states or 38. Am I right?
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.