Newly-elected female governor of Virginia signs bill joining the NPVIC

Ever hear of a thing called the NPVIC?

Chances are you haven't, and if so it's because a) the thing is a huge threat to our nation; and b) because the Mainstream Media has said almost nothing about it--because it hugely benefits the Democrat Partei [sic].

Here's what's up: Way back in 1789, when our Founders were struggling to create a viable nation, everyone was captivated by the novel notion that "the majority rules.'  The Founders loved the idea, but congress members from the smaller states realized that in a "pure Democracy" (based only on population) the high-population states--new York, Virginia and Pennsylvania--would always be able to control the presidency.

To adopt the new "Constitution" it had to be ratified by two-thirds of the 13 states.  So to get enough of the low-population states to ratify, the Founders hit on a brilliant compromise: the Electoral College, in which the high-population states got more electoral votes via their greater number of representatives in the House, but now all states got the votes of both their senators, which gave the smaller states fractionally more influence than if electing the president was based solely on the popular vote.     

SO...that compromise worked nicely for about 220 years.  Yes, there have been two elections where the system mandated by the Contitution resulted in the election of the man who lost the popular vote, but still...eight presidents have come from Virginia, while seven came from Ohio, five from New York and four from Massachusetts.  Those states account for over half of our presidents, so as the founders guessed, population is important.

But Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska and New Hampshire have each produced one president, while tiny Vermont has produced two.  So the compromise seems to have worked pretty well, in that many of our presidents have come from less-populated states.

But for decades, Democrats have been grumbling about the electoral college system--the compromise that enabled our Constitution to be adopted.  But since it was mandated by the Consitution itself, they knew they'd never be able to get two-thirds of the states to ratify an amendment that would cause even more presidents to come from the high-population states.

Then finally, in 2006 a couple of cunning Democrats realized: "Constitution?  That outdated rag you MAGA morons call 'the supreme law of the land'?  It doesn't apply to us, so we've found a way to change it to anything we like."  And they claim they've found a way to utterly, totally nullify the Constitution's *mandate* for electing presidents, instead handing the office to the winner of the national popular vote--which the Founders explicitly rejected, to get enough small states to ratify the new Constitution!

It seems outrageous: How can the Democrats claim they have the power to utterly reverse a *fundamental principle, mandated by the Constitution,* without having to go thru the difficult process of amending it?

Enter the NPVIC--"National Popular Vote Interstate Compact."  The Dems cite Article 1, section 3, clause 9, which reads as follows:
>>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...">>

Democrats: "SEE, citizen?  It's right there!  It's such a huge power that the Founders put it in their precious (though outdated and useless) document!"

If you missed it, I understand: "Compact" is referred to only in the negative, implying that states can enter into "compacts" with other states, and that the only thing needed is the consent of congress.

Now you'd *think* that if the Constitution *unequivocally specifies* that our president is to be chosen by the electoral college, it would take a constitutional amendment to replace that with the winner of the popular vote.  But the cunning Dems claim that since the Constitution clearly recognizes "compacts" between the states, contingent only on "consent of congress," and never attempts to limit the *scope* of such compacts, a compact to elect the president by the winner of the national popular vote would be constitutional if approved by a one-vote majority in both chambers of congress.

Now: the Democrat shitheads have ruled the Virginia legislature for decades, and were salivating to join the compact.  But they knew the previous Repub governor would veto.  But now that the Dems in VA have elected the corrupt communist Abigail Spamberger [sic], on March 2nd the state legislature passed the bill and she immediately, eagerly signed it.  So VA has joined NPVIC.

Moron say: "Dat jus' Virginia.  Why yew so upset, bro?"

Because I pay attention.  The NPVIC laws passed by each corrupt Dem-ruled state say the compact will automatically go into effect when states with 270 total electoral votes have signed on.  With Spamburger's signing, states with a total of 222 EVs have joined the compact.  So they're 48 EVs away.

And Dems say they're on track to win in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

All those states are ruled by Democrats, so it's just a matter of time before the rulers are brave enough to pass the bill and the gov to sign it into law.

So if supporters can get just 48 more EVs, the "compact" says the U.S. president will be selected by the winner of the national popular vote.

For those keeping score at home, the five states listed above have a total of 61 electoral votes.

From a purely legal standpoint, this brazen scam violates a well-known provision of contract law that says if a contract specifically says the parties agree that neither will do [something], one party can't come in later and say "By interpreting the word 'is' in a certain way, clause 134 b (3) allows us to do exactly the thing we explicitly agreed was prohibited on page one."

And normally the Dem subterfuge would fail on that basis alone.  And in any case, the winner of the presidency has only lost the popular vote twice in our history, so it might be years before the NPVIC would be tested.  Problem is, historically the Supreme Court has rarely been willing to take cases that haven't yet caused damage, so might decline to rule on the constitutionality of the "compact" before an election where the winner of the electoral college vote lost the popular vote.

Unfortunately there's another, rarely used principle called "fait accompli," which holds that some things are to hard to unravel and change.  The court would invoke this to uphold, say, massive vote fraud stealing an election if the justices felt ordering the party that benefitted from the fraud to vacate the office and the victim to be installed.

For those who claim this could nevah happen: See "claims of massive fraud in 2020 election."