Democrats have scheme to kill the Electoral College system without trying to amend the Constitution
If you graduated from high school before about 1980 you may have heard about an old piece document called the Constitution, which the Founders once declared to be "the supreme law of the land." Which means, any law passed by either the federal government or a state that violated the Constitution would automatically be void.
Of course the Constitution was written by old white males, so Democrats decided they could ignore it. For example, before Trump's election they decided the Constitutional statement that the president "shall take care to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States" didn't apply to Democrat presidents.
In the latest outrage, a bunch of really, really smaht Democrat lawyers have found what they believe is a way to abolish the "Electoral College" system of electing our president.
Of course if you know anything about the Constitution you might recall that the Electoral College system is spelled out in that document. It was the result of a compromise made to persuade small states to sign on to the agreement.
The small states rightly feared that if the president was elected by popular vote, only residents of one of the big states would be elected--something the small states understandably believed would work to their disadvantage. So the compromise was that each state would have a number of electoral votes equal to the sum of their senators and representatives. This made a small effort to level the playing field between high-population states and smaller ones.
Democrats have decided they don't want to put up with such anachronisms, and want presidential elections to be decided by whoever wins the national vote.
Of course since the EC is in the Constitution, most of you probably think the only way to change that would be to amend that document. And since proposed amendments only pass if "ratified" by the vote of the legislatures of a solid three-fourths of the states, the chances of that were vanishingly small.
But today's Democrat leaders are not only way smahtah than you, they're way smahtah than the Founders were! Cuz they've figured out a way to ram thru what they want without the challenge of trying to pass a constitutional amendment.
Truly, y'all have no idea how utterly implacable and determined the *leaders* of the Democrat party are to win perpetual power. You think they're nice people, like your Democrat neighbors. Nope. Not even close. So let's explain.
Around 2001 two law professors--Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar--proposed what they claimed was a legal way to junk the electoral-college system without having to amend the Constitution: They suggested that a group of states could pass laws to form a "compact" under which they would agree to order their state's electors to cast their electoral votes for the party that won the national popular vote--even if a majority of voters in their own state voted for the other party.
Now, here's how the Founders--writing in the Constitution--said elections were to be handled:
Of course not. They were all about a government "representing its people." Moreover, they had specifically fashioned the Electoral College as a compromise to get the small states to sign on. This shows--clearly and unequivocally--that the Founders and drafters of the Constitution rejected the idea of elections being won by the winner of the national vote.
And aside from adopting a mechanism the Founders specifically went to great lengths NOT to adopt, it would never have occurred to them that anyone would seriously propose that a state's electoral votes be cast for the party that LOST that state's election. It's breathtakingly insane.
Which brings us to...today's Democrat leaders. They're all behind this, because the states that have the most people are almost entirely Democrat-ruled, so changing the rules to the winner of the national popular vote would give the Democrats the presidency in virtually every election.
So the Dem lawyers have cunningly seized on what they claim is a legal loophole: the article quoted above says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." The key phrase is "...in such manner as the legislature...may direct." This is an unqualified--as in, unlimited--power. The Dem lawers claim that this specific language allows a state legislature to order its electors to vote for whoever the legislature orders.
Couple of huge problems with this (gee, ya think?): First, the unlimited power is to "appoint" electors, not to order them how to vote. It's easy to make the case that the Founders never even contemplated that this language could be tortured to give the result claimed by the Democrats.
But there's a far larger problem: Many, many contracts specifically state that the parties agree to do or not do X. Then when one party decides they don't want to be bound by that agreement, they hire lawyers to look for some ambiguity on page 432 that they then claim overrides the specific, major thrust of the agreement.
A time-honored principle of law is that such stretches are rejected by the courts, for obvious reasons: if the parties specifically agreed to do or not do X, it's irrational to claim that they actually didn't want that outcome, as supported by a single word far removed from the main point of agreement.
In other words, courts are supposed to consider the entire agreement, not one phrase standing in isolation from the rest of the document.
Of course with today's liberal judges--including the fake conservative John Roberts--the result may be much different. But the logic is clear.
The Democrats are trying to do by indirect means something that the Founders and signers of the "contract" called the Constitution specifically rejected. Draw your own conclusions.
In any case, bills invoking this NPV compact have been introduced in 42 states, and passed into law in 12, controlling 181 electoral votes. So they're almost half-way to the 270 needed.
Now: The courts are rarely willing to take a case before someone has been harmed. Does anyone think that if the compact reaches 270, and claims to have gotten the popular vote winner elected (despite losing the "Constitutional" electoral vote) the courts would overturn the result?
Not a chance. And then it's too late. Can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Interestingly, the Dems think junking the electoral college as set out in the Constitution is the virtuous thing to do.
Interesting.
Of course the Constitution was written by old white males, so Democrats decided they could ignore it. For example, before Trump's election they decided the Constitutional statement that the president "shall take care to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States" didn't apply to Democrat presidents.
In the latest outrage, a bunch of really, really smaht Democrat lawyers have found what they believe is a way to abolish the "Electoral College" system of electing our president.
Of course if you know anything about the Constitution you might recall that the Electoral College system is spelled out in that document. It was the result of a compromise made to persuade small states to sign on to the agreement.
The small states rightly feared that if the president was elected by popular vote, only residents of one of the big states would be elected--something the small states understandably believed would work to their disadvantage. So the compromise was that each state would have a number of electoral votes equal to the sum of their senators and representatives. This made a small effort to level the playing field between high-population states and smaller ones.
Democrats have decided they don't want to put up with such anachronisms, and want presidential elections to be decided by whoever wins the national vote.
Of course since the EC is in the Constitution, most of you probably think the only way to change that would be to amend that document. And since proposed amendments only pass if "ratified" by the vote of the legislatures of a solid three-fourths of the states, the chances of that were vanishingly small.
But today's Democrat leaders are not only way smahtah than you, they're way smahtah than the Founders were! Cuz they've figured out a way to ram thru what they want without the challenge of trying to pass a constitutional amendment.
Truly, y'all have no idea how utterly implacable and determined the *leaders* of the Democrat party are to win perpetual power. You think they're nice people, like your Democrat neighbors. Nope. Not even close. So let's explain.
Around 2001 two law professors--Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar--proposed what they claimed was a legal way to junk the electoral-college system without having to amend the Constitution: They suggested that a group of states could pass laws to form a "compact" under which they would agree to order their state's electors to cast their electoral votes for the party that won the national popular vote--even if a majority of voters in their own state voted for the other party.
Now, here's how the Founders--writing in the Constitution--said elections were to be handled:
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.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President... [Article 2, Section 1]It's at the very top of the section on the presidency. And it goes into great detail. But in all those specifics the Founders admittedly didn't say "and the Electors shall cast their vote for whichever candidate wins in their state." But do you think they actually envisioned a time when cunning politicians would pass laws directing their state to vote for anyone other than the one who won the vote in their state?
Of course not. They were all about a government "representing its people." Moreover, they had specifically fashioned the Electoral College as a compromise to get the small states to sign on. This shows--clearly and unequivocally--that the Founders and drafters of the Constitution rejected the idea of elections being won by the winner of the national vote.
And aside from adopting a mechanism the Founders specifically went to great lengths NOT to adopt, it would never have occurred to them that anyone would seriously propose that a state's electoral votes be cast for the party that LOST that state's election. It's breathtakingly insane.
Which brings us to...today's Democrat leaders. They're all behind this, because the states that have the most people are almost entirely Democrat-ruled, so changing the rules to the winner of the national popular vote would give the Democrats the presidency in virtually every election.
So the Dem lawyers have cunningly seized on what they claim is a legal loophole: the article quoted above says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." The key phrase is "...in such manner as the legislature...may direct." This is an unqualified--as in, unlimited--power. The Dem lawers claim that this specific language allows a state legislature to order its electors to vote for whoever the legislature orders.
Couple of huge problems with this (gee, ya think?): First, the unlimited power is to "appoint" electors, not to order them how to vote. It's easy to make the case that the Founders never even contemplated that this language could be tortured to give the result claimed by the Democrats.
But there's a far larger problem: Many, many contracts specifically state that the parties agree to do or not do X. Then when one party decides they don't want to be bound by that agreement, they hire lawyers to look for some ambiguity on page 432 that they then claim overrides the specific, major thrust of the agreement.
A time-honored principle of law is that such stretches are rejected by the courts, for obvious reasons: if the parties specifically agreed to do or not do X, it's irrational to claim that they actually didn't want that outcome, as supported by a single word far removed from the main point of agreement.
In other words, courts are supposed to consider the entire agreement, not one phrase standing in isolation from the rest of the document.
Of course with today's liberal judges--including the fake conservative John Roberts--the result may be much different. But the logic is clear.
The Democrats are trying to do by indirect means something that the Founders and signers of the "contract" called the Constitution specifically rejected. Draw your own conclusions.
In any case, bills invoking this NPV compact have been introduced in 42 states, and passed into law in 12, controlling 181 electoral votes. So they're almost half-way to the 270 needed.
Now: The courts are rarely willing to take a case before someone has been harmed. Does anyone think that if the compact reaches 270, and claims to have gotten the popular vote winner elected (despite losing the "Constitutional" electoral vote) the courts would overturn the result?
Not a chance. And then it's too late. Can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Interestingly, the Dems think junking the electoral college as set out in the Constitution is the virtuous thing to do.
Interesting.
posted by SF at
5:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home