Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Many Blue States Require Electoral Votes To Go To Nationwide Popular Vote Winner? (Vanity)

Posted on 09/14/2008 12:32:43 PM PDT by goldstategop

This may the sleeper issue of the election. The MSM and the Democrats have forgotten all about it. A number of Blue States passed laws requiring the state's electoral votes to be awarded to the nationwide popular vote winner REGARDLESS of who actually wins the statewide popular vote. Please list them here in this thread!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bluestates; electoralcollege; mccainpalin; popularvote

1 posted on 09/14/2008 12:32:44 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I know the idea was kicked around, I’m not aware that any states actually passed it.


2 posted on 09/14/2008 12:34:40 PM PDT by Hugin (Mecca delenda est!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

you make a great point. Those blue states might regret it.


3 posted on 09/14/2008 12:35:07 PM PDT by optiguy (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.----- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

None.

There are 2 that have pledged to do so IF enough states join the pact to account for the majority of the electoral college. In other words, as pointed out on another thread, they are making a protest but not really taking any action.


4 posted on 09/14/2008 12:35:13 PM PDT by SlapHappyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

None. They all have a provision that until 270 votes worth of states agree to join the deal, it doesn’t kick in.


5 posted on 09/14/2008 12:35:32 PM PDT by krb (If you're not outraged, people probably like having you around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: krb
Right. If it ever did kick in, it would backfire on them. Imagine McCain carrying every Blue State in the country! They're probably having second thoughts about the scheme.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

6 posted on 09/14/2008 12:37:33 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Well, I found this:

So far, four states – Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland – with 50 combined electoral votes have enacted bills that would give their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Similar legislation has passed one or both houses in more than a dozen other states.

From here:

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/09/03/new-push-to-pick-the-president-by-popular-vote/


7 posted on 09/14/2008 12:37:57 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (I've got the fevah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh
If there was that 270 vote threshold reached this year, the Democrats would be screwed! Someone told them it was a great idea... as long as the nationwide popular vote winner was a Democrat!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

8 posted on 09/14/2008 12:40:09 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

None, yet. MD and (I think) NJ have some kind of deal on the books where there electors will go with the popular vote once a 270 majority agrees. Or something like that. This is something to keep an eye on though, as it appears to be a movement afoot to undermine the electoral college. And have no doubt that the rules would change depending on if it’s a Dem or a Repub who wins the popular vote.


9 posted on 09/14/2008 12:40:09 PM PDT by workerbee (Sarah Palin's very existence is a threat to the Left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh

I think it is a stupid idea to undermine states ability to vote.


10 posted on 09/14/2008 12:41:28 PM PDT by YdontUleaveLibs (Reason is out to lunch. How may I help you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Yep. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But our opponents never learn.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

11 posted on 09/14/2008 12:41:28 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Maryland and New Jersey have passed this nitwit proposal, but it is not yet in effect anywhere.


12 posted on 09/14/2008 12:42:43 PM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This seems unconstitutional. Like Congress (with two senators per state regardless of population), the electoral college is weighted to give smaller states some additional representation compared to the most populous. There are still valid reasons for the electoral college and the direct election of electors. Why does any state legislature, or the Dem. party think they can redirect the vote of the people in their state to a candidate whose electors did not win the most votes?

States rights doesn’t get it here. They’re trying to change the vote of the people for the electors of their choice, the method prescribed in the constitution.


13 posted on 09/14/2008 12:48:07 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It would almost certainly face a constitutional challenge too. States aren’t allowed to enter into contracts with one another, or something like that.


14 posted on 09/14/2008 12:48:17 PM PDT by krb (If you're not outraged, people probably like having you around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The “compact”, and that is exactly what it is, is a non-starter. The agreement only goes into effect if and when there are enough States who agree that would make up the 270. But it would still be illegal until Congress gave it’s ok.

Because of the asinine idea behind it, which would screw all medium and small states, they will never get Congress to approve.


15 posted on 09/14/2008 12:48:34 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
just passed the House here in MA

http://www.wickedlocal.com/acton/archive/x544088384/Popular-vote-bill-passes-Massachusetts-House-moves-to-Senate

Local legislators say it’s time for the country to move away from the Electoral College and toward a system that would give the national popular vote more sway in electing a president.

State Reps. Jamie Eldridge of Acton and Cory Atkins of Concord, both Democrats, co-sponsored legislation that, if passed, would make Massachusetts the fifth state in the union to offer to join other states in awarding it’s electors to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationally.

State Sen. Pam Resor, an Acton Democrat, also supports the measure.

The bill passed the House of Representatives July 9 by a vote of 116 to 37(there are only 19 republicans in the MA state legislature), and is expected to reach the Senate (there are only 5 republican senators in MA) floor as early as this week.

The new system, which is being advocated by various groups across the country, wouldn’t go into effect unless a combination of states possessing 270 electoral votes — the number needed to win the presidency — pass similar legislation and join an interstate compact. So far, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, which control a total of 50 electoral votes, have passed such laws.

Massachusetts has 12 electoral votes.

16 posted on 09/14/2008 12:49:24 PM PDT by edzo4 (Vote McCain, Keep Your Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
Whoever said Democrats were politically savvy? Jeez! (laughing)

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

17 posted on 09/14/2008 12:53:25 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
As Mark Twain said, "Don't get drunk on the smell of somebody else's cork." Although a couple of Democrat states have passed laws to nationalize their Electoral College votes, those laws have a threshold clause.

Until a supramajority of Electoral College votes are covered by such laws, none of these laws have ANY effect or application. They mean NADA in the 2008 election.

Congressman Billybob

Tenth in the ten-part series, "The Owner's Manual (Part 10) -- The Remaining Amendments"

Latest article, "I, Obama"

18 posted on 09/14/2008 12:56:04 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.theacru.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88; krb
First of all guys, it's Constitution. Britain has a constitution, which is a tradition of political culture, the common law, and laws commensurate with common sense. We have a Constitution, which is a specific document, and a proper noun (or adjective).

Second, you're both wrong. States enter into agreements with each other all the time. Mostly, but not limited to law enforcement cooperation.

Third, this is what the Constitution actually says: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

If a state wants to have its legislature pick the electors, they may do so. If a state legislature directs its governor to select the electors to the College for a state, that is also permitted. There is no popular vote requirement. The only thing they can't do is, say, hold a lottery or a bingo game, which would violate a different Constitutional provision that states must assure a republican form of government.

19 posted on 09/14/2008 1:01:11 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Don't tase me, Pa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This is one of the scariest schemes yet by the left. Look at the blue states and their populations. This is a scheme that will hand elections over to just a few states with large populations and we all know which way they lean. If that happens you can forget any representation for the smaller populated states.

There is a very good reason why our congress is designed the way it is, and that is so that those few states with big populations don’t get a controlling advantage.


20 posted on 09/14/2008 1:12:54 PM PDT by thatjoeguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YdontUleaveLibs; goldstategop

I think it’s a stoopid idea, too, and I’m with goldstategop on this, the dems think it’ll benefit them.


21 posted on 09/14/2008 1:13:50 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (I've got the fevah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

Yes, NJ did this to go with the popular vote after the Gore mess. Not that we voters got a chance to vote on this concept, however. Infuriating.


22 posted on 09/14/2008 1:17:23 PM PDT by midnightcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh

Here in NJ the law only goes into effect when enough states have passed similar laws that they constitute a majority of the electoral college. So this election cycle NJ’s electors will vote for the winner of the NJ vote, not the winner of the nation-at-large vote.


23 posted on 09/14/2008 1:25:05 PM PDT by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It's no issue as it only kicks in if there is enough states on board to carry the election.

Which I don't see ever happening.

24 posted on 09/14/2008 1:25:20 PM PDT by billva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billva

The idea sounds absurd anyway, and unfair to the voters in those states. Suppose NJ were to go 60% for Obama, but McCain wins the national vote by a small margin. Then all of NJ’s electors would vote for McCain, even though a large majority of voters there chose the other guy?? Seems like it is disenfranchising the voters of that state.

It could have bit them in 2004 also. Suppose Kerry had taken Ohio but Bush still got a majority of the vote nationally. Under the existing system Kerry would have had 272 votes, and victory. But under this new proposal, NY would then have had to give all their EV’s to Bush, and he would have won! Am I wrong? Hmm, maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all....

When they enacted this law they must have figured the Dems would be winning the next election. Not so fast.


25 posted on 09/14/2008 1:31:49 PM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Will88
They’re trying to change the vote of the people for the electors of their choice, the method prescribed in the constitution.

Sovereign states can allocate their electors however they choose I believe. If the state legislature wants to flip a coin they can....if the state legislature wants to choose themselves they can.

If they choose voting by the people, then they have to follow certain voting rules. But I believe they can allocate their electoral votes in whatever manner they determine for themselves.

This is why I opposed the Supreme Court involvement in Bush v. Gore. I believe that the legislature of Florida (Republican at the time), should have been responsible for allocating Florida's electoral votes once the voting broke down....not any judiciary.
26 posted on 09/14/2008 1:40:01 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It doesn't matter if they voted for that or not. It cannot happen unless a majority of states vote for it and then 2/3 of congress has to approve it for it to be legal. Won't happen.

Read the constitution, something the democrats should do before they do idiotic things to try and fool people with their BS antics. No states, as of now, can actually award their EC votes to the popular vote winner.

However, the electors can choose to give their votes to which ever candidate they want but are usually pledged to give them to the candidate that wins the state. Now some states have a split EC vote, the votes are split according to vote tally. I think only two states do that now but in the past most of them did instead of the winner take all system most states use now.

So, don't worry business as usual as far as EC votes go.

27 posted on 09/14/2008 1:42:20 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Actually you read the fine print, the legislation does not kick in unless states representing a majority of the electoral college votes pass identical legislation. Of course this is a compact between states which the US constitution prohibits unless approved by congress.


28 posted on 09/14/2008 1:45:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

It does bring to mind that only three people would have to vote to elect a president.


29 posted on 09/14/2008 1:46:48 PM PDT by depressed in 06 (Bolshecrat, the party of what if and whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
The new system, which is being advocated by various groups across the country, wouldn’t go into effect unless a combination of states possessing 270 electoral votes — the number needed to win the presidency — pass similar legislation and join an interstate compact. So far, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, which control a total of 50 electoral votes, have passed such laws.

I notice a number of you posting this. You are all wrong. It won't go into effect until the federal congress(both houses)approve any agreement of a majority(270 EC) with a 2/3 vote. This is in the constitution, it goes with the fact states cannot enter into pacts among themselves without congressional approval. Unconstitutional. This is just BS done by the Dems to protest the fact that they lost the election in 2000 but won the popular vote. Business as usual this year as far as EC votes are concerned.

30 posted on 09/14/2008 1:48:47 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calex59; goldstategop
It doesn't matter if they voted for that or not. It cannot happen unless a majority of states vote for it and then 2/3 of congress has to approve it for it to be legal. Won't happen.

Where does it say a 2/3'rds majority is needed? The constitution only mentions the "Consent of Congress".

Article 1.

Section 10

...............

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, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


31 posted on 09/14/2008 1:51:24 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: calex59
It won't go into effect until the federal congress(both houses)approve any agreement of a majority(270 EC) with a 2/3 vote.

As this would have to be a constitutional amendment, if memory serves, 270 Electoral College votes won't do it anyway - you need 3/4 or currently 38 state legislatures for it to pass. I don't see it happening. Otherwise, it's doubtful that any such scheme could pass a challenge.

32 posted on 09/14/2008 1:55:26 PM PDT by Desdemona (Lipstick only until the election. The gloss has been sacrificed for the greater good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thatjoeguy

This is one of the scariest schemes yet by the left. Look at the blue states and their populations. This is a scheme that will hand elections over to just a few states with large populations and we all know which way they lean. If that happens you can forget any representation for the smaller populated states.

Scary is right. A sure prescription for civil war. If the left think that the south and the midwest (flyover country) will take this lying down they are sadly mistaken.


33 posted on 09/14/2008 1:55:49 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The voting did not break down. Florida had procedures in place for recounts. The Democrats did not want to follow those procedures. Hence the counter suit.
34 posted on 09/14/2008 2:01:06 PM PDT by DaveArk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

bttt


35 posted on 09/14/2008 2:04:08 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (Obama is the Democrats guy. They bought the ticket, now they must take the ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Will88
Actually, it's perfectly constitutional. The Constitution states that each state must appoint a set number of electors, but it does NOT specify how it's to be done. It's left completely up to the states. In fact, a lot of people don't realize that they have no (federal) constitutional right to vote for the President of the US.

Mark

36 posted on 09/14/2008 2:09:36 PM PDT by MarkL (Al Gore: The Greenhouse Gasbag! (heard on Bob Brinker's Money Talk))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: thatjoeguy
There is a very good reason why our congress is designed the way it is, and that is so that those few states with big populations don’t get a controlling advantage.

You got that right... The men who came up with our form of government did so after analyzing why governments fail. Which is why they decided on a republican form of government, broken into thirds. And only one half, of one third (the House of Representatives), of that government was ever to be selected by popular vote. I honestly believe that the 17th Amendment was a HUGE mistake. It made the Senate sensitive to the political winds. I believe that this is why the Senate was given control over treaties and approving political appointments, while the House was given the strings to the pocketbook. The Senate was supposed to be immune to politics, which is why the state legislatures originally appointed Senators, and the members of the House would be more directly responsible to the voters, i.e. the tax payers. At least, that was the original intent.

Mark

37 posted on 09/14/2008 2:18:07 PM PDT by MarkL (Al Gore: The Greenhouse Gasbag! (heard on Bob Brinker's Money Talk))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; Arkinsaw

“If a state wants to have its legislature pick the electors, they may do so”

The constitution might say that, but when the people have been voting for their state’s electors for a long period, what do you think would happen if a state decided it would no longer allow its citizens to vote for the electors to the electoral college?

Legislators once appointed their state’s US senators, but that was changed to a vote of the people with the XVII Amendment. If the people’s vote for presidential electors were taken away and given to a state legislature, it would be challenged and the case would probably be used to overturn that provision, just as other provisions of the constitution have been overturned.

Technically, a state might be able to take that vote from the its citizens, but the political realities and our judicial system would not allow that to happen. The legislature that passed such laws and the governors that signed it would be voted out at the first opportunity, but no state will pass such laws in this day and time.


38 posted on 09/14/2008 10:50:40 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Will88

There might also be case law over the past 230 or so years that affects what states can and cannot do in relation to the electoral college.

One person noted that he or she wished that SCOTUS had not ruled in the 2000 Florida vote dispute, but rather had left it to the Florida legislature. But SCOTUS did rule. So, it’s not so crystal clear that all decisions concerning a state’s electors are left to the states as some here contend.

And SCOTUS was right to end that circus being staged by the Democrat hacks on the Florida Supreme Court. They’d ordered one recount, but didn’t get the answer they wanted. So, they ordered a second recount. That one didn’t come out right, either, so they were about to order a third recount, and that’s when SCOTUS properly reviewed the case and put an end to the nonsense being carried on by the Florida court.

And, several news and other organizations did their own recounts after the fact and none showed that Gore should have won.


39 posted on 09/14/2008 11:05:12 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: calex59

“No states, as of now, can actually award their EC votes to the popular vote winner.”

And that is a scheme designed to defeat the original intent of the framers, which was to provide a senate and electoral college that gave some additional weight to the smaller states (colonies).

And they certainly anticipated the situation where a candidate could win the popular vote, but lose in the electoral college. It’s what they intended, and anything that tried to defeat that would probably be ruled unconstitutional.

The states formed the union, and not the other way around. And those compromises to give additional weight to the less populous states was necessary to form the union in the first place.


40 posted on 09/14/2008 11:21:16 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Will88
The fact is that this is what is intended, that we be a federation of STATES. Regardless of how popular or unpopular it might be, or whether the courts like it, the fact is that the STATES in the form of their legislature have that job.

The Florida legislature ran and hid from what they should have done. Does not mean they should not have done it. I would feel the same whether it was a Republican, or Democratic legislature. This is the way we are supposed to work UNTIL an amendment is passed to change it.
41 posted on 09/14/2008 11:31:53 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Will88
If the people’s vote for presidential electors were taken away and given to a state legislature, it would be challenged and the case would probably be used to overturn that provision, just as other provisions of the c[sic]onstitution have been overturned.

Your claim is quite simply nonsense. The Constitution does not grant the people the right to pick electors, it never has and it never will. And electors, once chosen, are not bound by any law to vote in a particular way.

In the most recent case, Gore v. Bush in 2000, the vote denying the Florida Supreme Court's action was 7-2. People focus on the 14th Amendment dimensions for that decision, but the truth is that the three conservative Justices then on the Court (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) did not agree to an equal protection violation. They ruled -- correctly -- that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature, and they made it clear that the Legislature alone had the authority to choose the manner of selecting electors. If that vote were held again tomorrow, the vote would have 4 votes for the Article II violation, and the equal protection clause would become the subordinate (concurring opinion) and the plenary power of the legislatures of the states to name electors would be not only de facto but de jure as well. You are simply wrong. No federal court would overturn the legislatures' authority. There are a number of precedents beside this most recent one, and they do not support your position.

As for popular election of Senators, it was a mistake to do that. It weakened a Federalism already weakened by the 14th Amendment. But it was done itself by Amending the Constitution, and was not done by the people nor was it done by the Courts, neither of whom have anything to say about it.

42 posted on 09/14/2008 11:35:33 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Don't tase me, Pa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

“Your claim is quite simply nonsense. The Constitution does not grant the people the right to pick electors, it never has and it never will. And electors, once chosen, are not bound by any law to vote in a particular way.”

My claim is totally true. You can’t separate what the constitution says from political realities. Do you actually think any state legislature, or the Supreme Court would take an action that removed the people’s vote for presidential elector’s, or their indirect vote for president?

One more vote recently and some part of the right to bear arms would have been lost in the DC case. What does the constitution say about the right to bear arms? Why was there even a case that threatened that right? And you claim that such deviations from the constitution just can’t and won’t happen.

What the constitution says (and it’s not always clear what it says) and the political realities that exist are not always in perfect harmony.

And, I never claimed the constitution gave the people a right to pick electors, but that they presently vote for the electors and that no action will be taken to remove that because of political realities.

And neither you, nor anyone else knows precisely how the Supreme Court might rule on any question. You never hear the complaints about legislating from the bench, or amending the constitution with court rulings rather than amendments?

And what weakened federalism more than anything was the court battles during the Civil Rights Movement, where state’s rights was used often to deny rights to black Americans, and state’s rights suffered many defeats. And there are plenty of activists who’d like to see state’s rights ended once and for all.


43 posted on 09/15/2008 8:03:56 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Constitutionally, it is up to the states to determine the method of selection of the electors. They can be idiots about it if they wish.


44 posted on 09/15/2008 8:13:43 AM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

“Constitutionally, it is up to the states to determine the method of selection of the electors. They can be idiots about it if they wish.”

And by being idiots about it, they can set in motion lawsuits and even initiatives for constitutional amendments that take away that power. That happened again and again in the Civil Rights Movement.

Just let some state change their laws so their citizens can no longer vote for presidential electors and see what happens.

Some here are so hung up on technicalities that they can’t recognize the political realities.


45 posted on 09/15/2008 8:30:53 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Will88
What does the c[sic]onstitution say about the right to bear arms? Why was there even a case that threatened that right?

More nonsense. Please stop blathering. You're embarrassing yourself.

First: DC vs. Heller was not a case brought threatening gun rights. The case was brought by a gun owner asserting that an existing statute in the District of Columbia denied him his RKBA. The case was not a challenge to the Second Amendment at all.

Second: This is the way Constitutional challenges work. A challenge is brought into Federal Court and the Federal Court(s) resolve the Constitutionality of it. The Court doesn't simply make announcements about what is Constitutional and what isn't.

Your claim about states' rights issues during the civil rights movement being the reason for weakening Federalism is laughable. Those issues were settled on the basis of the theory of Incorporation which is the question of whether the 14th Amendment applies some part of the Bill of Rights to the states, and that is by NO MEANS a judicial rewriting of the Constitution. The Constitutional authority for Incorporation rests firmly in the Constitution as amended after the Civil War. That Fourteenth Amendment was a direct response to Chief Justice Roger Taney's bizarre theories of American citizenship adumbrated in the Dred Scott decision.

Weakening of Federalism was an ongoing process started and to a very large degree settled by the American victory over the rebellion in 1864. The ongoing process of asserting National over Federal government has been going on ever since.

46 posted on 09/15/2008 10:00:11 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Don't tase me, Pa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

“More nonsense. Please stop blathering. You’re embarrassing yourself.”

You’re so tangled up in your technicalities and details that you’re incapable of looking at the practical effect of these various issues and court cases.

So, no gun rights were being violated by the DC laws? And, no gun rights were protected, or re-established by the ruling? And no restriction of gun rights would have been affirmed if the case had gone the other way? Have you even thought what the result have been if the DC laws had been upheld?

“Your claim about states’ rights issues during the civil rights movement being the reason for weakening Federalism is laughable.”

Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, southern states had for decades run their schools based upon state laws that mandated segregation. They certainly thought that education was a matter left to the states, and not to be dictated by the federal government. Under the federalism of those days, or the decentralization of power, southern states made those decisions. You can spin all you care to, and cite all the legal theory you care to, but since the CRM and numerous court cases, many decisions of education and public accommodation and other issues have been taken from the states of are now decided at the federal level.

You can say that didn’t weaken federalism, or didn’t centralize more power if you care to, but no matter what legal doctrine was used to move the decisions from states to the central government, the brand of federalism established by the US Constitution and the accompanying states’ rights were weakened.

And when I say “federalism”, I mean a federalism as established in the US where states were left with very important powers to decide many of their own affairs, and to establish many of their own civil and criminal statutes, as much as some still want to weaken that aspect of American federalism by moving even more decisions and lawmaking to the central government.


47 posted on 09/15/2008 11:00:23 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson