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

Skip to comments.

Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College
Boston Globe ^ | July 19, 2010 | Martin Finucane

Posted on 07/19/2010 2:13:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

The state Legislature is poised to give final approval this week to a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

Both the House and Senate have approved the National Popular Vote bill. Final enactment votes are needed in both chambers, however, before the bill goes to the governor's desk, the Globe reported last week.ss.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dictatorship; dnccorruption; massgeneralcourt; novote4u; obama; patrick; romney; southafrica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-134 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum

Something has gone critically wrong with intelligence in Massachusetts. We should ban any further political activity or politicians from there, and any other New England states that are infected. Their disease is killing America.


61 posted on 07/19/2010 3:45:04 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Man, if you don't recognize this as an unconstitutional inter-state compact, I doubt you'd ever recognize one. This is exactly the thing that clause was intended to prevent, groups of states banding together outside the auspices of the federal government to contravene the US Constitution.
62 posted on 07/19/2010 3:47:14 PM PDT by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember; Mojave
If a state wants to subjugate its citizens' votes to that of the national majority vote, then its legislature can certainly do so within the Constitution

I absolutely disagree.

Legislatures have the power to APPOINT, or to CAUSE TO BE APPOINTED, Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.

Once they are appointed, they are principal Constitutional officers of the United States, of equal (although very temporary) stature with Senators, Members of Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court.

It is absurd to think that they can be controlled, post appointment, by a crew of mouth-breathing, thieving hacks in some shithole state capital.

The Legislature appoints. That's their role, and their only role.

"Faithless elector" laws are facially unConstitutional.

63 posted on 07/19/2010 3:54:30 PM PDT by Jim Noble (If the answer is "Republican", it must be a stupid question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

The case you cite states that it is not unconstitutional to require a pledge from the candidates. However, it has never been litigated whether it is constitutional for a state to punish an elector that votes contrary to that pledge. In other words, the pledge may have no legal weight.


64 posted on 07/19/2010 3:55:41 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

.....And it will take 100 times the number of troops that the 7000 it would take to protect our Southern border......

It will take only a few very good marksmen to place fear into the minds of drivers that bring 18 wheelers into the cities. Once they fear for their lives, a stranglehold will exist.


65 posted on 07/19/2010 3:56:00 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... The winds of war are freshening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

They’re setting it up - which one do you want - states’ rights, Constiution or federal law?

It doesn’t matter really. Elections will eventually be quashed by federal executive directives. That is the plan.


66 posted on 07/19/2010 3:59:08 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
I believe a state can direct it's Electors' votes by state constitutions. States doing this are just directing the Electors to vote based on the percentages from the popular votes.

I may be wrong, but I believe the states participating in this are not allocating their electors proportionally according to the popular vote - I think they are awarding ALL of their electors to the winner of the popular vote. That is why the law does not go into effect until states with 270 electoral votes pass the law - that insures that all 270 of those electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote, guaranteeing that the winner of the popular vote is the winner of the electoral college vote.

67 posted on 07/19/2010 4:00:07 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Utter nonsense. It boldly states that in order to agree that this is just hunky dory we must not read this clause literally.

That’s why we write constitutions. Because we literally mean what they say.

This is judicial activism on display.


68 posted on 07/19/2010 4:11:39 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss
This is exactly the thing that clause was intended to prevent, groups of states banding together outside the auspices of the federal government to contravene the US Constitution.

Where did you get that from? They intend to seek Congressional approval.

69 posted on 07/19/2010 4:12:12 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
However, it has never been litigated whether it is constitutional for a state to punish an elector that votes contrary to that pledge.

Where does the proposed law punish electors?

70 posted on 07/19/2010 4:15:15 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
It boldly states that in order to agree that this is just hunky dory we must not read this clause literally.

It cites Supreme Court precedents AND states that it WILL seek Congressional approval when and if the requisite number of states sign on.

71 posted on 07/19/2010 4:18:20 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Those precedents are the worst form of judicial bullshit. “It only seems to say that if you are pedestrian enough to have the immature perspective that the clause was meant to b taken literally.”

As for Congressional approval, yes they said they will seek it. Good for them, cause it’s a Constitutional requirement. No matter what any stupid justices say.

Whether Congress would approve of it is another, interesting question. I can’t see the small-state Senators being so stupid as to do so.


72 posted on 07/19/2010 4:20:51 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

MA Legislature Red Sox fans ???
I think I hear some fire engines..........Excuse me while I check it out.


73 posted on 07/19/2010 4:22:27 PM PDT by BilLies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"Faithless elector" laws are facially unConstitutional.

Two dozen states have them.

"We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge." --U.S. Supreme Court Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)

74 posted on 07/19/2010 4:25:33 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Where does the proposed law punish electors?

I don't think this law does that. I was responding in part to the statement about it being constitutional to force the electors to vote a certain way. I don't think it is. States can require a pledge in order to stand for election, but I don't think they can punish an elector for changing their mind once elected. There are Faithless Elector laws in some states, but they have never been tested, and I doubt they could be constitutional, as they would deny an elected official (the elector) the ability to perform their duties freely and without coercion.

75 posted on 07/19/2010 4:27:12 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

That is exactly what I was thinking. When it all blows up in their faces they will quickly change the law back.


76 posted on 07/19/2010 4:27:32 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Where did you get that from? They intend to seek Congressional approval.

Is that in the text of the law somewhere? I thought the only requirement was that states representing 270 EV had to pass the law for it to take effect. If the law also states that Congressional approval is required, let us know - I am sure that will give some of us a little relief...

77 posted on 07/19/2010 4:30:15 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Those precedents are the worst form of judicial bullshit.

In that the entirety of your argument?

78 posted on 07/19/2010 4:31:46 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Is that all that I wrote?

The liberal conceit that legal founding documents are not meant to be taken literally is a an argument that requires no lengthy thesis to counter.

I said what needs to be said. I can’t help you to comprehend it.


79 posted on 07/19/2010 4:35:40 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
I was responding in part to the statement about it being constitutional to force the electors to vote a certain way.

Quote, please.

Meanwhile:

"However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional."

80 posted on 07/19/2010 4:36:42 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-134 next last

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