Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 598 (Elect U.S. presidents by a national popular vote )  by gypsy on June 4, 2009 

You agree this bill is constitutional, but still see it as an improper way to achieve the goal of a national popular vote for president. OK, your view of proper is pretty narrow , in this regard.

If the goal is worthy, which I, and many others believe it is, and this method is constitutional, and more achievable than a constitutional amendment, why not use it? I respect your opinion, but really do not see "subterfuge" in this bill. The goal is quite out in the open.

You may see me as engaging in semantics, I see a world of difference in the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on the legality of votes cast, and the US Supreme Court refusing to allow votes to be counted, legal votes I may add.

Reply

2) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 598 (Elect U.S. presidents by a national popular vote )  by FreeSpeaker on June 4, 2009 

[quote user="gypsy"]You are correct, Article II and Amendment XII do not set forth how the states split up their electoral votes. Therefore, this bill would be constitutional.[/quote]

Constitutional, yes.  But the thrust of this bill is to subvert the Constitutional provision regarding the Electoral College by having states cede their sovereignty in Electoral College participation.

[quote user="gypsy"]Amending the constitution , I agree, is also an option, but an almost impossible hill to climb.[/quote]

Because achieving change the proper, and wholly Constitutional way by amendment is difficult neither makes it impossible, nor does it justify engaging in subterfuge, as SB 598 proposes for Michigan.

[quote user="gypsy"]I do not agree with your conclusion that in Minnesota, the courts will decide the winner. The voters have done that, the court is ruling on the legality of the votes cast. In Florida, they stopped the counting. Quite different.[/quote]

You are engaging in a semantic argument.  When the court rules on the legality of votes cast, it rules on which votes count and which get thrown out.  Thus, the courts decide the winner of the election.  That isthe long and short of  what happened in Florida, and what is happening in Minnesota.   

Reply

3) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 598 (Elect U.S. presidents by a national popular vote )  by gypsy on June 4, 2009 

You are correct, Article II and Amendment XII do not set forth how the states split up their electoral votes. Therefore, this bill would be constitutional. It would have the state throw it's electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in the nation. Under the US Constitution, as you state correctly, states have that authority. The electoral college would still be in place.

Amending the constitution , I agree, is also an option, but an almost impossible hill to climb.

I used the term "subvert" in reference to your use of it. "The bill proposes that Michigan enter
an agreement with whatever other states join a proposed compact to subvert the
Electoral College system as set out in the United States Constitution. " I do not consider this bill subverting the constitution, as I explained above, nor do I consider Amendments subverting the constitution. If you use the latin origins of the word subvert, "to change from under", I suppose, in a stretch, you could apply it to both. I would not, as the term is mostly understood to mean "to corrupt".

I do not agree with your conclusion that in Minnesota, the courts will decide the winner. The voters have done that, the court is ruling on the legality of the votes cast. In Florida, they stopped the counting. Quite different.

Reply

View Full Conversation