- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Maine joins unConstitutional National Popular Vote states
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:16 am to Blizzard of Chizz
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:16 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
it’s unconstitutional because it disenfranchises the voters of the state and robs them of their voice in the presidential election.
The public doesn't even have a constitutional right to vote in POTUS elections. A state legislature could decide that it wants to apportion the votes on its own.
0
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:16 am to michael corleone
This asshat will make the argument that European voters should decide the US elections if he thought that they'd vote in all democrats.
Except he will swear thats not what he wants. Same shite, different day.
Except he will swear thats not what he wants. Same shite, different day.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:21 am to MFn GIMP
My favorite thing about this national popular vote idea is that states are too scared to implement it on their own. I'm fine with someone believing the President should be elected by a national popular vote - they are wrong and it's idiotic but they can believe what they want. These states don't want to actually do that though. They want to virtue signal about how bad Republicans are while not actually doing anything. They could decide, today, to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner if they truly believed that was the best way to go.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:22 am to TigersnJeeps
I don’t remember these states waiting for the NPV to be announced before they were called for a candidate.
But apparently this has been a thing. It needs to be struck down before an election otherwise an attempt after the election will be seen as an “overthrow “ and courts won’t touch it.
But apparently this has been a thing. It needs to be struck down before an election otherwise an attempt after the election will be seen as an “overthrow “ and courts won’t touch it.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Argue, if you are so inclined to choose a side here, how your client, me, has been violated because my state chooses to apportion its electors on the votes of other states, and not my own?
It certainly violates the original intent, but I don't know if it violates the Constitution because states have a lot of leeway in how they appoint their electors.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:23 am to momentoftruth87
Considering how the COTUS requires that state legislatures determine how elections are conducted, this actually has greater standing than the schemes determined by SoS and the courts in 2020 via the "fortification" process....
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:30 am to HubbaBubba
Would be a tough argument to make on its own. Article 2, Sec. 1:
quote:
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.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:37 am to michael corleone
quote:
You well know that the overall popular vote is irrelevant.
It may not be if the Compact becomes a real force
quote:
If you want NYC, LA, and Houston to control this country than you really are drunk from the party cool aid.
Who is talking about "want" ?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:37 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
This will be 30 fricking pages of you defending this shite
Defending? What?
quote:
while claiming not to defend it.
I have not defended it.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:38 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I don't think that the States are even required to hold a public vote for their POTUS electors.
I don't think they understand this.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:39 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Except he will swear thats not what he wants.
Nothing I have posted ITT is about what I "want"
It's very easy to discuss political topics/issues without injecting personal desires or partisan brain rot.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 8:40 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:40 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
how your client, me, has been violated because my state chooses to apportion its electors on the votes of other states, and not my own?
It's not about "violation" on the individual level. It's about the Constitution and the vast power to states granted therein.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:45 am to TigersnJeeps
Important step towards a hot civil war.
Now 10,000 illegal votes in California can change the election.
Texas & Florida will likely not be willing to accept that.
The interstate pact will likely be unenforceable, so when the republican governor of a state in the pact refuses to go along with it, then what?
I don't think there is any way you could determine the true winner of the "National Popular Vote". But it gives so many new ways to touch off a shooting war.
Now 10,000 illegal votes in California can change the election.
Texas & Florida will likely not be willing to accept that.
The interstate pact will likely be unenforceable, so when the republican governor of a state in the pact refuses to go along with it, then what?
I don't think there is any way you could determine the true winner of the "National Popular Vote". But it gives so many new ways to touch off a shooting war.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
Why ? Because the democrat party grows with the lazy & weak people that thrive off of the entitled beliefs. They want some without earning it. The democrat politicians not only picked up on this but encourages it in promoting free shitt.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:49 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Would be a tough argument to make on its own. Article 2, Sec. 1:
quote:
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.
Much to the chagrin of Democrats the Supreme Court has based many of their recent major decisions upon the intent of the framers of the constitution . Hopefully this will govern their deciison on this issue.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:if the National Popular Vote statutes determined to be unconstitutional, I suspect that it will be due to a finding that it constitutes an illegal compact between the states.
it’s unconstitutionalquote:because it disenfranchises the voters of the state and robs them of their voice in the presidential election
Possiblyquote:
I doubt for this reason, though.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:56 am to tigersbb
quote:
Much to the chagrin of Democrats the Supreme Court has based many of their recent major decisions upon the intent of the framers of the constitution . Hopefully this will govern their deciison on this issue
I actually think the best argument against the NPV Compact may be found in Article 1, Sec. 3, Clause 10:
quote:
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.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 8:59 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:58 am to TigersnJeeps
Dumbest fricking shite. Flyover States are fricked, get ready to house the worlds problems.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:00 am to TigersnJeeps
Remember folks (in case any of this really matters)...
This country is not supposed to be a "democracy". It is a constitutional republic. The difference is illustrated nicely by this quote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
This country is not supposed to be a "democracy". It is a constitutional republic. The difference is illustrated nicely by this quote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:01 am to SlowFlowPro
Do you believe that democrats use various methods of cheating? They are wholeheartedly against checks and balances in voting such as ID’s. They have stretched out voting periods, used courts to make unverified or late arrival of envelopes containing ballots acceptable, ballot harvesting okay even though they argued against them being reasonably safe in validity just a couple election ago till they realized that they could manipulate. This and the offer up of free goods and services without working for them over time weakens people and makes them obviously more dependent.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News