The leftist plan to subvert the Constitution.


Say what you will about leftists (and I have always had some choice words for them) a lack of cleverness isn’t one of their faults. I was not aware of this scheme and, quite frankly, it may work. The left has found a way to eliminate the electoral college without amending the Constitution and THEY ARE WELL OVER HALFWAY THERE.

[Source: Connecticut Subverts the Electoral College, Rejecting Its Own History, by Tara Ross]

In the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections the Democrat candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote. This is not news to my readers. The Dems went ballistic – “hanging chads” (2000) and the Hillary “I-can’t-believe-I-lost-tour” coupled with “the resistance” (2016). Therefore, in their “logic” they need to eliminate the electoral college and the Constitution be damned. However, they fully realize that amending the Constitution is an arduous process (footnote) and one they almost certainly would lose. What to do? What to do?

Well, they have a plan which subverts Article V of the Constitution. They have been working diligently to achieve the desired result and with the most recent victory they are 64% of the way there!

What are you talking about, Dr. Filly, ask you? I am talking about a plan that avoids the passage of a Constitutional Amendment but, nonetheless, results in the popular vote determining the President of the United States, answer I.

[From the Ross article] Opponents of the Electoral College achieved an important victory… when Connecticut’s legislature passed the so-called National Popular Vote compact. Democratic Gov. Malloy is expected to sign the measure.

Most Americans have never heard of the National Popular Vote compact, but it is shockingly close to causing a major political and legal firestorm. It is a clever scheme to change how we elect the president without the bother of having to pass a constitutional amendment.

States that approve this legislation enter a simple compact with one another. Each participating state agrees to allocate its electors to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how its own citizens voted. The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the plan.

With Connecticut’s vote, 11 states and the District of Columbia have now approved the measure, giving the compact a total of 172 electors. It needs only 98 more to reach the 270 mark.

This concept, of course, would ultimately be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. It is worthwhile for all Americans to remember that Hillary Clinton’s popular vote emanated from (essentially) two states. More than 20 percent of Clinton’s 65.8 million votes came from New York and California. Indeed, if we remove those states from the national tally, Clinton loses by more than three 3 million votes.

My friends, this is more than a little scary.

Roy Filly

Footnote:

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

Advertisements

About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The leftist plan to subvert the Constitution.

  1. Kevin A. says:

    You need to look into getting a responsive theme so I can read your blog on my phone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.