Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

DNC Chair Perez: Electoral College “Not a Creation of the Constitution”

DNC Chair Perez: Electoral College “Not a Creation of the Constitution”

He continues, “It doesn’t have to be there”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Perez#/media/File:Thomas_Perez--ADA_Department_of_Justice.jpg

The left has had a love-hate relationship with the Electoral College for decades.  When it looks like the Electoral College will help or has helped them, they champion it, and when it looks like it has “stolen” an election from their popular-vote winning candidate, they want it dismantled.

In the wake of the resounding 2016 Electoral College win for President Trump (304-227), current DNC chair Tom Perez is taking the Democratic Party into uncharted territory with his declaration that the Electoral College “is not a creation of the Constitution.”  He made this bizarre pronouncement before a group of law students at Indiana University Law School.

It’s one thing to argue for the dissolution or replacement of the Electoral College, and it’s quite another to be either ignorant of the United States Constitution or to fabricate its contents to push a political agenda.

Fox News reports:

Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez incorrectly stated “the Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” during a Tuesday night speech.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution,” Perez said during a lecture at Indiana University Law School. “It doesn’t have to be there.”

The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger states, is clearly laid out in Article II of the Constitution: “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.”

Perez has previously stated that President Donald Trump “didn’t win” last November’s election because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but he has never denied the fact that it is part of the Constitution.

The DNC did not respond to an inquiry into whether Perez truly thinks the “Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution.”

Perez appears to be conflating the Constitution and the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Perez made the comment while speaking at Indiana University Law School’s Sixth Annual Birch Bayh Lecture.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be there,” he said. “There’s a national popular vote compact in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same.”

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” and “it doesn’t have to be there” are two completely different points, the latter acknowledging the former as true.

Perez, not the most articulate man on the planet, is clumsily shilling for the NPV initiative that the prof first wrote about back in 2011.  In that post, he laid out his arguments against the NPV.

I am against the NPV initiative.

While states can decide for themselves how their electors are to vote, this initiative — which bypasses the usual constitutional amendment process — has disaster and uncertainty written all over it. Here are some reasons, in no particular order:

1. The NPV compact prejudices large population centers over the rest of the country. One of the beauties of the current system is that it forces candidates to compete nationwide, not just on the coasts and industrial Midwest. This is not a partisan issue. I think one could make a good argument that the current system usually favors Democrats, because Democrats are guaranteed a large bloc of electoral votes (all of the states which have signed on so far are heavily Democratic). Nonetheless, our national cohesiveness is served by candidates having to compete in Nevada, Arizona, the Carolinas and elsewhere trying to pick up electoral votes which have more significance than the mere number of votes. So on the merits, regardless of the procedure, I’m not convinced that the current system is broken and needs fixing.

2. If successful, the constitution will have been usurped not because states cannot choose this method (they can), but because the method effectively eliminates the electoral system through a voting compact among the states holding an electoral majority rather than through the Congressional vote and the three-fourths of states needed to amend the constitution. If we want a popular vote (and there are good arguments for and against), then let’s change the constitution to do away with the electoral system, rather than through this tortured hybrid in which states still vote electors but undermine that system through a block voting agreement.

3. Recounts will be a disaster. While the advocates say that statistically a recount would be less likely, if such an event took place, the following mess would result: “In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official’s own state.”

4. The NPV compact moves the vote fraud issue nationwide; right now, frankly, vote fraud only matters in swing states, which can be more carefully monitored. Under the NPV compact, vote fraud anywhere could be a tiebreaker in a close national popular vote.

5. What is to prevent a state from backing out if it doesn’t like the person elected by the popular vote? The compact provides as follows: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.” How will this agreement be enforced?

6. This movement has taken place under the radar. I had not heard about this until recently, even though it apparently has passed the legislature in my home state of Rhode Island. A constitutional amendment requires a national debate, including a vote in Congress and a super-majority of states.

7. There is at least superficial national support for a popular vote mechanism according to Gallup, so if the arguments in favor are so strong, proponents should go about it the right way. But support for a popular vote mechanism is not the same thing as support for the NPV block voting compact.

I did a follow-up post on the NPV in May of this year, noting that according to their website, the NPV claimed to have secured 165 of the 270 Electoral votes needed to promote the popular vote above the Electoral College provided in the Constitution.

Perez may or may not believe that the Electoral College is a creation of the Constitution, but he absolutely believes that there is a way around it via the National Popular Vote initiative.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Wul, yah, Perez is an idiot. Drop mic. All done.

regulus arcturus | October 26, 2017 at 7:46 pm

I would like to give Perez the benefit of the doubt and say he is being intentionally obtuse.

Unfortunately, he’s revealing his massive ignorance and lack of constitutional and historical understanding.

He really is this stupid.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to regulus arcturus. | October 26, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    …plus….Perez can go stuff himself…..

    He’s not stupid at all – no more than Lenin, Hitler, Chavez, Castro, Mao or any other fascist was “stupid.”

    Look: the likes of the left in this nation want to destroy it as we know it. Period. And they want unabated power once its burned to he ground.

    Let’s try not to give it to them, huh?

    Obama’s slogan was “A transvestite perv in every child’s bathroom.”

    Perez’s slogan will be, “A normal American in every reeducation camp.”

      ‘He’s not stupid at all – no more than Lenin, Hitler, Chavez, Castro, Mao or any other fascist was “stupid.” ‘

      At least past totalitarians could put together a decent sentence. We really have ‘dumbed-down,’ haven’t we?

      (checks for mistakes but not smart enough to see them)

    You realize that Obama thought this was the smartest man he ever met after Ayers? Yup. I am not kidding.
    To the left, anti-American anger equals intelligence.

CaliforniaJimbo | October 26, 2017 at 7:57 pm

As a politician he has one real job. Know the constitution and apply it in your job. What level of delusion are these pols ascribing to?
Ugh

    nope: as a politician, his only real j*b is to stay in office, or at least in a position of power.

    As a politician he has one real job. Know the constitution and apply it in your job.

    Um, no. His job doesn’t flow from the constitution and is not governed by it, so it’s not his job to know it.

    However, like anyone else, if he wants to comment on it he’d be well advised to read it first, so he doesn’t make a fool of himself as he did here.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | October 27, 2017 at 7:58 am

      Cabinet secretaries swear an oath of office which specifically references the Constitution.

      An ex-secretary can reasonably be expected to remember what the Constitution he swore to “support and defend” is all about.

        Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | October 27, 2017 at 9:43 am

        CaliforniaJimbo referred to Perez’s current job, which has nothing to do with the constitution and involves no oath. His previous job did require an oath before he started, but it didn’t require familiarity with the constitution; he probably considered it more like the pledge of allegiance — a general pledge of good and faithful service, without sweating the details.

        The actual duties of a department secretary don’t have much to do with the constitution; the executive power belongs to the president, and the secretary does what the president tells him. Someone who doesn’t like reading and is not intellectually curious could easily decide not to bother reading the constitution.

        Speaking of which, what do you want to bet that Trump has never read it either? Not all the way through.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2017 at 11:08 am

          Milhouse:
          CaliforniaJimbo referred to Perez’s current job, which has nothing to do with the constitution and involves no oath. His previous job did require an oath before he started, but it didn’t require familiarity with the constitution; he probably considered it more like the pledge of allegiance — a general pledge of good and faithful service, without sweating the details.

          Although you’re right about Jimbo’s comment and about Perez’s current job, has Perez ever been released from his oath? I joined the US Army and was required to take an oath, and I consider myself still bound by it, having never been released from the oath (although released from service).

          Also, oaths are serious business. We impeached a president for violating one.

    Jimbo,
    You’re missing the boat on the likes of this guy: he’s not here to help; he’s here to destroy our way of life and take all the marbles for the elite fascists who would lord over us. His dream is to be one of those lords.

4th armored div | October 26, 2017 at 8:10 pm

the DummyCraps are trying to start another uncivil war using the most ignorant generation period.

4th armored div | October 26, 2017 at 8:14 pm

Thomas Edward Perez is an American Democratic Party politician and attorney who has served as the Chair of the Democratic National Committee since February 2017.

he should get his law license revoked for ignorance of the law.

    He doesn’t practice constitutional law, so there’s no particular reason for him to know what it says, any more than he needs to know patent law, or tenancy law, or any other area in which he doesn’t practice.

      Any lawyer worth his salt would never make such a statement, even outside his purview, without first ensuring it’s true. It’s not like he was citing some finer point of law battled over in the courts for decades. He was inaccurately describing the Electoral College as not a creation of the Constitution. A ten-year-old who watches Schoolhouse Rock knows that is utter BS.

        Of course any educated person has read the constitution and knows that. He mad a fool of himself, no doubt about it. But he isn’t professionally required to know this area of law. His license certainly doesn’t depend on it.

        He cares nothing about the law as it stands. He wants to be among the ruling fascist elite that makes their own law. And buys mansions with the proceeds of taxes on the rest of us.

        A sinister character, this guy.

      chessy in reply to Milhouse. | October 27, 2017 at 4:18 am

      Every law student is required to take a course in constitutional law. Even if Perez skated through law school without such a course, he should have at least read the Constitution before making pronouncements about what’s in it. He’s ignorant, but then so are liberals. We’ve lost the Greatest Generation and are now dealing with the Stupid Generation.

        Milhouse in reply to chessy. | October 27, 2017 at 4:42 am

        Yes, he’s ignorant and a fool, and just embarrassed himself in front of everyone, but that’s not what we’re discussing here. The topic of this thread is 4th armored div’s ridiculous suggestion that he ought to lose his law license for never having read Article 2 of the constitution. How do you justify that?

          chessy in reply to Milhouse. | October 27, 2017 at 1:02 pm

          4th armored div doesn’t need any defense from me. I will say that if “stupid” were a dis-qualifier for a law license, there would be a lot fewer lawyers and a lot more burger flippers asking if you want fries with that.

It’s over, Perez. Your collusion with foreign assets failed to disenfranchise American citizens. Your foreign, domestic, and Deep State secrets are exposed! Have a nice day.

He must have one of those living Constitutions.

you don’t have to be stupid to be a Demonrat, but…

who am i kidding? of course you do. 😎

DINORightMarie | October 26, 2017 at 8:42 pm

From wikipedia:

Born in Buffalo, New York, Perez is a graduate of Brown University, Harvard Law School and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He worked as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before serving in the Department of Justice from 1989 to 1995, where he worked as a federal prosecutor, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno. He worked as a Special Counselor for Senator Ted Kennedy until 1998 when he served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the final years of the Clinton administration.

Wow. A Harvard Law grad?!?! A former federal DoJ federal prosecutor?!?! WTH?!

This guy, Obama……..who else?!?! What do they TEACH you all at Harvard Law?! Professor, please help me to understand how they allow these indoctrinated lemmings to graduate if they are this ignorant?! Not a completely rhetorical question. I know the professors there are leftists, but really – how can they pass Constitutional law if they are this ignorant…….or is he just LYING?!

I sure hope these loons keep it up so the up-and-coming lawyers in their captive audience see how idiotic and WRONG Democrats really are…..and DO NOT JOIN THEIR RANKS.

    ugottabekiddinme in reply to DINORightMarie. | October 27, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    You ask how someone can go through law school, even with a required Constitutional Law course, and be this ignorant? Let me tell you:

    Because most all of what is taught in Con Law courses is the Supreme Court’s gloss on various provisions as found in their prolix opinions. The text of the Constitution is sometimes not even in the darned casebook.

    IIRC, it was Harvard Con Law “superstar” lefty professor Laurence Tribe who published a con law casebook which did not contain, even in an appendix, the actual text.

      DaveGinOly in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | October 29, 2017 at 1:53 pm

      Decades ago I was in the Brown University Bookstore, perusing a newly-published text book on constitutional law. Just for yucks, I looked up a seminal case (with which I was familiar) in the index and was somewhat surprised to see it there. I then went to the text and read it. I was shocked (well, no, not really, even then) to see that the author (well-credentialed) misrepresented (i.e. lied) about each of the three or four major points made in the decision. This is when I came to realize that law students were being lied to by their instructors. How did the author think he could get away with such falsehoods? What law student has time to research every case in every book that receives only a paragraph of text?

      BTW, I was surprised to find the case referenced because most law text books I’ve perused don’t lie about it, they simply don’t mention it. So, one way or the other, students remain ignorant of the decision by omission or by false reporting of SCOTUS’ determination in the case.

he wants a pure democracy… one registration, one vote.

what he doesn’t tell is the last bit “one time”.

    alaskabob in reply to redc1c4. | October 26, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    It takes time to build up to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Rome wasn’t built in a day and it takes time to dismantle the greatest nation in the world. A lot of lies are needed to wreck the truth.

      Be careful: nations can collapse overnight. (The USSR, for example.)

      Our nation is held together with spit and tape: we provide the spit and tape, and the lefts work at tearing our repairs apart.

        An abscess that has taken weeks to form can be lanced and drained in seconds. The purulent mix of the falsehoods of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, the required terrorist police state needed to keep communism ascendant and the rotting corpses of millions of innocent Russian sacrificed to maintain the Soviet state proved too toxic to only be partially decompressed when Gorby tried limited reforms in Russia. It collapsed because living people had a memory of all those things….the Left has to create a false history and that takes time and willful forgetfulness of people .

He’s either profoundly ignorant and illiterate or he is lying.

Either way, the DNC has someone leading the party who represents them very well.

nordic_prince | October 26, 2017 at 9:10 pm

You’d think that if the Democrats are going to pretend to care about the Constitution, they’d at least pretend to be familiar with it as well. Not for nothing is the Jackass the symbol of their party. They’re as ignorant as a jackass.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be there,” he said.
________________

Article II, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment say otherwise.

These are the people that arrogantly and condescendingly lecture us as though they’re smarter than us.

Perez was the United States Secretary of Labor from 2013 to 2017. Prior to that he worked as a consumer advocate and civil rights lawyer before serving as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights from 2009 to 2013.

This is a “dumb act”. Nobody who was an Assistant Attorney General could be this stupid.

    tom_swift in reply to Neo. | October 26, 2017 at 11:45 pm

    With Affirmative Action on his side, anything is possible.

    Milhouse in reply to Neo. | October 27, 2017 at 1:46 am

    None of these jobs required him to read the constitution, so he didn’t. Astonishing as it may be, some people never read anything more thant they have to for work. I can’t imagine living like that, but there you go.

      With a democrat politician if it comes down to a choice between ignorance and lying, I’ll believe the lying. (Although it’s possible the ignorance is there in addition)

I’ve been around awhile and I’ve never seen democrats act this childish and vulgar. They’re unashamedly reaching for new lows.

    DINORightMarie in reply to cep32101. | October 27, 2017 at 12:04 am

    Three words: Debbie. Wasserman. Schultz.

    This guy is a perfect follow-up act to her childishness and vulgarity.

You see, famous liberals only need to say this sort of garbage publicly, and their mindless followers will repeat it for them.

Why doesn’t NPV violate the 14th Amendment? Under the system, some voters select both their electors and help select the electors in other states, while other voters only have a shared say in who their own electors are.

We should note that Rhode Islanders would go from casting 100% of the votes that determine their electors to less than one-half of one percent.

NPV has the effect of kidnapping Rhode Island’s electoral votes. In the six Republican popular vote victories since 1960 (yes, the Republicans are 6 and 9), they have only won Rhode Island twice. They have not voted for a Republican as a state, while a Democrat won the popular vote since 1916.

This seems like the effective disenfranchisement of an entire state’s voters.

This is to say nothing of the equal protection problem of letting states choose whether there should be an Electoral College every four year–after the two party’s nominees have been chosen. Since there would never be 270 without California, it will be at California’s discretion whether to use the system.

    Milhouse in reply to csnook1. | October 27, 2017 at 1:34 am

    No, it doesn’t violate the 14th amendment.

    A state needn’t allow its citizens any say in who its electors will be. If it chooses to give them a say it may restrict the franchise any way it likes, except for race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age over 18. Among those it does allow to vote, it must give each of them an equal voice; so two voters in Rhode Island may not have their votes counted differently, but there is no need for Rhode Island voters to have the same voice as Californian ones. In fact the constitution itself guarantees that they won’t, because it gives RI significantly more electors per capita than it does CA.

Doesn’t NPV (which I usually read as Net Present Value, but I digress) violate the constitution’s prohibition on interstate compacts without Congressional consent?

    Milhouse in reply to randian. | October 27, 2017 at 1:42 am

    No, it doesn’t, because the compacts clause only covers those agreements that enhance state power at the expense of federal power. Any compact that’s purely between the contracting states, and doesn’t affect Congress, is none of its business and therefore doesn’t need its permission. For instance if one state wants to buy property in another state, or to use another state’s transport facilities, they can negotiate whatever deal they like. Since the choice of a state’s electors is entirely a matter for that state’s legislature, and Congress is not entitled to any say, therefore an agreement between states on how to exercise their prerogative doesn’t need Congress’s permission.

      csnook1 in reply to Milhouse. | October 27, 2017 at 9:53 am

      Well one thing I learned on the Internet is that someone who is very strident and confident in his answer is never wrong.

      There is something obtuse about saying that a compact designed to change the way Presidents are elected in an extra-constitutional manner is not making the compact states more powerful at the expense of the US government.

      Similarly, Bush v. Gore had three justices who were willing to support an Equal Protection claim against a state actor in the allocation of Presidential Electors, but you were certain, so you must be right.

        Milhouse in reply to csnook1. | October 27, 2017 at 10:24 am

        You’re wrong twice. The compact doesn’t affect federal power at all. It might be considered to enhance the compacting states’ power at the expense of the other states — though it seems to me to do the exact opposite, and diminish those states’ power relative to that of the other states — but not at the expense of the federal government, which has no role in the election of the president.

        In Bush v Gore it was not three justices but seven who upheld Bush’s Equal Protection claim, but that claim had nothing to do with your ridiculous idea that the voters of different states must have equal weight, an idea explicitly contradicted by the constitution itself.

        Bush’s claim was not even that all voters in the same state must be given equal weight, but that all voters in the same county, which is the governmental unit to which Florida law delegates the conduct of elections and the counting of votes, must be treated the same way.

        The procedure he was protesting was that of the same county applying different standards when counting votes in Republican areas than it did in Democrat ones. Identical ballots might be deemed valid if cast in a Democrat area but invalid if cast in a Republican one. That’s a clear 14th-amendment violation. Having different procedures in different counties is not so clear, but might also be a violation. But people in different states are not even supposed to be treated equally.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2017 at 2:18 pm

      That’s a very interesting reply, but the Constitution makes no such exception.

      No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…

      (Bolding mine.)

So if those states went against what their populations voted for and allocated their votes for the other guy, how long do you think it would be until the tat and feathers came out?

    Milhouse in reply to rdm. | October 27, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Since they were elected by those very same voters, and are reelected by those same voters every 2-4 years, they can be presumed to reflect those voters’ wishes.

      You can’t really be this obtuse, it’s not possible. So you must be being disingenuous.

        Milhouse in reply to rdm. | October 28, 2017 at 11:35 pm

        I meant what I wrote. The state legislature is elected by the people, and can be presumed to reflects their wishes; if it decides that the state’s electors should go to whoever won the national popular vote, then that is presumably what the state’s voters want to happen, even if the majority of them voted for someone else.

The Electoral College, a mechanism for indirect election of the president created by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between smaller states and larger state

Perez is certainly not the only American who doesn’t understand the EC. It is in fact a very direct mechanism for election of the president. The States elect the president, not the population at large.

There is a historical argument—and, I believe, a sound one—that the Electoral College and the Senate were both included in the structure of the Federal government so that the smaller colonies might actually ratify the Constitution. Without the EC and Senate, all aspects of the new government would be totally dominated by New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the other colonies were not thrilled at that prospect. Even so, the smallest colony, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, was the last of the thirteen to ratify.

The other holdup to ratification, and an important factor to some colonies, was the addition of an explicit Bill of Rights. But that had nothing to do with the EC.

    Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | October 27, 2017 at 9:54 am

    It’s still indirect. The states, through whatever mechanism each likes, choose their electors, who then choose the president. As designed, the people choosing the electors aren’t supposed to know how those electors will vote.

caseoftheblues | October 27, 2017 at 9:32 am

Really Milhouse….!?!

“He doesn’t practice constitutional law, so there’s no particular reason for him to know what it says, any more than he needs to know patent law, or tenancy law, or any other area in which he doesn’t practice.”

…..you don’t think a US attorney needs to have any knowledge of our Constitution which is the basis of our laws….I’m guessing you are fine with your doctor having no grasp of anotomy….

    Perez was never a US Attorney. I don’t know where you got the idea he was.

    He was once head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, a position for which knowledge of the constitution would be an actual handicap 🙂 His performance in that position was certainly consistent with that of someone who had never read it but vaguely remembered seeing the movie.

This is all moot because Perez is talking about something that doesn’t exist. There is no national popular vote; there is no national election; this Country is not a nation. This Country is a federation of independent, sovereign states which hold state elections for federal offices. There are only state elections; there are only state popular votes. Adding together the totals of the state popular votes means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It’s meaningless.

Since most states give all their electors to the winner, the total doesn’t matter.

What makes sense, that few people mention, is if states allocated the electors proportionally. THAT would make every vote count.

President Trump did not lose the popular vote, he won it – in 30 states.

People really need to stop talking about this fictitious national popular vote that simple does not exist. We have only state elections and state popular votes. That’s it.

    lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 27, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Couple of corrections. (embarrassed 🙂 )

    Since most states give all their electors to the winner, the VOTE totals don’t matter.

    People really need to stop talking about this fictitious national popular vote that SIMPLY does not exist.

      Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | October 27, 2017 at 1:45 pm

      The “national popular vote” exists as a statistic that can be calculated, just like the GDP or sports statistics. And if this compact that’s doing the rounds ever gets enough states on board, then that statistic will become important because all the compact states will give all of their electors to whoever wins it.

      But I see no prospect that this compact will ever get the necessary membership. Those who claim it’s on the verge of passing are counting endorsements that are years old and will have to be renewed, which in many states they won’t be.

        lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | October 27, 2017 at 2:18 pm

        It doesn’t exist in relation to who wins the election. There is no national election, hence there is no national popular vote. There are only state popular votes. Adding those state popular votes together means NOTHING in terms of winning the presidential election. It is misinformation, disinformation.

        Any statistic can be cobbled together, however, it is meaningless when it comes to winning the election.

        This Country is not a nation. There is no national election. There is no national popular vote. Why even talk about something that doesn’t exist and has no impact on the election? All it does is gin up the feeling that somehow someone ‘lost’ something that was never there to lose in the first place.

          Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | October 27, 2017 at 5:07 pm

          It does exist, because it can be and is calculated and reported. Your insistence that since it has no legal meaning it doesn’t exist is silly. The baseball statistics have no legal meaning either, but they still exist. And if a state legislature were to decide that its electors shall go to whichever MLB batter hits the most runs that season, then it would have legal meaning. The same applies to the “national vote”. It’s a real statistic, and if one or several state legislature decide that their electors will go to whoever comes first in that statistic, then it will be legally meaningful.

          Look,

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 27, 2017 at 5:37 pm

          My insistence that it doesn’t exist is because it doesn’t exist.

          For there to be something called a national popular vote, this Country would have to have a national election. Mr. Milhouse, I know you like to be precise and exact and this is exact.

          We have state elections and state popular votes. Adding those state popular votes together does not make a national popular vote even though people have chosen to call it that.

          Please don’t be a hypocrite, sir.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 27, 2017 at 5:42 pm

          Oh, and I think you’re being disingenuous by speaking of state legislatures as if they are autonomous bodies. They are still expected to do the will of their constituents.

          Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | October 28, 2017 at 11:44 pm

          You’re being an idiot. Any statistic that can be calculated exists. The national and global average rainfall exists. The GDP exists. The regional average SAT scores exist for any region you care to define. And all of them can be legally meaningful, if some law takes them into account.

          The constitution gives the method by which each state chooses its electors entirely to that state’s legislature. No other body, including the state’s people, have any right to a say in the matter unless the legislature chooses to give them one. Of course if people don’t like what their local legislator has voted for they can elect someone else next time.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm

          Now, here I was being polite and respectful and you call me an idiot. Well, Mr. Milhouse, I’m not the one who keeps insisting that this Country has something called a national popular vote when it doesn’t have a national election.

          I’m typing slowly, I encourage you to read slowly and contemplate each word and the content of the sentences.

          This number that people erroneously call the national popular vote is not actually a national popular vote. Let me say that again. The number people call the national popular vote is not actually a national popular vote. The number is not the result of a national election. It is false and misleading to say this number is the national popular vote because this Country does not actually have a national election.

          It’s the name you are giving the number that is wrong and doesn’t exist.

          Do you understand? Wrap your brain around the fact that the number exists – I’ve never said the number doesn’t exist. I have said this Country doesn’t have a national popular vote because we don’t have a national election. The number is simply the state popular votes added together. Adding those totals together does not make a national popular vote. It doesn’t. Just like wearing a shoe on my head doesn’t make the shoe a hat. It’s still a shoe. I can call my shoe a hat when I wear it on my head, but it’s not. It’s still a shoe.

          So, people can call the state popular votes added together the ‘national popular vote’ – but they are wrong. For this Country, the national popular vote does not exist. It will only exist if the Country chooses to amend the Constitution to have a national election.

          Moving on to your insistence that the state legislatures can do whatever they want. Only if they exist in a vacuum. As I already said, and you ignored. State legislatures, and Congress, are creations of the People; they exist to do the will of the People; they are our servants. Representatives who act contrary to the will of their constituents are soon out of a job. The People don’t have to wait until the next election, either. Recall, recall, recall – it’s simply not used enough, IMHO.

          I think you look pretty funny wearing a shoe on your head, Mr. Milhouse.

Phil Salvarado | October 27, 2017 at 1:15 pm

I see Rags has called for reinforcements in this thread.

ugottabekiddinme | October 27, 2017 at 4:15 pm

As if Perez’s ignorant assertion were not bad enough, Indiana lawyers in attendance earned one hour of Continuing Legal Education credit.

Perez knows that it is in the constitution. The people he is speaking to do not. The Perez’s in this world care nothing about the truth. Just political advantage.

Any lie on the way to communism.

How does NPV not violate Article I, Section 10: “No State shall…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”?

    Milhouse in reply to perfesser33. | October 28, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Sigh. Since you seem not to have read the previous comments:

    The compacts clause only covers those agreements that enhance state power at the expense of federal power. Any compact that’s purely between the contracting states, and doesn’t affect Congress, is none of its business and therefore doesn’t need its permission. For instance if one state wants to buy property in another state, or to use another state’s transport facilities, they can negotiate whatever deal they like. Since the choice of a state’s electors is entirely a matter for that state’s legislature, and Congress is not entitled to any say, therefore an agreement between states on how to exercise their prerogative doesn’t diminish Congress’s power and thus doesn’t need Congress’s permission.

      randian in reply to Milhouse. | October 28, 2017 at 11:51 pm

      The states can’t change the Constitution without amendment, and I would argue that any agreement between states that has the effect of a constitutional amendment (as NPV does) requires one. It is certainly within Congress’ prerogative to keep states from subverting the Constitution.

      Where in the Constitution is the stricture on the compacts clause that you are citing?

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2017 at 2:33 pm

      The word “any” in the clause doesn’t seem to admit “any” exception from the rule. The clause can be faithfully restated: “Without the consent of Congress, States cannot enter into compacts or agreements with other States.” There is no wiggle room there. Note that I could have interjected “any” after “into.” The word would only emphasize the completeness of the bar to the making of inter-state agreements. It would not make a difference to the meaning of the restatement, nor would its absence from the clause in the Constitution change its meaning. The word actually belabors the obvious intent of the clause – it’s a complete and total (here I just belabored the obvious) bar to interstate agreements without Congress’ consent.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution” and “it doesn’t have to be there” are two completely different points, the latter acknowledging the former as true.

Actually, the latter contradicts the former, and if the latter is true, the former must be false.

    Nope. The Constitution can be amended; nothing in it “has to be there.”

    Acknowledging the Constitution can be amended (i.e. “it doesn’t have to be there) does not in any way make the fact that the EC is in the Constitution false. In fact, as I note, it actually demonstrates that it is in there, why else note that it’s there but doesn’t “have to be”?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend