Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Electoral College: “if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution … it would be unconstitutional”

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Electoral College: “if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution … it would be unconstitutional”

Um, what?

I’ve never watched Chris Hayes’ show on MSNBC, and if this is any indication of its quality, I never will.

In Friday’s show, Hayes declared, in all seriousness, that the Electoral College would be unconstitutional if it weren’t specifically in the Constitution.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Watch the whole segment (if you wish):


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Watching and making sense of MSNBC is like trying to make sense of the “Dumb and Dumber”.

    Tom Servo in reply to Cogsys. | August 31, 2019 at 2:14 pm

    This Hayes is a Real Genius.

    ‘The weird thing about the Supreme Court is that if it wasn’t in the Constitution, it would be Unconstitutional.”

    ‘The weird thing about the Senate is that if it wasn’t in the Constitution, it would be Unconstitutional.”

    ‘The weird thing about the Presidency is that if it wasn’t in the Constitution, it would be Unconstitutional.”

    I get the feeling those thoughts never even occurred in that dimly lit bulb he calls a brain.

Thanks for that!

That means:

welfare, abortion, universal health care, birthright citizenship, motor voter, and any other dem trope is also now unconstitutional!

    If the Constitution were followed as written, fedgov would be one-tenth its present size. So, so much of what passes as federal legislation has no textual support.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to pfg. | August 31, 2019 at 12:52 pm

      More like 1 millionth of its present size……

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to pfg. | August 31, 2019 at 2:07 pm

      If the Constitution were followed as written, fedgov would be one-tenth its present size. So, so much of what passes as federal legislation has no textual support.

      If the Constitution were limited to its original intent then it wouldn’t even apply to any of the states. Period.

        Um, what? The constitution specifically says that it, and all federal laws, are the supreme law of the land, and override any state law or constitution that contradicts it. It also specifically restricts states from doing certain things.

        Perhaps you mean that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states. But the 14th amendment, which is part of the constitution, made it (or most of it) apply.

    That’s different because shut your misogyny hole you racist.

Well, I got my aerobic exercise for the day. Elevated my heart rate for a sustained 10 mins. Thanks Msnbc.

Who knew that our Founding Fathers were such Nazi’s; who knew those pesky 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, et. al Amendments were so evil, that the Constitution was such a diabolical plan to subjugate 46 of the 47 genders. Thank God after 240 some odd years, A.O.C. and her posse arrived to save us from this White Paternalism and now elevate us to the Nirvana she proposes.

If you could package stupid…

Wait, they are broadcasting it.

So what were the Founding Fathers thinking inserting an unconstitutional requirement into the constitution? We should all take the time to contemplate the stark reality that if our beloved pet dogs weren’t dogs, they wouldn’t be dogs. Deep.

It has to be specifically in the Constitution to be constitutional? I’m OK with that, if it means no more emanations of penumbras.

Wow! In his spare time, Hayes works on orbital dynamics for the Russians.

Wow! In his spare time, Hayes works on orbital dynamics for the Russians.

Shorter Chris Hayes: “Dammit, if we can’t win with these rules, we need to change them till we’re the only winners.”

So does that apply to abortion and gun control too? Cause neither of those are in constitution, either…

legacyrepublican | August 31, 2019 at 10:58 am

His name wouldn’t be Chris Hayes if he wasn’t named Chris Hayes too.

amatuerwrangler | August 31, 2019 at 11:08 am

Unfortunately, this nation has no shortage of morons so we cannot hope for MSNBC to run out of them anytime soon. Thanks Fuzzy, for saving us the discomfort of having to watch this ourselves.

BTW, what ever happened to the LI writer who would check out Morning Joe for us, again saving us from brain damage? Did he OD and get committed…?

To stl: both are actually prohibited, one by Second Amendment and one by requirement of due process for depriving one of life (and property and liberty).

Roy in Nipomo | August 31, 2019 at 11:10 am

He may actually be right. The Warren Court, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), showed it didn’t like any representation other than allotted strictly by proportional population. I’m sure if they could have, it would have ruled against the Electoral College.

Note: considering how it allows major urban centers to effectively ride roughshod over rural voters in many/most? states, I personally think the decision was a detriment to our form of gov’t.

    iconotastic in reply to Roy in Nipomo. | August 31, 2019 at 3:00 pm

    I wonder if the Warren Court had hope to decide that the Electoral College and the Senate were both unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment–which is also part of the Constitution.

      Milhouse in reply to iconotastic. | September 1, 2019 at 1:55 am

      No, it did not. The decision was very obviously correct, and it explicitly pointed out the obvious difference between the relation between the USA and the states and that between a state and the artificial divisions it creates: The USA is a creation of the states, not the other way around. A state is not a creation of any smaller entities, nor is it a federation of such entities. Entities within states exist only because the state created them. Therefore they can have no rights against the states, and the states can’t deliberately create them of unequal size and then give them equal representation.

      The requirement that the state legislative districts must conform to proportional representation is nowhere in the actual constitution . . . so SCOTUS just made it up. They would do the same to the electoral college if they could get away with it, and just might yet.

So would the right to free speech, the right to carry, the right to protection from search and seizure, the right to not have troops housed in your home, etc. Funny how by being in the US Constitution, it makes them constitutional.

Wow, what a moron. Who watches this crap?

It is not out of the question that one of the Democrat Party embed judges in Hawaii or California finds the electoral college unconstitutional.

SeekingRationalThought | August 31, 2019 at 11:39 am

Well, Chris, you uneducated moron, you might consider what this fact tells us about your interpretations of the Constitution.

Eastwood Ravine | August 31, 2019 at 11:50 am

The popular vote not even mentioned in the Constitution of the United States; is a journalistic and historic construct to quickly (but inaccurately) get across to others the percentage of support presidential candidates received nationwide.

    iconotastic in reply to Eastwood Ravine. | August 31, 2019 at 3:02 pm

    The Warren Court was able to discover a popular vote mandate in the 14th Amendment and thereby force a change to every state’s constitution, even ones that were as old as the US Constitution.

      Eastwood Ravine in reply to iconotastic. | August 31, 2019 at 5:00 pm

      That’s at the State level, and in that section and clause the 14th Amendment specifically uses the word “electors”; the electoral college is addressed.

      Milhouse in reply to iconotastic. | September 1, 2019 at 2:00 am

      Wrong. The decision did not mandate a popular vote even within each state. All it said was the very obvious point that the 14th amendment requires states to treat all their citizens equally, and that means equal representation. States can’t get around this by deliberately creating unequal divisions and then pretending they’re entitled to the same representation. That’s the rotten boroughs all over again. But a state is free to elect its governor on the basis of districts of equal population, which can easily result in a governor winning without getting the popular vote.

The Friendly Grizzly | August 31, 2019 at 11:54 am

Chris has a college degree, I’ll bet

I think he was trying to say that the electoral college is racist. It’s just a guess but since liberals think everything is racist, it would sort of make sense. If you close one eye and have never read the Constitution.

Not sure about this – but – I think I’d like to see ’em debate on MSNBC whether “unconstitutional = illegal” … for the sake of argument, if the 2A were repealed, would guns be illegal? I imagine that would be as funny as it would be stupefying.

Lucifer Morningstar | August 31, 2019 at 1:45 pm

People need to click over to the Youtube page for that video and read the absolute batshit insane comments that the liberals have posted. I did and my brain nearly exploded from the stupidity. so be warned. 😛

Hmm. There goes legal abortion and same-sex marriage. Be careful what you wish for, MSNBC.

Comanche Voter | August 31, 2019 at 4:57 pm

I don’t think that there is any glass in those horn rim frames that Lil Chrissy wears; but he thinks the fake glasses make him look smart. And seriously this kid needs all the help he can get.

You know that the absolute sure way to make certain that something is “constitutional” is to put it in the original constitution. Chris doesn’t know that. For him “unconstitutional” means anything he doesn’t like.

And by the way Chris, if your mother had wheels, she would have been a Greyhound bus.

If this guy doesn’t personify the phrase ‘stupid idiot’….

Just add ‘corrupt’ to the phrase.

My very favorite Chris Hayes moment was when he was beaten up on camera by rioters in Ferguson, Missouri. LOL

Hayes makes his argument that one vote must be equal to everyone else’s one vote or else it is unconstitutional, but somehow seems to forget all about the Democrat’s super delegates. According to Hayes interpretation of the Constitution, the entire nomination scheme used by the Democratic Party is unconstitutional – but somehow isn’t.

If water wasn’t wet, it would be dry.

And if press freedom wasn’t in the Constitution we would be forced to listen to your propaganda, would we?