The Republic? You CAN’T Keep It.

I’m flashin’ on the Maginot Line, that row of armament built by the French after WWI, aimed at Germany. Never again! Uh, except the guns were stationary. They could only fire in one direction. The Krauts just avoided the invariable line of fire, and: cue La Débâcle!

Because, we know the Dems could never get the Constitution amended to eliminate the Electoral College. We felt secure in that redoubt.

But I just heard that the “National Popular Vote “ movement has almost won. They’re 75% there. Never mind amending the Constitution:

If they can get states controlling only 74 more electoral votes on board, it means the winner of the national popular vote will always be the winner in the electoral college.

Did you get that, O Ratty?

While we’ve been manning the walls of the Constitutional fortress, the Progs have sneaked up the back stairs and are about to bash our heads in from behind.

Now, dear Rattys, some of you have called me a Cassandra, too pessimistic, and I am desperately hoping to hear from you now. Do you see any scenario in which our republic does not receive its quietus?

12+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

36 thoughts on “The Republic? You CAN’T Keep It.”

  1. From their website:

    It has also passed at least one legislative chamber in 8 states possessing 75 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK).  It has been unanimously approved at the committee level in 2 states possessing 27 more electoral votes (GA, MO).

    These are the places where the battle will be fought.   If you live in any of these states, now is the time to go full activist.

    National Popular Vote is a nefarious scheme to steal the vote away from the people by stealth.

    It is a Leftist anti-constitutional, anti-American conspiracy.

    Do not expect to see any reporting in mass media; they are in on the plot.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  2. I missed your earlier post MJB!  Thanks.

    Well, , since no one is comforting me, I’ll do it myself.  There have only been 5 elections in our entire history where the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college, and only one,( Hayes, 1876 ) who had gotten a majority, not just a plurality, of  the popular vote.  It seems dire to me because the last two,Gore and  Clinton, were Dems.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  3. Here is the status of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” as of January 2020.

    National Popular Vote Interstate Compact status

    Note that if all of the 11 states in which legislation is already pending adopt the compact, that is more than required to reach the threshold at which the compact supposedly comes into effect. All of the states in which the legislation is pending are “big states” in terms of electoral votes with the exception of New Hampshire, Kansas, and South Carolina.

    In his Libertarian podcast of 2019-03-22, Richard Epstein discusses the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Compact.  The discussion of the compact starts at the 9 minute mark.  He considers it “blatantly unconstitutional and completely cynical” (which, of course, has never deterred Democrats in the past).  Epstein believes the Supreme Court would throw out such a scheme, even if adopted.  He has no problem with systems such as those used in Maine and Nebraska where electors are based upon the winner of by congressional district, not the state-wide vote, with only the two electors assigned for Senate seats chosen state-wide.  This would break up the monolithic power of states such as California and Texas to go for one party and reduce the number of “wasted votes” in such states.

    8+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  4. I see a silver lining here. This might be one necessary element to start pushing other States toward secession. I am very pessimistic about the future of the United States, but I certainly do not expect the forces of liberty to just sit by and become slaves to the Woke. Once it becomes clear that their voices are no longer allowed, the tempo of dissolution will increase. Thank God!

    8+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  5. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I see a silver lining here. This might be one necessary element to start pushing other States toward secession. I am very pessimistic about the future of the United States, but I certainly do not expect the forces of liberty to just sit by and become slaves to the Woke. Once it becomes clear that their voices are no longer allowed, the tempo of dissolution will increase. Thank God!

    This is the inevitable failure of America the Empire.  I do believe that the country has become an empire, perhaps we can become a republic again. I agree with you that states will start to suceed. Or even regions of states will break apart. Look at what is happening in Virginia, you have counties that will refuse to enforce any state law that will go against the 2nd amendment of the constitution. That is a shot across the bow from the right. Obviously the left has been doing this for decades, where they refuse to enforce or even outright defy immigration law.

    We are no longer a nation of laws and are ruled over by oligarchs. This is obvious. Look at the corruption that is going on in Washington and no one is ever held accountable, but they would throw the book at anyone who did the same thing but weren’t in the ruling class. Everyone knows this and the trust in institutions has been destroyed. The country can’t keep going on like this.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  6. John Walker:
    Here is the status of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” as of January 2020.

    National Popular Vote Interstate Compact status

    Note that if all of the 11 states in which legislation is already pending adopt the compact, that is more than required to reach the threshold at which the compact supposedly comes into effect. All of the states in which the legislation is pending are “big states” in terms of electoral votes with the exception of New Hampshire, Kansas, and South Carolina.

    In his Libertarian podcast of 2019-03-22, Richard Epstein discusses the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Compact.  The discussion of the compact starts at the 9 minute mark.  He considers it “blatantly unconstitutional and completely cynical” (which, of course, has never deterred Democrats in the past).  Epstein believes the Supreme Court would throw out such a scheme, even if adopted.  He has no problem with systems such as those used in Maine and Nebraska where electors are based upon the winner of by congressional district, not the state-wide vote, with only the two electors assigned for Senate seats chosen state-wide.  This would break up the monolithic power of states such as California and Texas to go for one party and reduce the number of “wasted votes” in such states.

    As I wrote recently, the Constitution doesn’t say that states have, or do not have, the power to tell their electors how to vote.  But SCOTUS  has taken up the case where 2 electors, from a state which mandated voting for winner of the state’s popular vote, voted for Colin Powell.  The electors are saying the state’s statute is unconstitutional.
    so we’re screwed, aren’t we?  Whether SCOTUS  agrees with their challenge and says states can’t tell their electors how to vote  (which means they can’t by law tell ‘em they have to cast for their own state’s winner) ; or, it rejects  their challenge and holds statesCAN  tell their electors how to vote—thus meaning the National Popular Vote Compact,once adopted by a particular state, is constitutional.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  7. Yup.  Here’s me in 2011:

    Electoral Treason

    Washington would be even less likely to act than the court since this would transfer an enormous amount of power to DC within a generation. It would ensure the election of wave after wave of progressive presidents, who would make Obama look like Ford and 2011 look like 1956.

    This election tampering amounts to a coup. It is the most direct, credible threat to our Constitution. It is likely to succeed and it is guaranteed to break our system of government.

    9+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  8. Bryan G. Stephens:
    A break up of America would be a bad thing. We need the power to counter China.

    I don’t think anyone said it was a good thing. But it doesn’t seem like our ruling elites really care if China becomes an economic superpower, as long as they can make money from it.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  9. Mate De:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    A break up of America would be a bad thing. We need the power to counter China.

    I don’t think anyone said it was a good thing. But it doesn’t seem like our ruling elites really care if China becomes an economic superpower, as long as they can make money from it.

    Oh, we have people rooting for it

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  10. Bryan G. Stephens:
    A break up of America would be a bad thing. We need the power to counter China.

    Why what is China doing? They are taking full advantage of the trade deals our NATIONAL government crafted. They are playing by the rules that we in west have set in terms of regional hegemon. They are also taking our lead in exploiting smaller nations with resources to procure those resources on the cheap. In essence they are playing our game by our rules, so what exactly is the problem? Oh they might be a better empire than us? Whoopty doo!

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  11. Mate De:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    A break up of America would be a bad thing. We need the power to counter China.

    I don’t think anyone said it was a good thing. But it doesn’t seem like our ruling elites really care if China becomes an economic superpower, as long as they can make money from it.

    No Mate De it would be a splendid thing for this grotesque empire grown out of our once great republic to be shattered into a million pieces.

    1+
    avatar
  12. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I for the life of me cannot and will never understand the blind desire to remain attached to a large group of people who hate the very air you breathe and the ground on which you walk.

    Well, when you phrase things so poorly, nothing can be understood.

    2+
    avataravatar
  13. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Mate De:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    A break up of America would be a bad thing. We need the power to counter China.

    I don’t think anyone said it was a good thing. But it doesn’t seem like our ruling elites really care if China becomes an economic superpower, as long as they can make money from it.

    No Mate De it would be a splendid thing for this grotesque empire grown out of our once great republic to be shattered into a million pieces.

    See what I mean?

    This, of course is foolish idealism. The idea that one gains by letting other empires grow in power is just nuts.

    Freedom requires power to protect it.

    1+
    avatar
  14. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I for the life of me cannot and will never understand the blind desire to remain attached to a large group of people who hate the very air you breathe and the ground on which you walk.

    Since the large majority of Democrats don’t, in fact, hate the very air I breath and ground I walk on, I don’t want to be detached from them. Some of them are family, and quite loving. I have worked with Democrats and people of that leaning for my whole life, and despite what a few loud people say, they are not that way.

    But you are so daft, that you think things would have been better for America to stay divided instead of the Union being restored. That is such a fundamental divide that frankly, I have more in common with said Democrats than I do with you, I think. That makes you the outlier, rooting for the destruction of America.

    I’ll root for the country that I love.

    0

  15. Bryan G. Stephens:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    I for the life of me cannot and will never understand the blind desire to remain attached to a large group of people who hate the very air you breathe and the ground on which you walk.

    Since the large majority of Democrats don’t, in fact, hate the very air I breath and ground I walk on, I don’t want to be detached from them. Some of them are family, and quite loving. I have worked with Democrats and people of that leaning for my whole life, and despite what a few loud people say, they are not that way.

    But you are so daft, that you think things would have been better for America to stay divided instead of the Union being restored. That is such a fundamental divide that frankly, I have more in common with said Democrats than I do with you, I think. That makes you the outlier, rooting for the destruction of America.

    I’ll root for the country that I love.

    I love America the people and the land, it is my home but I do not love our current system of government. We aren’t the republic that they say we are. We are an empire run by oligarchs, who want to exploit the lower classes for their own gain. It’s obvious and the sooner the oligarchy is destroyed the better.

    also upon our founding we weren’t really a united people either. Each state was its own entity basically,  but as states rights have been eroded over the past couple of centuries now the federal government  forces unification through fiat.
    the way it should be is that if California wants to have gay marriages and abortion that is their decision and shouldn’t effect those in Mississippi who don’t want those things to be legal. But that isn’t how it works anymore and hasn’t for a very long time. So I do want the current system we have to be toppled.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  16. Robert A. McReynolds:

    Mate De:

    Bryan G. Stephens:
    A break up of America would be a bad thing. We need the power to counter China.

    I don’t think anyone said it was a good thing. But it doesn’t seem like our ruling elites really care if China becomes an economic superpower, as long as they can make money from it.

    No Mate De it would be a splendid thing for this grotesque empire grown out of our once great republic to be shattered into a million pieces.

    Sure. Learn Mandarin and how to improve your social credit score. A good start would probably be to stop posting comments online under your own name (assuming that is your real name).

    I’m less worried about China as economic superpower than as a political/military power. The USSR’s economy was much smaller than America’s and yet they posed a credible existential threat.

    Possible silver lining: The latest incarnation of the coronavirus might keep the Chicoms busy for a while, thereby delaying the threat. On the flipside, the West might have to put aside OrangeManBad/invite-the-world-invade-the world-and get serious about governance.

    Naw.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  17. Robert A. McReynolds:
    The only concern I have about China is its nuclear capability.

    Which is funded by our disasterous trade policies. Thanks to all the economic morons who held the office of POTUS, Don has a bigger mess to clean up than may be possible.

    Just want to kvetch about GHW Bush for a minute who was considered such a great foreign policy president. He chaps my hide in particular because as a successful businessman himself, he should have known better that a country can never separate its security without protecting the donuts.

    Read my lips.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  18. I know we have Pennsylvania Ratburghers.  Y’all should exchange notes and get to work lobbying against National Popular Vote.   Your work in the next few weeks could make the difference.

    I sent a note to my state senator, but I don’t think it will get out of committee in Tennessee, and he is not on the right committee.

    The real call to arms is to anyone who lives in the precarious states:

    AR, AZ, GA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NV, OK.

    2+
    avataravatar

Leave a Reply