Ohio Joins The Attempt To Shit on The Constitution and Eliminate The Electoral College

[Cecilie1200]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

We really need a "What a fucking moron" status to apply to posts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

Creating a law that says you MUST award the votes according to the popular vote is placing a restriction on those electors. They might as not be there at all. Simply put, the popular vote wins your state even if your state voted the opposite of the popular vote.

Again, if the EC has virtually no restrictions as to how they can vote, what's stopping us from legislating that from now on, all EC votes in Ohio go to the Republican candidate no matter how the people voted?

Or that the EC votes go to whichever candidate pays us the biggest bribe, for that matter?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.

Is it noted that the Supreme Court has agreed with his interpretation, and disregarded yours? Is it further noted that you're an asshat for trying to turn your personal obsession with misinterpeting the 2nd Amendment into an accepted debate parameter of an unrelated topic?

The Constitution's English on both the subject of the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms and the requirement for compacts among the states to have Congressional approval is clear, whether you're too illiterate and agenda-driven to understand it or not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.

The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.

.

\
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted

Rating: What a fucking moron.

 

[rightwinger]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

 

[Cecilie1200]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.
Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.
The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

The right of the states to allocate their electors is limited by the constitutionally specified limits on the states in Article I.
Somehow, the left managed to come up with the ONE way the Constitution could limit the right of the states to allocate its electors however they want.

No. ME and NE have had a system different than the other states for decades

Which your limited intelligence has seen as a refutation of M14 how?

Quick tip to the thinking-impaired: "Allowed to have different systems" is not the same thing as "allowed to do any damned thing they want."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.

The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.

.

\
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted

They were two independent phrases, deal with it. The people and the State or federal governments are never used as synonymous terms anywhere in the Constitution.

.

So?

It says Militia in the amendment. Clearly the founders didn't mean for private gun ownership for other purposes.

 

[BlindBoo]

does the right of states to choose the method of apportioning EC votes extend to allowing them to simply sell them to the highest bidder?

I suppose the legislators could try to pass a law like that but I doubt that it would have the support this measure does. Most people aren't corrupt.

I think his comparison is off the mark.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Again, you lie - you are fully aware of the fact that nowhere does the amendment say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

In her ignorance she seems to forget, at the time of the founding, most Americans depended on fire arms to eat. So to say private ownership was not an intended purpose of the 2nd would mean the founders didn't care if the citizens starved. Critical thinking is not a commie attribute.

.

She also forgets how many Americans lived in isolated areas with very little in the way of official law enforcement available to them. To say that the Founding Fathers did not want private ownership of firearms would mean that the Founders expected everyone outside of cities to be completely helpless and vulnerable.

 

[Westender]

So you think California New York, Washington State, Louisiana, and Illinois should throw out the Votes of the other 44 States?

Why should a few populous cities dictate Fascist Ideologies to the other 83% of the country?

Do you know Hillary Von Cankles only won 17 states?

President Trump won 33. Why should The 33 states he won be given to Clinton in direct violation of The Will Of The People?

I call it Violation because it is Literally a Rape Of Democracy and Lady Liberty to deny those people in those States their voice!

You know who doesn’t have an Electoral College?

Russia!

Progs have gotten most of the stuff they ever wanted and it is never enough. You rule many cities but have a problem with smaller ones. There are many Dems who are not totally Progs in those smaller ones and you lost that vote in 2016. You have legalized people chitting in the middle of center city streets in a large city!

I have lived in the south all my life and my vote has only ever counted once. One time since the 80s. I'm about tired of it. My vote gets thrown in the trash while my Republican neighbor's count. It's not right and it has to end.

You know who else doesn't have an electoral college? MOST OF THE FUCKING WORLD. Although I believe Pakistan does.

You know who won those thirteen states I listed in post 28? NOBODY. Including Rump's states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and my own.

You know how to use the fucking quote function?

GO LEARN IT.

Do you know how to get the votes dipshit? Go get them or quit whining.

I'm not running for an office, Illiterati. Go lurn two reed.

You spelled "learned to read" wrong. No wonder you have no idea how our voting system works. It will never be changed, that many states wont agree to it.

 

[OKTexas]

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!
You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.

Where does the constitution say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms?
Oh - it doesn't?
Why did you lie?

Interesting point, albeit totally off topic ---- where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

Oh it doesn't?

Exactly.

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

\
Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

As a function of the 14th Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

There is a democrat representative in Ohio who also threw his hat in the ring to run for Prez in 2020. Getting rid of the EC is his idea and not the majority of Ohioans. DeWine is the new GOP governor of Ohio and Ohio remains solid GOP.

Maybe, but DeWine is also a RINO. I'm sure he wouldn't approve of this, but he's hardly what I would call a conservatives conservative.

You can deposit the term "RINO" into the same Bullshit Bin with the "red states" and "blue states". The job of a Governor is to govern a state; the job of a Congresscritter is to represent constituents. NONE of them have the job of representing a damn political party.

Still yet more Dichotomy Disease. Fer fuxsake open your damn mind.

(/offtopic)

Yet this crap is a purely political move aimed at enhancing the prospects of the commie party, go figure. There's nothing honorable or selfless involved. It's party and power above country

.

 

[OKTexas]

Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.

You're unaware of the fact that states can apportion their EC votes as they see fit?

Add that to the list

They cannot base their votes on results outside of their state. That is not a republican form of government. It is an abortion.

Is anyone else amused that the leftists are trying to cloak their evil in righteousness by claiming they're "trying to protect the sacredness of every vote", when what they're suggesting actually makes large numbers of votes invalid entirely?

There's some 1984 Newspeak bullshit for you right there.

Ah you mean like the WTA shitstem *ALREADY* makes large numbers of votes invalid entirely?

In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

Yes, they can allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose, not some other states' voters.

So they can't allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose if that is the case.

Perhaps I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

Yes, they can . . . within the limits of the purpose of the Constitutional provisions and the limits of their own oaths of office.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

Nobody joined anything yet. It's just a small group of sore losers who understand they can't win by the rules any longer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic

The last sentence from him is correct.

In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.

Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.

Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.

The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.

No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.

Keep in mind that if you are so sure that the EC "doesn't fit", you can always propose an Amendment to the Constitution and get people to ratify it. The fact that you aren't doing that tells me that you know you can't get the votes to do it legally and correctly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

Where does it say your're supposed to be in the military to own firearms?

I just want to know why you libtards refuse to learn to read? I am firmly convinced that liberalism is caused by a learning disability. Your brain wiring is all hosed up!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.