I wanted to pass along a conversation I had with a very liberal friend on FB (I know, just leave, not going to happen so no reason to discuss!). I am providing this so people can see that the NPVIC is not constitutional, for multiple reasons, and those supporting it are trying to destroy our representative republic. While I am sure you all realize this, this provides the constitutional reasoning as to why.
My opening:A friend replied that the NPVIC was another example of how Democrats are attempting to destroy democracy. My liberal friend (who by the way is a retired naval officer I served with) states:It is funny to me all the articles written in the wake of the election accusing Republicans of trying to "destroy democracy." What is truly funny is that when Democrats have actually tried to circumvent the democratic process by fabricating evidence to impeach Trump the first time and remove him from office this is ignored. And then trying a second time with no evidence to ensure he cannot run again though almost half of the country voted for him and many millions more than last time voted for him. Why does the press not see this as attempts to destroy democracy. It is almost as if they believe that only Republicans can destroy it. Well, at least they are not biased.Here is my last response:Of note this is not unconstitutional because as the Constitution states
"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; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector."
If a legislature decides to award electors based on the national popular vote it is their right to do so. Just because you may not like the results doesn’t make the decision of a state legislature unconstitutional.If you are wondering how our interchange ended. It was as I predicted, silence from him.I have to ask, have you actually read the Constitution, or do you just post stuff you find that sounds good without applying any critical thought?
It is actually a violation of Article 1, section 10, clause 3 which states “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” As the states trying to do this do not have the consent of Congress, they are violating the Constitution.
Now to your point, which is quoted from Article II, section 1, clause 2. The words specifically state that “Each state shall appoint in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”. It does not say that “Each state my delegate to another state the appointment of electors.” Each state decides for itself who it is voting for and how those votes are to be distributed. To allow another state, or states, to make this decision for them is to undermine the very heart of the Constitution, which is the formation of a representative republic. To do what you are proposing would require a constitutional amendment.
You know what makes me sad about this answer? Knowing that I have provided it to you before and you still bring up the same misquoted and proven wrong argument. And I expect that you will answer as you did last time I showed your position on this to be unconstitutional. With silence.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by 1 Patriot-of-many
Bookmarks