Trump, Pelosi, Schumer spar on border wall in Oval Office

Not sure the GOP is that united under Trump. Even when in full control, they could not get rid of Obamacare because of the various groups and renegades in the party. Democrats do a better job staying united under leadership.

 

Requiring states to all use proportional Electoral votes clearly will require an amendment.

 

Lockstep...

 

Why? Quote the article in the Constitution if you can,

 

Amendment 12

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

 

And exactly where does that say that the electors have to all vote for the candidate that got the most popular votes. The answer is it doesn't. But thanks for trying.

 

Pay attention.

I never said it requires they all vote in unison. FYI, some started currently choose not to all vote for the majority candidate.

I said there would need to be an Amendment to require them to proportionally spread out their electors.

Are you up to speed now?

 

Then that would produce the same result in terms of percentages as would be produced by counting the popular vote with some probably minor "rounding" error, wouldn't it?

 

Right, but you're the one who made the absurd statement that "Hillary only won the mythical "Popular Vote Election" because Trump was too busy running for President to oppose her."

 

Aside from the fact that you know virtually nothing about Marxism, let's take a moment to consider YOUR knowledge of the Constitution and your advocacy....

What about the "Equal Protection Clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment when it prohibits a private business owner from discriminating based upon race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation? Should an employer be allowed to refuse to hire gays or Muslims?

What about the 9th Amendment (unenumerated rights) that is often cited by the S.C. as being one of the reasons behind the their decision? Example: Roe v Wade decision that cited the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments in the decision. Should we keep Roe v. Wade?

What about Article VI and First Amendment that create the prohibition against the establishment of religion by our government? Should bible verses be displayed in any government building? Should Christian expressions by politicians as their support for policy be allowed?

What about due process of the law based upon the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments related to enforcement of our immigration laws that target Hispanics that may or may not be undocumented aliens or US citizens?

What about the Eight Amendment that prohibits our government from ever inflicting cruel and unusual punishment when it comes to waterboarding and other torture?

 

It sucks and we don't have that nonsense here. So.....

 

Nailed 'em!

 

Nope, since the number of electorates in a state is not proportional to the population.

 

No you said a Constitutional amendment would be required. You haven't demonstrated that yet. By nice try at whatever that nonsense about voting in unison was all about.

And what exactly does this part of your post mean:

"some started currently choose not to all vote for the majority candidate."

 

"IS not". But you said "Well I think you can keep the electoral college but proportion the votes for each candidate acvording to the percentage of the popular vote in the state."

To which I replied "Then that would produce the same result in terms of percentages as would be produced by counting the popular vote with some probably minor "rounding" error, wouldn't it?"

I guess I don't know what you're proposing since it sounds like you contradicted yourself. I think we need language precision.

 

1. That statement wasn't written well... What I meant was that since Nebraska and Maine already split their electoral votes, I clearly wasn't saying that it takes an Amendment for states to split their votes voluntarily.

2. OK - Here is why an Amendment is needed in order to force states to proportion their electoral votes in any specific manner. Note that the constitution is speaking about the individual state's legislatures, not the federal legislature.

US CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2
SECTION 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

I think you are correct that it would have to be up to the states to impliment such a plan unless the Constitution is changed. Indonstill think such a changevwould be good gor the functioning of our Democracy.

 

I agree.

If California and NY want to start the ball rolling, I'll live with that.

 

Yep that of course is the problem . Republicans want blue states to change and Democrats want red states to change, I think we can rationally assume America is done. May take a few decades to die but no question given the stupidity of the fringes on both sides die it will.

 

Because they hate us and could care less when illegals do us harm.

Released Thanks To California’s Sanctuary State Law, Man Went On ‘Reign Of Terror’ Two Days Later
x


A man who had already been deported twice before went on a “reign of terror” this week in central California, one that included murder, attempted murder, robbery, carjacking, and a high-speed chase going the wrong way on the highway. All of that could have been prevented if local sheriff’s had been allowed to turn Gustavo Garcia over to ICE just two days before his rampage, but a new state sanctuary law prevented that.

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) saw that Garcia was under arrest they asked the police to turn him over. From the Visalia Times-Delta:

Thanks to a new sanctuary state law, sheriffs were required to release him last Friday without notifying ICE. The next day, Garcia was wandering around the local Walmart asking strangers to buy him bullets. He couldn’t purchase them on his own because of his long criminal record. After he was turned down by at least one wary shopper, Garcia stole 300 rounds. Then on Sunday afternoon, less than 48-hours after his release from jail, Garcia went on a crime spree. Fox News reports how the spree began:

Garcia’s rampage started at around 1 p.m. Sunday when he shot a farm worker who was in the middle of unpacking fruit in Exeter. The farm worker was expected to recover.

Moments later, Garcia robbed a convenience store with surveillance footage showing Garcia firing shots at the ceiling and demanding more than $2,000 in cash, according to the Fresno Bee. Police believe the shooting of the farm worker was meant to be a distraction for the robbery.

At 7:30 p.m., Garcia shot a Motel 6 guest in the arm and chest in Tulare, police said. Her wounds weren’t considered to be life-threatening…

At around 1:30 a.m. Monday, Garcia shot up a Shell gas station near Pixley and then killed Rocky Paul Jones, 51, about an hour later outside an Arco AMPM in Visalia, police Chief Jason Salazar said…

He then fired shots from the backyard of his ex-girlfriend’s Visalia home as she and her children were inside. Police said the girlfriend and her children escaped unscathed.
​

Early Monday morning, police spotted Garcia in his car and gave chase. From ABC 30:

At around 6:30 a.m., Tulare County Sheriff’s deputies spotted Garcia’s vehicle and started a brief pursuit.

Garcia’s car became disabled, and he started shooting at two deputies once he got out.

Those deputies were able to return shots at Garcia, who ran into an orchard.

Garcia carjacked some farmworkers in the orchard, but this time Visalia Police spotted him leaving the area, and started a pursuit.

Near Strathmore, the California Highway Patrol says Garcia started going the wrong way on Highway 65, trying to intentionally hit other cars, going at least 100 miles per hour.​

Garcia finally crashed into several other cars and was ejected from the vehicle he had stolen driving. He died at the scene. ICE released a statement yesterday about the incident:

This deadly rampage could have been prevented if ICE had been notified of his release. This is an unfortunate and extremely tragic example of how public safety is impacted with laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies’ ability to cooperate with ICE.​

The officials who defied Federal Law should be held liable in these deaths, injuries and property damage.

 

The Democrats policy is...


Sneak into America
Victimize Americans
Get caught clog system
Get deported
Repeat

Obama deported so many people because he was deporting the same ones over and over again. Until you realize that democrats are America's enemies and are trying to destroy the country none of their actions will make sense.