Tuesday, August 22, 2006

California - again

"brazenly unconstitutional."
Even for the nutcakes who run California, this sets a new standard for lunacy. 

California would cast its 55 Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote under a bill designed to change the way the president is elected and increase the state's influence in national elections.

The bill, approved Tuesday by the Senate, would help draw candidates to the nation's most populous state for intensive campaigning, said Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who carried the bill in the Senate. AP Wire | 08/22/2006 | Senate backs plan to give electoral votes to popular vote winner


There is, potentially, a bright side.  When thirteen Southern states seceded from the United States in 1861, there was nothing in the Constitution that made it illegal. Only President Lincoln's fierce, almost singular opposition drove the Union to call them on it, and wage a four years war that saw 970,227 men killed, or wounded.  In this case, California has committed a grossly unconstitutional act, one that even the Looney Tunes 9th Circuit Court must recognize.  If they persist, we will, sadly, be duty bound to mobilize and destroy the freebooters.  When it's over, California shan't have electoral votes enough to override Idaho. The Barn Brigade stand at the ready. Oooh-Rah!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

SECONDED! But can we split Cali into 4 states, and merge 4 on the other side?

Casca

Anonymous said...

It looks like a loopy over-reaction to the 2000 presidential election. However, the choosing of electors (the members of the electoral college) is left up to the states. (See Article II, Section 1.) Traditionally, the electors have been determined by statewide elections, but the Constitution does not forbid other methods, like appointment by the governor or sale to the highest bidder. If this is what Cali really wants to do, then I think they'll get away with it. It just seems awful stupid to leave the choosing of your state's electors to the voters of other states.

Anonymous said...

I don't see anything unconstitutional about it. The states can choose electors any way they want to.

I think it's a win for the Republicans, actually...

Anonymous said...

G__ D___ It! @#%@&$!

I live in California...I'm surrounded with these nutcakes, and hear crap like this daily!

A couple of years ago, the libs in S.F. got together and decided to "vote" ATM fees out! As if they had a say in the matter!

There have been Board of Supervisor votes in cities all over N. California to endorse impeachment! (as if they have a say in the matter)

There is encouragement, however: Even generally liberal cities are starting to adopt ordinances that fine landlords who rent to illegals, and businesses that employ them!

A beam of light in an otherwise very dark tunnel.

Cuzzin Rick

Rodger the Real King of France said...

I knew better, sheesh.

''Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ..."

Only excuse is I'm preoccupied, and over eagereager to hget this thing started.

Anonymous said...

The states have no mechanism to punish faithless electors.

Every member of the electoral college who has ignored his mandate ( either state laws or a signed pledge ) and voted as he pleased has, so far, gotten away with it.

The only EC vote a libertarian had ever gotten was one cast by a republican elector who could not make himself vote for Spiro T. Agnew for VP.

That vote still stands ... heh.

Anonymous said...

I only stay here because I love the weather.

Anonymous said...

"It should be split into two states and two tiny Eastern states should be merged to keep a nice even 50."

Split CA into two states and convert Massachusetts into a source for human experimental subjects.

And I say that as a taxpaying resident of Massachusetts (state bird: Black-Capped Chickadee; scam: Big Dig).

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.