News Obituaries Community Sports Opinion Religion Special Sections Photos Contact us Customer Service Email Updates
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

All leading Democratic presidential candidates reject present constitutional language in electing future presidents of the United States. Opponents of the Electoral College seek to alter a process that has worked for well over 200 years. Fueled by Clinton's winning the popular vote yet being denied the White House and unable to get two-thirds of the states as constitutionally required to consider altering this part of the Constitution, some seek to reject the Constitution instead.

They call their plan the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In it, participating states would allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner of the state popular vote, thus potentially disenfranchising the popular vote in many states, perhaps even in a majority of states.

There exists no language in the Constitution authorizing a popular vote for the executive branch of government. Such came about in 1824 after the Electoral College denied the presidency to highly temperamental Andrew Jackson, the most popular man in America due to his success in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His supporters, believing the denial to be an injustice, created a straw vote so that the people could participate in the election even though this vote had no power.

Over time, the media empowered it by treating it as the "legitimate" vote for the president, belittling the College process as unfair and undemocratic. Seldom does the media remind us that it works because we are not a democracy, but a republic, and that none of the branches of government are democratic, most especially the Senate and Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson had to wait until he could convince the seasoned citizen voters of the Electoral College that he was not too emotional for the office. He did so four years later in 1828. Moreover, today the media seldom covers the real election of the president in December; such is their disdain for it.

Those unable to get a two-thirds vote to remove the Electoral College, as required in Article V of the Constitution, have conceived a brilliant but subversive plan to do just that without the constitutional amendment required. When enough state legislatures have committed their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, and that number is 270 or above, remaining states will be required to support as well. Wham! Almost without any public debate outside state legislatures, and seemingly overnight, the popular vote will replace the Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected. A few highly populated states would decide for the rest of the country -- something decidedly opposed by our Founders.

Ironically, proponents ignorantly use a small portion of the Constitution to destroy a larger portion. They cite Article II, Section 1, which reads, "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." This, they say, gives state legislatures the right to award their electors as they see fit. Actually, the phrase allows the state legislatures appointing powers only. To suggest that they should have influence over their voting, once selected, nullifies the reason for their existence. The Electoral College was to be a non-governmental body completely separate and unaccountable to the State Legislature once appointed, as per the rest of the section. Certainly the phrase did not authorize states to simply alter or dump Article II, Section 1, and Amendment 12 of the Constitution, which is the effect.

Moreover, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact also violates Article I, Section 10. This prohibits states from entering into "alliances," (compacts) with other states unless Congress gives its consent. Certainly, conspiring states have entered into an alliance to nullify the Electoral College, which mandates the right of individual states to choose the president.

At present, 15 states (almost all Democratic) and the District of Columbia, a combined electoral vote total of 196, have come on board -- 74 short of the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to impose this upon the rest of the country and nullify a long-standing pillar of the Constitution. Oregon, June 12, 2019, is the most recent state to join the unconstitutional alliance voting to change the Constitution without amending it as required by the document.

Unfortunately for those who revere the Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to balance the vote so that rural Americans would not be disenfranchised by urban Americans, those who oppose the Electoral College are emboldened by Hillary Clinton's receiving the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election but yet being denied the presidency. Still, it is well to remember that only California gave Clinton its popular vote. In the other 49 states, Donald Trump won the popular vote. Without the Electoral College, Clinton would be president due to the popular vote of but a single state, disfavored by all others. How is that just, balanced or even democratic?

Granted the Electoral College is the most difficult part of the Constitution to understand and is easy to oppose because it is undemocratic, but spend some time to understand it. A patriot and constitutionalist will see through the scheme to destroy it without the debate and transparency required in Article V. No end-run around the Constitution should ever be permitted.

Harold W. Pease, Ph.D., is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Editorial on 09/11/2019

Print Headline: Democrats propose rejecting constitution in electing president

Sponsor Content

Comments

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT