For it to be a compact requiring congressional approval, it has to change the power the states have over the federal government, which this does not do. This agreement just says they are changing the way their votes are cast, which is ALREADY something they have the power do to. I read up on this a lot this weekend. The fact that states had the right to change the way their EC votes were cast to, winner take all, set the precedent that they have the legal right to do what they are doing.
Try re-writing this in English...and I'll respond. In the meantime, you asserted that those Democrats claimed that perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and/or witness tampering does not warrant impeachment. I'm saying that is not true. You are either lying or mistaken. Why not cite some quotes from those people saying what you said they said. THEY DID NOT SAY THAT PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SUBORNATION OF PERJURY AND/OR WITNESS TAMPERING DOES NOT WARRANT IMPEACHMENT. If a juror votes not to indict an individual for murder or votes to acquit an individual of a charge of murder... ...THAT JUROR IS NOT SAYING THAT MURDER IS NOT A CRIME. Wake up, Man. Smell the coffee.
Irrelevant to the point. I am also not a resident of NY and so I get no vote -- this in no way means that everyone in NY, and everyone in the EC, gets one vote. You want person one vote - we already have it. As you said - I am not a member of the EC, and so my vote did not go to Hillary - the fact Trump did not win NY in no way means the votes in NY did not go to him. We have exactly the same representation on the EC as we have in Congress - excepting, of course, for DC, which has no representation on Congress. This cannot be true as the people in MT do not vote in NY elections, and vice-versa.
Absolutely, 100% false -- you made this up out of whole cloth. You have no factual basis whatsoever for your statement. It is a agreement and compact between the states - absent congressional approval it violates the constitution.
It's a recorded fact. The vote is a public record. They voted not to impeach or remove him because it did not arise to that level. "On December 8 and 9, lawyers for Clinton pressed his case before the Judiciary Committee, arguing that, whatever Clinton’s transgressions, they did not rise to the level of impeachment. The White House presented as witnesses several veterans of the Watergate process as well as the Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/clinton-impeachment/573940/ And the Democrats agreed. Tell me why do you think none of them voted to impeach him let alone remove him from office?
You said they said: Perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and/or witness tampering does not warrant impeachment. I defy you to produce one quote from any of them saying that perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and/or witness tampering does not warrant impeachment. I DEFY YOU TO DO IT. Just about all votes are public records. So what? What does that have to do with what any of those people said? They voted not to impeach or not to convict for lots of reason...BUT AT NO POINT DID ANY OF THEM SAY THAT perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and/or witness tampering does not warrant impeachment. For a variety of reasons. But none of them have said that they think that perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and/or witness tampering does not warrant impeachment. Professor Wilentz did not say that either. Read what he wrote.
The vile beetle dung hypocrites authorized perjury, obstruction, and treason with their vote. Clinton lied to the court, he lied to Congress, and he lied to America. Furthermore, he sold restricted technology to the Chinese Communist Party in exchange for campaign contributions. He was and still is a despicable, degenerate, depraved, conniving rat turd who ought to have been impeached, convicted, and hung for treason, just like the POS who is President now. Democrats make me want to puke at their vile hypocrisy, just like the wretched conservatives. They all would resign and apologize if they had one thread of decency.
Thank you. I accept your acknowledgement that you cannot post a single quote from any of those people saying what you claim they said. That wasn't that hard, was it?
Drop dead. UPOSL. Their vote said it all. You know who is responsible for the Trump looney Presidency? The Democratic Party for giving Clinton on pass on honesty, integrity, and character. Remember the debate between him and Bush? Remember the groans when Bush said character matters? I do.
If the vote were 51% to 49%, my interpretation would be the people are pretty evenly split between the two candidates. The electoral college would most accurately reflect the people's votes by also being evenly split. Why should the 49% get no representation at the national level simply because there are slightly fewer of them?
Follow the logic—How does one rebuild the middle class by violating the principle responsible for the Middle Class, free trade, i.e., capitalism? Cant be done—When the wealthy are looted, only the pull-peddlers gain, everybody else loses, especially the Middle Class, ObamaCare for example.
THEIR VOTES WERE RECORDED FOR PROSPERITY. But just to shut you up about your strawman "Speakers from both sides of the aisle repeated their parties' respective mantras: Republicans insisted Clinton forfeited his right to the presidency when he violated the rule of law. Democrats countered that the offenses did not rise to level of impeachment and pleaded for a censure resolution." https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/ As was this one, go look it up. Then why didn't the vote to impeach him and then remove him? Like what? There were 11 criminal charges filed including perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. The Democrats said NOPE, no impeachment no removal from office for those offenses. Well I don't particularly care but feel free to post what he said.
It is the will of the states that elect the President through the EC. The candidate must win STATES as we are the United STATES of America. The Constitution does not even mention the PEOPLE voting for or electing the President.
As I said States, territory and population. The Senate is supposed to represent the States, we should repeal the 17th Amendment and get back to that.
Then why do the states hold elections asking the people where the electoral college votes should go? Each state is free to choose their electors by any means. Each state has decided the people's votes are the deciding factor. All I'm saying is there's a smarter way distributing the electors than what they're doing now. How do you think the electors should be chosen? State legislatures? Names from a hat?
