22 Members of California State Senate Haven’t Read the Constitution
This would appear to be the case after hearing that 22 Senators Voted to approve SB 37, an interstate compact that would allocate all of California’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular Vote. Voting was strictly along party lines, with Democrats supporting the legislation.
I have written about this several times before, expressing my concerns over this type of legislation. First and foremost is the fact that this is expressly unconstitutional. Article I, section 10 of the constitution states that no State shall enter into a compact with any other State without Congressional consent. I know of no such congressional consent, to date.
Yet, constitutionality aside, this is a bad direction for the country, and represents the willingness of California’s Democrats to sacrifice State powers in favor of federalization. The Electoral College provides a crucial balance between the popular vote and the interests of each State. The electors reflect the popular vote, but also provides a means to take the interests of individual States into account–much the same way the Congress combines popular will (the House) and State will (the Senate).
Senator Migden, who authored the bill, stated in a press release:
It is astounding to me that the world’s greatest democracy does not directly elect the President by a vote of the people. A national popular vote for President will, for the first time, make every vote equal. A vote in California will be as sought after as a vote in Ohio or Florida. That is not currently the case.
Of course, we are not a democracy, rather a constitutional republic. We do not directly vote on every bill, we elect people to vote for us. Thus, a popular vote would be inconsistent with the rest of our government. Furthermore, our votes are never equal. Wyoming has about 1/70th the population of California, yet has the same number of Senators. According to the logic of Democrats in the California Senate, we should also do away with the United States Senate (and the California Senate, for that matter).
I will admit that many people do not understand why we have an electoral college, so the prospect of a popular vote may be appealing. I would, however, expect a better understanding from a State Senator. It is my opinion that each State maintain a certain level of sovereignty and autonomy. The trend to federalize every issue has eroded this view from people’s minds. People now consider States little more than regions within the country. Yet, each State represents a unique entity, responsible for self-government. These 50 States are bound together to form the United States.
From the most fundamental levels, this is bad legislation. Unfortunately, virtually every Senate Democrat is willing to support this, against the constitution, against the interests of the States, and against common sense.
Cross Posted at The Gentle Cricket
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Since when did the Constitution ever matter? (To a Democrat, that is.)
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Please consider adding a link to my page: The
Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen for
free to 25 of America’s top talk shows via Streaming
Audio!
http://netradionetwork.com
Steve
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
It is constitutional. There are hundreds of interstate compacts and your state is a party to several, and as long as the compact doesn’t mess with federal authority, congressional consent need not be explicit. states can do whatever they want with their electoral votes, so by agreeing to combine them they are not threatening federal power. not only have those 22 senators read the constitution, but they clearly know more about constitutional law than yourself. look into it.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Don’t worry. The first time a Republican candidate wins the popular vote, the compact will evaporate
May 24th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Perhaps DOdemos can explain the value of a Californian’s vote when it counts for nothing.
And I stick by Article I Seciton 10:
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.
On the other hand, if this does go into law, (unlikely - the Governor vetoed it before), it’ll save us a lot of time by not going to the voting places.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
ZZMike, you and I read the constitution the same way. But, DOdemos is right that there are other interstate compacts that do not require congressional consent. However, matters that influence the federal government are not typically exempt.
DOdemos raises an interesting concept regarding the balance of powers. The constitution provides states the right to elect their electors in whatever manner they choose, yet I see this as being influential on the Federal government.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
States have absolute control over electoral votes, no matter what. If they want, they can give all their votes to whichever candidate is tallest. So the federal government can say nothing about how they choose to give away their votes, even if it involves a compact.
The value of a Californian’s vote under the current system is zero. California is a safe blue state, so all votes are taken for granted. The votes of republicans in CA are wasted because they don’t help the Republican candidate. With a popular vote, a californian’s vote will be worth the same as every other citizen. no votes can be taken for granted, and no votes are wasted. In a 51/49 % split, that 49% still helps the losing candidate in the state.
May 27th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
With all due respect, you are the one who needs to read the Constitution and study the jurisprudence of how interstate compacts work.
* First, you don’t need congressional approval to start the process of initiating and entering into a compact. If it needs congressional approval, there’s plenty of time to get it.
* Second, the federal courts have been very clear that congressional approval is only needed for compacts that infringe on federal powers. But allocating electoral votes is a plenary power for states — that’s why state don’t even need to hold elections to allocate their electors. So in this case, it’s far more likely than not that no congressional consent will be needed.
If you’re going to post multiple times on this point, at least do the research. It’s not hard to find information — see the book Every Vote Equal, which is something that can be downloaded via http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
August 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Is there a generic form of ultram….
Tramadol cyclophoria buy tramadol generic ultram. Is there a generic form of ultram. Generic ultram….