Most political scientists would agree that the United States Constitution is a document that can be interpreted multiple ways, no matter who is reading it. Even if you subscribe to the originalist doctrine that interprets the document as it is written you will still find yourself disagreeing with other like-minded individuals on certain meanings. However, some lines within the document are simple enough for anyone to interpret. The left-leaning progressives who argue that the document “should be interpreted according to the modern interpretations of the present,” and that the “constitution is a flexible document” have to interpret certain process rules as they were originally dictated. For example, Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution states:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The rules seem pretty clear, right? This specific section directly conflicts with 14 states who have illegally entered into an agreement with each other to give their electoral college votes to whomever wins the national popular vote. By entering into an agreement with each other without using the utility of the Congress, these states are intentionally defying the Constitution. Each state passed these laws with the guidance of John Koza, the leader of the non-profit group “National Popular Vote” whose goal is to remove the influence of the electoral college in U.S. Presidential elections. Undeniably, with their legislation all being identical, this was not a spontaneous local uprising where the residents demanded to attach their vote to whatever the popular vote is.
Prior to 1824, no states bound their electoral votes to the popular vote within that state. They chose to allow the electors to decide, as the Constitution stipulates. Theoretically, we could return to this framework if other states decide to do so, however unlikely. On the other side of the hand, individual states could choose to tie their electoral votes to the national popular vote. That power is left to the states.
The fact that these 14 states entered legislation at identical times, with identical support, is why We The People have a grievance: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.” Notice the word “confederation.” This word obviously has historical relevance in America.
The Founding Fathers saw the the abuse of a tyranny by majority in the British parliament. Not to mention it is a simple observation of human nature: we like to gang up on the weak and different. They did not want to leave the selection of the most powerful office in the U.S. government to the masses. They chose to leave this power to the state electors. However, they still believed in individual state sovereignty, so they left the matter of how the electors vote to the states. It is a genius system. By trying to force every state to tie their electors’ votes to the winner of the national popular vote, we are welcoming in the tyranny of mob rule. New York, California, and Texas will decide every election. The smaller Midwestern states will never have a voice.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides on this, as they will undoubtedly face this dilemma prior to the 2020 Presidential election. Imagine if every state decides to attach their electoral vote to the national popular vote. I honestly wonder if the Founders foresaw this situation (and with where America is heading, it could become a reality.) I would contend that the court would argue that the founders never mention the concept of a “national popular vote” and that by superseding the electors’ delegated power, it is an unconstitutional process. The intention of the founders was to leave this power to the states, and their people. Why attach their vote to the votes of other states?
Through and through, the process for selecting the President was meant to be clear and unambiguous. Democrats in these 14 states have chosen to subvert the original intentions of the Constitution, and the will of the American people. Dr. Thomas Krannawitter of Speakeasy Ideas states it best:
The fundamental purpose of the Electoral College was to help form not merely willful numerical majorities in selecting Presidents, but reasonable majorities, or, at a minimum, moderate majorities, perhaps the closest practical thing to a reasonable majority.
We live in perilous times. 189 electoral votes make up the states that have passed this law. They only need 270. (It’s like holding the election now—for all future elections!)
Here is a list of the 14 states that have started an open rebellion against the United States of America and President Donald J. Trump:
California – Enacted into law
Colorado – Enacted into law
Connecticut – Enacted into law
District of Columbia – Enacted into law
Delaware – Enacted into law
Hawaii – Enacted into law
Illinois – Enacted into law
Massachusetts – Enacted into law
Maryland – Enacted into law
New Jersey – Enacted into law
New Mexico – Enacted into law
New York – Enacted into law
Rhode Island – Enacted into law
Vermont – Enacted into law
Washington – Enacted into law
Del, Jose A. “Should the Electoral College Be Eliminated? 15 States Are Trying to Make It Obsolete.” The New York Times. May 22, 2019. Accessed May 24, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/us/electoral-college.html.
“Presidential Election Goes to the House.” History.com. February 09, 2010. Accessed May 24, 2019. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/presidential-election-goes-to-the-house.
Speakeasy Ideas Newsletter. Feb 5, 2019. Accessed May 24, 2019.