Below is my column in Fox.com on the move by Democrats to change the Electoral College before the 2028 election. Once a critic of the college, I began to change my own views years ago while writing Rage and the Republic and exploring the growing challenges to our constitutional system. If successful, the move could effectively nullify the Electoral College and give high-population, blue states a dominant position in selecting presidents. The result could lead to the realization of long-awaited changes to our constitutional system that could guarantee effectively one-party rule for years to come.
Here is the column:
After the midterm elections, the Democrats are moving in for the kill.
Liberal politicians and pundits realize that the losses by the Republicans may only represent a fleeting, and indeed predictable, shift in power. While played up by the media, the results this month are consistent with prior administrations. For example, the GOP’s loss of roughly 46 seats is modest compared with other presidents such as Roosevelt (79), Obama (69), Truman (68), and Clinton (54). Thus far, Trump is just making the top ten. Presidents like Obama, who experienced massive losses, came back to win second terms.
The Democrats are not waiting to find out. They are moving to help guarantee they can take the White House and, with control of both houses, implement radical changes to ensure they hold power for years to come. That includes finally negating the Electoral College to increase the power of high-population blue states such as California and New York.
As discussed in my recent book, Rage and the Republic, academics and pundits have been discussing radical changes (including trashing the Constitution) for years. The key is to destroy minority protections by killing the filibuster and create an insurmountable majority by adding new states like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The most important initial objective is packing the Court with an immediate liberal majority to allow for measures that would likely be struck down.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to make these changes possible. None of this is possible with a Republican in the White House.
The Democrats know that they are unlikely to attain a veto-proof majority. They need to get a president who will help pack the Court, add states, and make fundamental changes to the constitutional system.
That goal may now be attainable.
With a slew of new Democratic governors, Democrats believe they may have enough states to sign on to a compact to effectively nullify the Electoral College.
The Framers saw the College as a way of protecting small states from being overwhelmed by high-population states. It was designed to get presidents to take the interests of small states seriously and to protect political minority populations.
In my book, I raised the increasing importance of the Electoral College and other protections for small states and minority political groups in our system. I was a late convert, and I previously criticized the College for producing elections in which candidates won the majority vote but lost the electoral vote. I still share those reservations with a majority of Americans, who are polling at 58 percent in favor of electing presidents by popular vote.
I still believe that a president elected by less than a majority of the public is deeply problematic. This is not, however, the time for such a change and, if anything, the push for direct democratic reforms only reaffirms the judgment of the Framers that this is an important limitation for the nation.
Clearly, many people who are calling for this reform are not seeking one-party rule. Likewise, many of us who are now skeptical about the change raised those concerns before recent elections. We should be able to have this debate without personal or political animus.
The direct democratic reforms being pushed by professors and pundits risk dangerously destabilizing our constitutional system. Many on the left want to unleash more direct democratic power, including calls by groups like the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) to eliminate the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the presidency. The nullification of the College is part of the direct democracy movement.
Witnessing this movement (and the support of establishment figures), I changed my mind about dumping the College as part of a package of reforms that could fundamentally change our Republic.
With one-party control in states like Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the party is ready to get states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the Compact, states agree to give all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the national popular vote.
The constitutionality of the Compact has obviously not been tested. There are compelling arguments that such a constructive amendment of the Constitution is unlawful. The Supreme Court has described the constitutional system as creating a “finely wrought” system of procedures designed to preserve a balancing of powers and avoid both the concentration of power and majoritarian abuse. The compact is designed to avoid the Article V amendment process precisely because the advocates know that they would have a difficult time securing such a change to our Constitution.
Ten years ago, I would have applauded this effort. Now I am deeply concerned.
We are in the midst of a national fever as politicians fuel the rage of citizens, including newly elected members who proudly say that they will happily go to jail if they have the opportunity to assault certain Republicans physically. Yet, the greatest danger is found in those establishment figures encouraging Americans to abandon constitutional values and institutions as “nostalgia” and condemning those who seek only “incremental” changes.
In Rage and the Republic, I explore these changes in both a historical and contemporary context. It is a book about revolutions and how they can consume those who start them. It is a history that resonates more deeply as new far-left members of Congress promise “revolutionary” change, including those supporting the DSA agenda.
Many current proposals from liberal politicians and pundits are strikingly similar to those of the “Jacobin” movement in the French Revolution. Both the American and French revolutions arose during the same period, but one became the world’s oldest and most successful Republic while the other became a blood-soaked tyranny known as “The Reign of Terror.”
The Jacobins (who were composed of radical journalists, writers, and lawyers) pushed for the same unicameral system and direct democratic measures that many are now advocating. Even figures such as Thomas Paine (one of two figures who played a significant role in both revolutions) supported such measures to allow for more direct democracy. He later came to regret some of those views as the French Revolution became the blood bath known as “the Terror.”
The New Jacobins are seeking to pursue the same disastrous reforms.
The Framers rejected this approach and warned future generations against adopting such direct democratic measures. Benjamin Rush, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, referred to it as democracies becoming “mobocracies.”
We are now toying with the very elements that could produce the mobocracy that the Framers sought to avoid. There are good-faith reasons for converting the presidential election to a majority election. However, with the assault on our constitutional values and traditions, citizens cannot afford to ignore a broader agenda unfolding in the wake of the midterm elections.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
I think this compact is both bad policy and unworkable, but I don’t see any valid arguments that it’s unconstitutional.
In particular, if you think the interstate compacts clause is an obstacle to it, unfortunately for you the Supreme Court decided in 1893 that it only applies to compacts that enhance the states’ power at the expense of Congress’s power. Any compact that doesn’t do this is none of Congress’s business, and therefore doesn’t require its consent. See Virginia v Tennessee. Since this compact doesn’t affect any power of Congress, it follows that the signatory states can implement it without anyone’s permission.
However I think it’s unworkable. I simply cannot believe that if it comes into effect, and a Republican wins the popular vote but not enough states to carry the electoral college, the California legislature will allow its electors to vote for the Republican. Between the general election and the electors’ meeting the legislature will change its mind and select Democrat electors, and insist that their votes must be counted despite not having made the safe harbor of the Electoral Count Act.
As explained in Wikipedia, if the compact would prevent a presidential election from being thrown into the House of Representatives, it would indeed enhance states’ power over Congress’s. Therefore Congress must accede or else the compact is unconstitutional.
No, it wouldn’t. Congress has no right to have the election thrown to the House. That’s merely what happens if no one gets a majority of electors. It’s not a power of congress, and indeed hasn’t happened since 1825. Which means the current system does a good job of ensuring that one candidate always has a majority of electors. This compact would simply do a better job of it, and guarantee that someone gets a majority. Instead of an election being thrown to the House being extremely improbable, it would become impossible. That’s not a diminution of Congress’s powers.
Yet more completely disingenuous garbage from Turley who is supposedly a scholar of the Constitution.
Turley is trying to imply that the Constitution requires a state to allocate its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in that state, and that any other allocation would be unconstitutional.
THIS IS FALSE.
Turley knows that this is false, but he is trying to imply otherwise without explicitly saying so. In other words he is being deliberately disingenuous to feed the rage of the MAGA mob.
The Constitution explicitly says “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”
Each state is perfectly free to allocate electoral votes in any way they choose. In recent times most states have simply allocated all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes, but that is NOT a constitutional requirement. In fact, Nebraska and Maine do not use a winner take all allocation. They award 2 votes to the overall winner and then 1 vote to the winner in each congressional district within the state. Conveniently, Turley does not address this situation. Why? Obviously because Nebraska and Maine have traditionally been Republican states. Apparently Turley has no problem when red states change the allocation of electoral votes.
So it is plainly obvious that there is no constitutional requirement for how votes are allocated. States can do whatever they want.
It is also interesting that Turley states that 10 years ago he would have agreed with doing away with the Electoral College, but now he has changed his mind.
So what changed his mind??? It is obvious. Ten years ago he discovered the financial rewards of writing for Fox and the NY Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch, and the bastions of MAGA madness. Now he writes this kind of garbage because he is handsomely rewarded for doing so.
The disingenuous garbage is from you.
Turley is trying to imply that the Constitution requires a state to allocate its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes in that state, and that any other allocation would be unconstitutional.
THIS IS FALSE.
Indeed it is false that Turley is trying to imply any such thing. Nothing in his article makes any such implication. It exists only in your head.
It is also interesting that Turley states that 10 years ago he would have agreed with doing away with the Electoral College, but now he has changed his mind. So what changed his mind???
Ten years of experience and research into what the founders intended. Note that he has changed his mind on whether it’s good policy, not on whether it’s constitutional.
milhouse
Turley clearly IMPLIES that making changes to the Electoral College would be unconstitutional, but without explicitly saying so.
Turley states (referring to changing the Electoral College): “The result could lead to the realization of long-awaited changes to our constitutional system”. No it would not. There would be no constitutional change. States can allocate electoral votes in any way they choose. Turley is trying to IMPLY that there is some constitutional problem with changes to the current method of allocation.
Turley states (referring to the suggested Compact): “There are compelling arguments that such a constructive amendment of the Constitution is unlawful”. The compact would not in any way be a “constructive amendment”, and therefore not in any way be unconstitutional. States can allocate electoral votes however they choose.
Turley states: “The compact is designed to avoid the Article V amendment process precisely because the advocates know that they would have a difficult time securing such a change to our Constitution.” This is completely false and disingenuous. The compact changes nothing in the Constitution. The only change would be how the states allocate electoral votes, and the Constitution explicitly states that the method of allocation is entirely up to the individual states.
Turley is desperately trying to imply that changes in the allocation of electoral votes is somehow unconstitutional.
This is completely false.
Turley clearly IMPLIES that making changes to the Electoral College would be unconstitutional, but without explicitly saying so.
No, he doesn’t. The implication is all in your head.
The closest he comes is when he says there are “compelling arguments” that such a constructive amendment of the Constitution is unlawful, and links to an article listing such arguments. I don’t find them compelling, but that’s for each person to read and decide for themselves. And he doesn’t endorse those arguments in this article; he merely refers to them for the reader’s edification. In this article he merely argues that it’s a bad idea, which I agree with.
The compact would not in any way be a “constructive amendment”,
It certainly would be. You seem not to understand the word “constructive”.
It would in no possible way be an amendment, “constructive” or otherwise.
The Constitution explicitly says “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”
How exactly would the suggested compact “amend” this in any way?
The answer is the compact neither amends nor “constructively” amends the Constitution in any way.
State legislatures are completely free to allocate electoral votes in ANY way they choose. They are perfectly free to completely ignore the votes of their constituents and allocate electoral votes to whomsoever they choose. They are completely free to allocate votes to a person who was not even a candidate. They are completely free to come to agreements with other states about the allocations. They can do whatever they choose with regard to allocation of votes. The Constitution does not in any way constrain how state legislatures allocate electoral college votes.
What part of this do you not understand?
Apparently Turley does not understand this, but the most likely explanation for today’s absurd article is that he is deliberately trying to have it both ways by IMPLYING constitutional problems, where non exist, for no other reason than to stoke the rage of the MAGA mob.
Again, everything you wrote is correct, but the fact remains that this would be a constructive amendment. It would function as if it were an amendment. Except for the saving grace that any state could change its mind at any time and pull out of the compact.
No, you are absolutely wrong that if any state changed its allocation of electoral votes, then that would be a “constructive ” amendment.
Amendment of what exactly? The Constitution places no constraints on how any state allocates electoral college votes. The only possible amendment of the Constitution would be to require states to allocate votes in a specific manner, and that is absolutely not what is happening here.
You correctly state that any state could pull out of the compact at any time, and therefore this proposal can not in any way be construed as some kind of amendment of the Constitution. If it had the effect of some kind of amendment, then states would not have the option to pull out. They would be compelled to comply with the amendment. The proposal is perfectly legal and constitutional. There is no constitutional issue of any kind.
Why can’t you understand this?
I’m saying that in practice it would function as if it were an amendment. That’s what “constructive” amendment means.
No!!
“In practice” as you say, it is nothing more than states doing exactly what they are clearly and obviously allowed to do. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or federal law that requires states to allocate electoral votes in any particular manner. You seem to think that just because most states have historically chosen to allocate all electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in that state, then that sets some immutable standard that can only be changed by some “constructive” amendment process. That is not the case. States are perfectly free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of what they have done historically, and regardless of what any other state does. If a state chooses to change the method of allocation, I suppose you could describe that change as an amendment of STATE law, but that does not amend, or affect, the Constitution in any conceivable way, “constructive” or otherwise. It is simply a state enacting new legislation that has absolutely no constitutional issue of any nature.
“Yet more completely disingenuous garbage from Turley who is supposedly a scholar of the Constitution.”
Response: You most certainly are not a scholar of the Constitution. Wikipedia does not supplant brains and experience. You are the perfect case.
The Electoral College, and two Senators per state, are both the result of The Great Compromise. It is the only way all 13 colonies would ratify the Constitution. States rights for elections had to be embedded in that document.
That means that only a constitutional amendment can change either one.
In 1964 the Supremes struck down states having bicameral houses of one representing geography, and the other population, which was how the state senate in California had operated. When the ruling was challenged by pointing out the federal government has the Senate, the Supremes responded: that is a special case.
A special case meant it was embedded in the constitution. The Electoral College has the same status. What you may do within your own state in the name of democracy, may not be legal at the federal level.
There is the paradox. This is all about Hillary losing. She only needed 50% plus one vote to take all 54 electoral college votes in California. She got an extra 2.5 million. She doesn’t get extra electoral college votes though. All those 2.5 votes do count in the state and local races.
2.5 million votes equals almost 20 other small states. THAT is the purpose of the Electoral College and why the Supremes call it: a special case. The original 13 colonies wanted control over their own states’ politics, but, they did not want New York dominating national politics.
Fast forward, California should not decide, or negate the votes of 20 other states for national elections. The College worked as designed.
Were states to conspire to work around this constitutional mandate it would be considered illegal or unconstitutional.
If you notice ‘who’ is in the compact, they are all blue states big and small. If they were to attempt invoking this for a national election it would be like trying to succeed from the union. You don’t like the rules, you can’t get enough votes -3/4 of the states to approve a change- so you throw a tantrum and want to cheat your way around them.
The compact was waiting to have at least 270 electoral votes before going active. I am curious if it were in place in 2026, when Trump won the popular vote and the electoral votes, would all of those blue states given their electoral votes to him even if he lost in their individual states? Imagine the reaction of Gavin Newsom.
So get over it. We are a Constitutional Republic. Nowhere in the a Constitution are we called a democracy. The Electoral College and states’ rights are here to stay.
Jeff, you don’t seem to understand that this compact, if it were to go into effect, would not actually abolish the electoral college — which would indeed require an amendment — but would merely guarantee that the winner of the popular vote would also win a majority of electors. I think that’s very bad policy, and it’s also unworkable, but it is constitutional.
Fast forward, California should not decide, or negate the votes of 20 other states for national elections. The College worked as designed.
California’s electors are going to be Democrats. Thus the only way California’s participation in this compact could “negate the votes of 20 other states” is if those 20 states, as well as California, vote Democrat, but the majority of the popular vote goes Republican.
Your one good point comes at the end: I am curious if it were in place in 2026, when Trump won the popular vote and the electoral votes, would all of those blue states given their electoral votes to him even if he lost in their individual states?
Exactly. It’s impossible to imagine. If that were to happen, California and New York, and all those other Dem states, would change their minds and pass new legislation appointing their electors according to the wishes of the majority in their state. There’s no way to stop them. So the whole scheme is unworkable.
The major effect of the Electoral College was to allow the slave-holders to breed more representation for themselves. That got capped at the 3/5ths of stolen representation transferred to the enslavers.
Successful nullification of the original intent of the Electoral College should be coupled with a legal mechanism for States, likely the smaller, less populous ones, to secede from the Union. The basis for secession would be that the contract that the states made with the federal government included the Electoral College protection afforded to smaller states and with its nullification, that contract has been breached.
Estovir (Vicente), most of those small states are not substantial enough to seceed from the U.S.
How is Delaware going to be a country?? How do the Dakotas become a stand-alone nation?? Your comment here is ridiculous!
Even if all the little states formed a national confederation, they still wouldn’t have a solid map or the economic power to be an alternative country.
The Dakotas simply become part of Alberta so the rest of Canada can be the 50th state and not the 51st.
They would have the choice to form a confederation that would not subject their citizens to the effects of perpetual one-party rule that they would have no reasonable chance to change. That’s the point, moron-anon.
That compact only works because of large blue states signing on. Otherwise they would never get to 270 electoral votes which is when they would go active. Invoking this compact would be seen as illegal and unconstitutional.
State and local elections can and must be by popular vote as a 1964 Supreme Court ruling states.
But that ruling also allowed the Supremes to state: the National Senate representing states instead of population is special. It is imbedded in the constitution as is the Electoral College. The Supremes would see the Compact as violating the Constitution. For a small state whose majority voted for one national candidate under the special rules for national candidates, have that result nullified by an extraneous agreement is just not constitutional.
The ‘special right’ of states rights superseding individual rights for national elections is why we are a constitutional republic.
The Supremes would see the Compact as violating the Constitution. For a small state whose majority voted for one national candidate under the special rules for national candidates, have that result nullified by an extraneous agreement is just not constitutional.
Sure it is. Nothing in the constitution gives the voters of a state a say in who their electors are.
If unconstitutional, the Supremes should say so BEFORE it becomes a Constitutional crisis!
But, they don’t prevent such crises, or at least need casework to come before them in advance. It would be much better for the country to know in advance how every Presidential election is to be decided. Don’t wait until a crisis unfolds.
Courts cannot give advisory opinions.
The bigger problem with eliminating the electoral college that Turley doesn’t mention is that it will provide a new incentive for the blue states to create votes. As it stands fraud can swing a state contest, but this is generally not needed given the dominance of one party blue states. However, when the electoral college decides the presidential contest such fraud is wasted. Once the electoral college is removed then creating such votes can and will swing the election. And there is no mechanism nor any means through the courts to review and change such an outcome. The blue states would suddenly be reporting their results and their candidate declared the winner. Fiat accompli.
Indeed, this is probably the strongest policy argument against it.
Estovir (otiose8, milhouse), look again at Tuesday’s results. There aren’t that many ‘red states’ anymore. So your analysis is already out of date.
Two years ago the red states were crowing over turning the battlegrounds. The idea that one midterm election changes the entire political landscape is just wishful thinking.
That depends on how realistic fraud is. Trump and Republicans have played the voter fraud BS for years without evidence its ever changed an election.
Many years ago, I had a fleeting thought that the popular vote seemed fair until I remembered the reason for the compromise at the Constitutional Convention that gave every state equal representation in the Senate and the Electoral College. Any state with a smaller population that agreed to eliminate the Electoral College would find itself without protection from the tyranny of the large-population states. The Constitution protects the rights of the minority. We are a republic, not a democracy, for a reason.
We are both a republic and a democracy. The founders repeatedly used both terms, and saw no contradiction between them. The idea that there is an important difference between the two terms is a much later invention.
Direct election of the president, to me, implies a need for further concentration of the votes mainly along the coasts. Over the long term, money and manufacture go to the population centers to create the greatest prosperity in the most densely packed parts of the nation, which in turn lead to partial depopulation of the interior, further concentrating the vote. Probably not just jobs, also UBI benefits, social welfare, housing, education. Along with that comes firmer guardrails for society with the velvet glove removed to keep the rat cages from exloding. It’ll take time, and many people will like it enough to keep voting to preserve it
I am not shocked or surprised by their anti-Constitutional rhetoric. What I am surprised about is how the party that was once of JFK now resembles the Soviet Union communists. And in such a short amount of time.
The Babylon Bee had an article about Democrats are relived they won and can go back to acting stupid and crazy again. Sure, it was satire, but looking at some of the things they have said in the past, it reads like Bee satire. But it is not. Very disturbing.
There are no illusions about what they have in store for anybody who defies them.
Upstatefarmer, communists? Come on. All that happened is republicans failed to adhere to their promises. Put out awful candidates and tried to gerrymander their way into more solid Republican majority.
Even with the massive amounts of spending it was all for naught.
Texas was the real shocker.
I fully expect to hear more things like this from Turley instead of laying blame where it belongs. On Trump.
The Democrats were never the party of Kennedy, rather Roosevelt. You uneducated boob. Soviet Union? Resembles? You fool.
“party once … JFK… resembles the Soviet Union communists.” Are you daft or sumptin man? Explain that?
Based on what? Something you read in the NY Post?
The blog article is a reason for limited federal government as expressed by the founders. If democrats continue all usnt list locally and by state. It simply means political segregation by states, counties and cities. It’s also a foreseen eventuality as SCOTUS has been empowering states.
Personally, this isn’t the US. It’s a nightmare by those who’ve never been there. And the poor shall get poorer, the meek shall inherit the earth.
Condolences and DJT is quite a fighter.
Limitations on mob rule was what encouraged smaller, interior states to join the Union. Now, Democrats are proposing that the contract be changed unilaterally 200 years later. That’s a bait-and-switch ever there ever was one.
Once North Carolina, Mississippi, Michigan, Nevada, and others understand they’ll be taking orders from weirdos in NYC, LA, and Chicago, they’re sudden infatuation with Democrats will vanish. Lift that drag queen’s skirt if you dare.
I see this as Democrat overreach on a titanic scale. IF we can ever settle this Iran conflict and IF President Trump can ever develop a flair for nuance, there’s opportunity here.
Didn’t Republicans try to for “mob” rule when they chose to redistrict before any new census?
One thing is 100% certain. Trump will never develop any flair for nuance.
Neither will you.
Folks, Democrats were gerrymandering aggressively for decades. They never admitted that, so the GOP responded in kind. Unfortunate, but there it all is.
Didn’t Republicans try to for “mob” rule when they chose to redistrict before any new census?
No, not at all. What possible connection could there be? Where did you get this idea that there may not be redistricting before a census? You made it up.
Didn’t say they couldn’t. But we all know they did it when Trump demanded the redistricting because republicans ‘deserved’ more seats. Those states happily obliged and as are well aware it failed spectacularly. They knew a majority of people were not happy with their policies. They wanted to rule. Not govern.
If they had known people were unhappy they would never have done it, because it reduced their margins in seats they held.
Says the dunderhead who never ran a campaign of any size or aided one. George, you are the ultimate big mouth fool.
Article 1, section 10, in relevant part:
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, …, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,”
See Virginia v Tennessee, which ruled that this applies only to those compacts that enhance the contracting states’ power at the expense of Congress’s power. Otherwise it’s none of Congress’s business and the clause doesn’t apply.
As the court pointed out, suppose the state of California decides to rent an office in NYC, in a building owned by the state of New York, could anyone possibly imagine that they would need to submit the lease to Congress for approval?! And yet that is what a literal reading of the clause suggests. Therefore it can’t be read literally.
We should not overlook the fact that pure Democracy (without an Electoral College) gave us Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, the so-called State of Palestine, Iran, and pretty much every place on earth from which countless people always are voluntarily leaving (you know, like Ilhan Omar) … so they can live in America (with an Electoral College).
@Stephen
Per the last: oh, I think they are very intentionally importing people from places that have historically lived in banana republics or under totalitarianism rather than free, more educated places (obviously putting other forms of nefarious profiteering aside, i.e. trafficking, etc.). These folks won’t find anything terribly odd about the ways the modern left governs. I’m amazed they haven’t brought back Cargo Cults at this point.
James,
What you say is no secret. It is the openly-advocated political platform of the Democrats. Some call it a political war. Some call it a culture war. Some call it a religious war. But everyone agrees … it is a war designed to end the United States of America that was created by the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. And the people who are waging the war openly and proudly admit it.
Yes!
And that too many with full bellies don’t see the war or its threat.
Jimmy Carter fought the world over to have ID to vote!
Today’s Democrats fight for no ID voting…where unverified ballots with ZERO chain of custody elect morons.
Millions of us served in the Military….with a large number of us doing so in actual direct combat with very capable enemy forces and did so both following taking an Oath to support and defend the Constitution then did so where we lost friends and some of were wounded in battle against Communist forces and those from radical Islamist regimes and organizations.
Now, we see Nikita’s Promise being fulfilled by those known as Useful Idiots and those that publicly declare their aims to destroy that very document that is the rock and foundation of. not only our government but our very life and freedoms.
No….there is not a Civil War coming over the Democrats stated agenda….it has already begun.
How it is going to be fought is what is unknown at this time.
The Professor has his historical sources and we can certainly learn from history. The one lesson he can certify is in time such revolutions come to an ugly end as what is being sold goes against the human spirit and the American understanding of “freedom”.
This Nation came about from a bitter war fought against the World’s strongest Army and Navy and by support of the French our ancestors won their freedom upon the battlefield and on the high seas.
Do the Democrats think that cannot and will not happen again?
The Constitution defines us….and as the Army Motto declares…..”This We Shall Defend” holds true today as the Day the Constitution was ratified and became the foundation of individual and collective freedom.
The Professor has seen the light and is on the right side of this situation.
Even Merle Haggard got it back during the Vietnam War days that so divided this Nation.
George Mason refused to sign the Constitution in 1787, in part because it lacked a bill of rights. That tells us something about how seriously the founding generation took protecting the people from government power.
Now imagine calling an Article V convention today and sending in our current political leadership, both parties. Does anyone seriously believe we’d come out of it with stronger protections for our individual rights?
I don’t.
Look at what both parties have done with the power they already have. They’ve spent decades expanding government, building up the administrative state, and weakening the restraints the Framers put in place.
So before anyone starts proposing fundamental changes to our constitutional system, I’d like them to explain exactly how those changes would make our rights more secure.
OLLY,
Oh, I do not think they would even try to explain. They would just give you a mealy mouthed answer to justify expanding the government, equality, and some other nonsense with no substance other than what it really is, is their attempt to establish one party rule.
Upstate, here’s another question. Why can today’s political leaders keep expanding government and weakening the Framers’ restraints when the founding generation wouldn’t have tolerated it?
It’s not that the founders had better politicians. In 1798 Adams and the Federalists passed the Sedition Act and jailed newspaper editors for criticizing the government. In 1800 the voters threw them out, and the Federalists never won the presidency again.
Same ambition. So what’s changed? The politicians, or the citizens who are supposed to hold them accountable?
We’re blessed to see that Anonymous is arguing with himself in this comment thread too. Predictable gaslighting, delusional, devoid of reality trolling.
Steve,
Well said.
Just scroll past. Nothing worth reading. Same of GSX.
Marine fighter jock canned for not following lawful orders: https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/pilot-navy-elite-blue-angels-200742704.html
The bigger problem is that the Presidential candidate pipeline has been selecting poorly qualified pretenders ever since Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. If that pipeline were working, we’d have 2 good choices and Presidential elections wouldn’t be so high stakes.
A popular vote system might be better, or it might not. It’s too hard to predict in advance how it would work. If the backers of NPVIC were authentic reformers, they would be proposing to adopt it experimentally for a fixed period of time (say, 3 cycles), after which a national referendum would decide to keep it permanent or revert to the E.C. system. That would show that they trust The People to make the ultimate value judgments, and are not doing NPVIC to game the system for partisan advantage.
The 2 major parties are destroying our nation with their self-serving power-grabs and abdication of governing responsibility. They have zero Constitutional authority to be doing things like claiming control over OUR Congress for the next 2 years, and erecting obstacles to seeking public office through Primary Elections. It amazes me that these arrogations of extra-Constitutional power have gone unchallenged for so long. If you haven’t noticed, the Primaries are letting us down right and left.
and that is because the activists in both parties control the primaries. Until more people get involved, that will continue to happen
I know, it’s like the only “activist” who gets a vote is Barack. He voted 1-0 for Hillary in 2016, 1-0 for Biden in 2020, and 1-0 for Kamala the moment he pulled the ripcord in 2024.
As things stand, there is no such thing as a certifiable national popular vote.
What? The counties and states certify vote totals, and anybody with a calculator can add. The NPVIC delivers slates of Electors for the Electoral College tally. They thought of how to overcome your objection decades ago. Try to keep up.
That didn’t take long, Turley already started with the pearl-clutching scares after the Republicans got their a$$es handed to them. No introspection or analysis of why Republicans and Trump lost so badly? I guess ignorance is preferable.
The irony of this article painting some dire consequences about newly minted blue states engaging in perfectly legal state compacts and one party rule is absolutely delicious. It’s funny how Turley didn’t seem to worry too much about one party rule when Trump demanded and got red states to redistrict to deny Democrats seats in Congress and increase Republican dominance before a census. They were doing the same thing while they controlled their redistricting power. Obviously it failed spectacularly. Especially in Texas. I’m surprised Turley didn’t bring THAT up.
Turley as well as a majority of Republicans don’t want to admit this election was a repudiation of their ‘governance’ and policies.
Trump’s constant lying and failure to stick to his promises finally caught up to him. A massive turnout of voters signaled that they’ve have had enough. What is funny is they have had enough so much so to the point that they are willing to vote in office more democratic socialists, a couple of Muslims, and…younger candidates.
Women, voters 18-30, and black voters all voted in record numbers. Hispanics turned on Republicans and Trump on a massive scale in Texas. That’s what happens when you betray their trust.
Overall, Turley finally found an angle to use to stoke the rage of the right in the face of a massive loss. Call it temporary comfort food for their trauma.
Today’s column made me put two things alongside each other. We often see the term “virtue signaling” as a jibe at pandering to the left. Robespierre’s “emanation of virtue” is no mere jibe. If we look at how the Democrats are describing the overhaul of government- no Senate, no Electoral College, neutered Supreme Court, executive branch very subordinated to a congressional House, the picture is this: the Constitution is too slow and too uncertain. It has become a prostate problem with BPH. We have to relieve the urgency with a transurethral resection through the instant gratification of one election cycle to place us in power forever. Seen that way, the next time we hear vitue signaling, ice water in the veins instead of fire in the belly counsels us to ask: “to what virtue are you pandering?”
democrats have been fighting a Civil War…since Obama’s 1st day!
It’s not so much a urological obstruction problem than a problem that will eventually lead to intractable bloody diarrhea.
This and packing the court will probably start a civil war