A Republic, if you can keep it
When queried about the type of government the Constitutional Convention had just created, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Each generation of Americans must fight to retain that delicate balance between tyranny and anarchy that we like to call a Constitutional Republic.
The National Popular Vote Initiative, should it pass, would destroy our Republic.
It really is that simple.
In 1787 the Framers of our Constitution rejected the concept of a national popular vote, and so must the members of the Louisiana Legislature.
The National Popular Vote (NPV) not only guts the Electoral College, a fundamental governing principle of our government, but it does so in an underhanded supra-constitutional manner.
The NPV initiative is specifically designed to bypass constitutional amendment procedures that have successfully guided our nation for over 200 years by creating a “side-deal” between states.
The US Constitution is designed to be amended rarely and slowly and only after a great deal of debate. The NPV attempt to bypass these time-tested procedures for constitutional change is almost as insulting as the original idea itself.
I hope you will call your legislators and ask them to vote against HB 388 and SB 126.
The number to the capitol is 225-342-2456.
Charlie Davis
Charlie Davis is the President/CEO of the Republican Leadership Conference, founder of Liquid Ventures, former Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana and the Treasurer of the Louisiana Family Forum.
[...] cross posted at The Hayride. Sponsored Content Tweet | Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = [...]
It’s pass time for Americans to rise up and root out every element of Socialism and Marxism in our Government (elected, appointed, hired, et al) and Learning Institutions!!! It pass time before this slow fundemental change to cripples America!!! We need to call them what they are and confront this issue head on – the heck with pc!!!
[...] or Senate, and even harder to imagine that Gov. Bobby Jindal would sign on to such a plan. But as Charlie Davis posted here at the Hayride earlier today, killing HB 388 and SB 126 through public pressure before either can gain momentum wouldn’t [...]
What a worthless article- you give NO education or facts. You don’t even appear to KNOW what “republic” means, because whether or not the President is elected by electoral college, we are still a republic. The difference is in states rights vs national rights. As Madison called it Federalist (states) and National. In Federalist paper #39 he explains that there should be a balance between Federal and National governance and that the President is elected thus because it is a balance.”…the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the People of America; and the People will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the Legislature of a particular State. So far the Government is National, not Fœderal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the Government is Fœderal, not National. The Executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the Legislature which consists of the National representatives; but in this particular act, they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the Government, it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many Fœderal as National features.” Federalist 39 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist/39
I don’t think I’d quote the Federalist Papers in support of a scheme to
impose direct democracy in presidential elections, as the Founding Fathers
would roll in their graves like alligators at the idea of the NPV becoming
law.
The NPV is a crackpot scheme and those politicians taken in by it should
bear the most awful career consequences possible in this fall’s elections.
It’s telling that you consider democracy to be something that is imposed; the only people against democratic participation are tyrants and their sympathisers.
We live in a representative republic, not a direct democracy. And if you
don’t know the difference then you’re not qualified to intelligently discuss
the complete destruction of our current system of presidential elections.
I am NOT in support of NPV, I am criticizing the lack of understanding displayed by the republican author and the lack of education of the neophyte on the matter. The nonsense about the republic is so patently foolish that even middle school kids know it is not right. Democrats are not being challenged on the merits of what is right, but with some easily dismissed drivel. It cannot be allowed to stand. Educate yourselves and argue the dadgum issue properly!
Now, on the matter of the balance between national and federal mentioned in the Federalist Paper #39, it makes little difference now, since the 17th amendment changed senate elections from state legislature to general election. Any balance intended by Madison was shot to hell with that. The last argument that can be made is in holding on to the last semblance of balance. In all actuality, had we switched to a general election prior to 2008, Obama would have won with 53% instead of 67%, so it skews Republican, but that cannot be allowed to influence the move away from the electoral college.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the real reason to switch from the electoral college is to facilitate election fraud, which cannot be allowed to happen.
The reason a republic is preferred over a straight democracy is given in Federalist paper #10. Mr Madison seems to be wary of factions who might abridge the rights of others. A representative democracy controls for the effect of special interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
So while one may feel like they are operating from clever clever land with their silly “tyrant” charge, this is actually WELL WORN ground that was argued out a couple hundred years ago. Those new to the history are just showing their ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
I wouldn’t quote wikisource either…I have found highly unreliable.
Bills like this are a prime example in exposing the of the dumbing down of America. No one in the general public seems to care enough to protect the electoral college because they don’t know our own history, nor understand the significance of it.
The purpose of this interstate compact is to re-elect the liberals as Obama attempts to enforce executive order to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, quietly loosen the immigration laws for Muslims, have the Supreme Court to free tens of thousands of inmates from prisons in CA, and so forth.
If this has NOT YET hit home with you, then we are in deep doo-doo! Please
take the time to understand what the National Popular Vote will do to our
country. It will change the dynamics of our election process and our Constitutional
traditions of the Electoral College could be forever lost.