Tenth Amendment Center | The Power of the Oath and Holding Them to It
Step one, stop letting them overstep their authority.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"As MacDuff’s young son remarked in the Shakespeare play MacBeth, a traitor is one who lies. Swearing to uphold the Constitution and then intentionally assist in undermining is to lie.
These words may sound harsh, but Americans must decide whether they think the Constitution is worth speaking unpleasant truth. It goes without saying that many of the people who wrote the Constitution took far more drastic measures to secure our independence.
If we aren’t willing to call out those who violate their oath to defend Constitution, then all we do is make ourselves liars for claiming to care about its preservation. People enforce rules they believe in. If we won’t insist on constitutional fidelity, then we can’t honestly claim to care much about it. We have reached this point because the nation as a whole has lacked the courage to call out oath-breakers for one reason or another." from the source URL
The Short Version
Stop enabling
Take Control
Make Changes.
12M will do it just like the first one, where not all were involved. God bless all our efforts in that direction.
Instead, vote by write-in. That is where you can register your opposition.
In that case leave the presidential blocks unchecked and DO NOT do a write in.
As for other issues on the ballot it depends on the state if voting for any of those and not voting the complete ballot will cause an automatic vote. You should check with your local precinct or country elections officials.
Winner Steal All is responsible for a lot of the mess we're in today. If you have it think about backing a move to get rid of it. Without 'Winner Steal All is useful for a number of things one of them claiming landslides and mandatres when squeaker is more accurate.
Write-in vote totals are recorded separately from candidate votes. The Board of Elections later counts the Mickey Mouse votes and documents that separately but never adds it to the winner's vote tally. If the election is razor-thin close, within the statistical margin of accuracy of the voting system I would add, Write-In votes are scrutinized more carefully. But still, they are never arbitrarily added to the winner's vote tally.
Mike is simply confusing winner-take-all electoral votes with the popular vote. It's a common mistake among those who don't fully understand the mechanics of the vote counting system, along with its flaws.
Electoral time Regardless of popular vote you vote for Candidate A, B, or C.; one says I'm the Demo electoral vote, the other says I'm the Reublican electoral vote and a third says i'm the independent and I'll vote for whomeever will do best for our state. Most of those people complete unknowns and no one knows how they get ont he ballot to begin with. assuming the party or partys select them .
Assume three electoral votes are the ALL. does it mean the plurality winner takes all three regardless and regardless the popular vote or the popular vote rules and only that one delegate who stood for that one party or thre are three delegates with three votes but all from the same party. or if a majority of popular votes occur for one candidate and there are fifteen electoral votes then are fifteen from one party sent regardless of the others? Must be some rhyme or reason to saying winner take all and to California moving to a percentage system.
i understand the original version and he 12th amendment version what I don't understand besides 'winner take all' is how the delegates are chosen and since the state law is meaningless at the federal level how they are controlled. Yes I am confused. I had simply assumed if 1000 voted and one got 501 or more they would get credit for 1000.
Your state does better than mind I only wanted to know how many voted libertarian and how many independent or any other party and was told those figures weren't kept.
Why do I suddenly feel like I've been rolled and hosed and fllim flammed by the former two party system all these decades?
More I thinki about it more I think to thell with Democrats and Republicans what we need is a good house cleaning.
Any Electoral Board member that told you that Libertarian, independent, or write-in votes aren't kept is lying to you because he/she is a lazy, incompetent bureaucrat (redundant, I know...).
Many years ago, when I was active in the GOP, I learned that electors are chosen by the party from the most faithful, party activists. The State GOP groups determine the exact internal process by which this works.
So, about the vote totals on election night. Let's say GOP candidate gets 4,900,000 votes (49%), Dem candidate gets 4,800,000 votes (48%), and Libertarian candidate gets 200,000 votes (2%). Other assorted declared independent candidates split the remaining 100,000 votes (1%) with Mickey Mouse Write-in votes of 400 (0.004%).
For the above hypothetical state with 10,000,000 total votes (basically Texas, assuming 40% of the state voted...), there are 36 electoral votes to allocate. It's winner-take-all for electoral votes, so the state reports the following results:
1) GOP winner of all 36 electoral votes
with popular vote of 4,900,000 votes
2) Dem loser with 0 electoral votes
with popular vote of 4,800,000 votes
3) Libertarian loser with 0 electoral votes
with popular vote of 200,000 votes
4) Other declared independent candidate losers
with 99,600 popular votes split among them
5) Mickey Mouse Write-In loser
with 400 popular votes
I'm still going to call it Winner Steal All but now I can see how it works I can see why California started the move to change it to something more representative of the popular vote. which would make the hypothetical roughly 18 17 1 or there abouts.
To me it means 4,800,000 Democrats got their vote changed which to me is tampering. applying some ethics. I imagine roughly the same procedure was used within each party to apportion delegates for their primary and convention other than caucus states.
Very instructive and thanks for the assist.
I prefer the Hybrid allocation: Winner-Take-Most, technically called Winner-Take-All-By-Congressional-District. In this arrangement, recounts only happen at the contested congressional district level, not statewide. The winner in each congressional district gets that 1 electoral vote. The statewide winner gets the 2 electoral votes allocated to represent senators (state's interest). In this Hybrid system, it matches how Congress and the Senate are apportioned. It's not perfect either, but much better than a statewide Winner-Take-All. Maine and Nebraska are the only 2 states with this Hybrid allocation.
In my opinion, large states like California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois are the biggest offenders to voters in the minority, in terms of the scale of disenfranchisement. You would think the Dems would be appalled by this; but since it usually benefits them more, they say nothing...
The people's interests are represented by the number of House Representatives (435), while the state's interests are represented by the number of Senators (100). The number of electoral votes is the sum of the 2 numbers above: 535. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution gives the District of Columbia 3 electoral votes in presidential elections, which it would have if it were a sovereign state. So, the total number of electoral votes is 538. To win the presidency, a majority of electoral votes is needed: 270.
So, out of the President's 2 voting constituencies, the people's interests total 436 out of 538 (81%), while state's interests total 102 out 538 (19%). This is how, in a razor tight election like in 2000, a presidential nominee can sometimes lose the popular vote but win a majority of states and thereby win the presidency.
Dems, ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, have opposed all elements of American Federalism and have wanted to consolidate all power in the Federal government in Washington DC, making state governments basically irrelevant puppet governments. Dems have frequently wanted to eliminate the Electoral College and have Presidents elected only by the national popular vote, because they have always opposed all features of Federalism in the balance of power between the Feds in DC and the Sovereign States.
Republicans, throughout most of their history, have in the party platform continued to support American Federalism, to one extent or another. The RINO statist elements of the GOP do not, obviously. But rank-and-file GOP'ers and most conservatives do want less power in DC and more issues handled at the state level. So, while there isn't strong uniformity in defense of all elements of Federalism by the GOP, they have been the 1 major party coalition that many of us constitutionalists had some ability to influence up until 2016.
Now as to voting on other candidates in other races or on measures and questions and propositions I am not sure at all if leaving the Presidential line blank would still cause the autoflip. Still looking. Information on that part is not forthcoming but indications are the vote is flipped FOR ALL candidate races more often than not.
I did find this Make Our Vote Count Act which is the back up for having to face up to a None Of The Above election with a clear less than fifty % not registering and not voting. That would be Consent Withdrawn.
California Could Break Country's Electoral College System
democracychronicles.com › ALL NEWS › AMERICA
If it got on the ballot and passed, California would apportion electoral votes ... the votes of just a few thousand voters in a couple of smaller states, while largely ... Moreover, the “winner take-all” system of awarding electoral votes does not ... Once California enacts the Make Our Vote Count Act, Presidential candidates will ...
The winner take all law so far uncontested doesn't require anything more than A who got the most votes and b. Total votes cast. Consequently I asked about the measures or propositions both referral and intiative if there was nothing in the presdential area listed or written in. She indicated those would be counted and not changed as it 'was local business.
Since then i always tell people check your own precinct and county.
Establishment Republicans AKA Rinos and NeoCons had two wars going on internally. One was waged by the Rules Committee who were determined to follow the rules. They had received a significant number of complaints about Winner Take All as stealing votes by actually counting them in favor of one - other than - the voter had selected.
Remember the party and only the party controls it's own selection procedures In advance the Rules Committee stated they would honor all challenges for WTA and others as it did affect who were the proper delegates.
While Trump got more it was with the help of Winner Take All Without those extras it looked like Cruz was the actual winner based on the votes taken from Mario, Cruz and some establishment dude who were 2, 3, @4. ALL of their votes were more than Trumps. They also could not afford to alienate Trump voters the biggest plurality block and ignored their own rule at the RNC level.
Then comes the onslaught from the left followed by RNC is going to cave and drop Trum using - guess what? Winner take all.
The question now is ....at what point in the selection process does the control switch from State/Party to Federal.
At this point in time If they do that they destroy the Republican Party a chance the establishment is willing to take. If they leave Trump in place they will probably also be history.
So the next step was announcing the GOP Establishment is going to urge it's version of party faithful to vote for Libertarians. as the lesser of two left wing evils. Sort of what I had suggested until the Lib Candidates tipped their cards and showed their true side.
If they, the establishment are not allowed to change candidates under federal rules they would rather toss bones to the Libs than lose their entire party. instead they'll a good chunk of it but not to the libs. They shot their wad all powder no minie balls.
What you might see then is Trump having been nominated and accepted and intact as a legal candidate form and announce the Constitutional Republic Party or some other name. and still offer a coalition style deal. Whyipick that name. Biggest draw includeing from the 46% unregistered of the eligble voters pool.
Bingo a clear majority and perhaps a clear electoral majority while the other two founder.
That is one of many scenarios.
But at that point Trump ante's up as does KochBrothers and Waltons and money as free speech goes into fourth rubber with nasty chirps in fifth.
What about Hillary? The Sec Progs are dumping her on the one end for the Greens nd the Blue Dog types on the other end.
Everyone hates Hillary.
Ain't life grand!d It's not a race between candidates nor even two distinct political philosophies. It's a race between the general public and the Government Party
ha haha
Otherwise your rendition is a as good as mine so I'll still say check with your local priceinct or county clerks to see how it word locally.
To be fair on the Florida loss for Gore the votes were not stolen by Nader those were his fair and square . One almost might say they were inappropriately tampered with in advance. by, as you suggested by local officials.
Our voting booklet was spiral bound. which means when laid open flat one page did not match the other by a half line or more.
This confused many of our very much older people with vision problems. they would find one candidate and run their finger sort of across ot the other page where the choices were indicated and if not catching the difference go either up or down to the next set of X marks the spot squares. If you can envision that description.
This in some cases caused voting in the wrong block. due to the misalignment. the next time around that condition did n't occur. It IS entirely possible if not probable that caused a number of miscast ballots.
I heard nothing of it being considered in the count or the recount and as each count gave Bush a wider margin it MAY have been overlooked.
If it was not overlooked and accounted for that was at Supreme Couirt Level who determined Bush had the lead in both Popular and Electoral.
So we got tweedle dee instead of tweedle dum.
12th changed the Vice President Jefferson
Twelfth Amendment. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, providing for election of the president and vice president by the electoral college: should there be no majority vote for one person, the House of Representatives (one vote per state) chooses the president and the Senate the vice president.
Political Parties are not mentioned in the constitution and the federal government has no input into how they select candidates nor does the constitution specify how vice president as a candidate are to be chosen. This is left up to each political party and to some extent state laws on the choosing of electors.
Most have fallen into the common usage system of the Presidential Canddate choosing his or her running mate meaning only one vote is needed
The States have no power over that either but may have some power on the selection of electors. However once elected the States have no power over who they select as President.
Of connected interest the post civil war amendments were under three Presidents with three different purposes.
13th Abolished Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Lincoln.
14th Gave the Federal Government veto power over State laws Johnson
15th first vetoed by Johnson was under Grant.
The fight after the Civil War was on how to treat the returning States. 1. As a former Nation and 2. as returning to USA rebellious states.
One sticking point was the North's come home to roost insistence on the 3/5ths rule. This resulted in the Northern and Southern Democrats uniting and protected the Souths Jim Crow Laws and the North's Black Laws until the Civil Rights Act of 1966. That was the only time the Democrats have supported Civil Rights. .
The second connection has to do with power. 16th and 17th Amendments in 1913. One gave control of citizens to the Federal Government through Income tax and the other dismantled the checks and balances system in favor of the federal government.
Summing it up the 12th was certainly the starting point in that it allowed the parties to run uncontrolled and ended up with the mulitple becoming two becoming one to the detriment of the citizens.
The resolution to Factions, according to the Federalist papers, is more Factions....
A free market approach to political party's is the only realistic solution - we need a dozen more more parties in ever election.
In the far future when citizens learn to get out of their adolescent period adulthood can be obtained. Childhood was left with the establishment of the USA but with a lot of crybaby noise until settling into the present adolescent BS of today. Becoming an adult nation of liberty does not look very hopeful at present with so much desire to be further imprisoned with walls and more and more intrusive laws due to an endemic (sic) distrust of liberty for all.
- Benjamin Franklin
however the feds don't recognize winner take all and don't recognize any state control over the delegates and none have been charged or prosecuted for voting differently that I could find and it rarely mattered.
It's a muddy area looking at the 48 that do it that way but seems to have affected something in California where the Proposition or Question is to go back to delegates by percentage.
But like HE said the 12th was the start of it in an effort to account for the parties as other or something more than factions.
It's kind of like the choosing the VP which is often thought to be required to be the same party but only stipulates from another State with nothing about the Presidential choice being the sole and only decision maker but then that is a rule of the party's in their primaries, it is custormary but only the partys or factions have the power to decide how it is done.Looking at original wording, 12th and 25th.
The main issues are the control of who can get on the state ballot and why the parties don't pay for that cost to begin with, the winner take all issue and of course the money as free speech issue.
Incumbents are not going to change what keeps them in power no matter what the citizens think. That's what makes them Government Over Citizens in natue and therefore leftist not matter how slight. The exception is those who keep one foot firmly attached to the center which is the Constitution. Damn few of them left these days.
In old dino's improved version for a real "We The People" government, I'd be using such photos and videos as criminal court evidence.
King Barry would be my first defendant. The evil hag will be in line.
each and every president has over stepped their authority and as time has gone by the pres has over stepped more and more. OUR problem is the congress which WE elect just cowers to who ever the pres is. in the long run we have been are being and will continue to be screwed by who ever sits in the oval office. so much for the 10th.
To rectify, how would you suggest proceed? Armed revolution? Running away, hiding, and starting anew? Vote and hope for change?