The Right Scoop
If you do not believe our rights come from our creator and do come from our Government you are giving up your Rights.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest it could be sold to voters as simple economics.
"Would you like to see your wages doubled and your taxes cut in half? Vote for the Tell DC To Piss Up A Rope Amendment."
God Bless Mark Levin. It’s time we cast a second Liberty Bell and carve 18 minutes of Mark Levin on it.
Finally somebody explained the American election system, so I could understand it, and a lot more.
Thank you, mr. Levin. Maybe I should thank Fareed Zakaria too, for provocing you to this excellent lesson in American History, which I intend to share, if fb permits.
I love Mark Levin,,,he's part teacher, part lawyer, part professor, and sometimes even part comedian. Put it all together and you have a brillant talk show host who I listen to daily. His comments about the Constituition and our liberty are priceless...please keep preaching, Mark.
TY Mark for setting Zakaria straight about America's elections. We do not want anyone tampering with our Constitution! We are a Republic....and we love it!
TY Mark for setting Zakaria straight about America's elections. We do not want anyone tampering with our Constitution! We are a Republic....and we love it!
The faction of the population, about which Mark speaks, in their ability to recklessly or emotionally directly vote for a president, is absolutely critical. If you consider that almost 50% of the population does not pay taxes, yet recieve the benefits of citizenship, and they are motivated to vote to keep it that way, it would be almost impossible to have a fiscally conservative President elected. It would be better if we were even more of a republic!
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote " include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte is a Republican who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
This is very, very good. Critics who obsess on Levin's style entirely miss his deep understanding of the Constitution and the Republican form of government. This is as informative an 18 minutes on both subjects as you are likely to encounter.
gee, I thought they taught American history in school. I thought that teachers explain everything just so and present the great work our founders did. July 4th should be chastise your teacher day if they are not teaching the real history and reasons our government is the way it is. If your representative or Senator does not know the history of the country and what their job really is, they need to be replaced by those who do know.
Dear Mark,
I wish you had been a professor at my University years ago! I would have enjoyed the class so much more.
Sincerely,
Dana
Dear Mark,
I wish you had been a professor at my University years ago! I would have enjoyed the class so much more.
Sincerely,
Dana
FYI via Wiki: Zakaria was born in Mumbai (then Bombay), Maharashtra, India, to a Konkani Muslim family.[3] His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India.
Natch
Wiki: Zakaria was born in Mumbai (then Bombay), Maharashtra, India, to a Konkani Muslim family.[3] His father, Rafiq Zakaria, was a politician associated with the Indian National Congress and an Islamic scholar. His mother, Fatima Zakaria, was for a time the editor of the Sunday Times of India.
The electoral college is crucial to representative government. First, it only pertains to the Presidential election. Second, it allows smaller states to have a republican form of representation in the Presidential elections. Third, it keeps 50.1% from taking over the country ... as Mark said.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%;
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Zakaria is just another garbage spewing raghead bent on on our destruction so it makes sense that he is one of Obamao's consultants. It is amazing that the left can breed some many of these filthy rats.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
States have the exclusive power to decide how to award their presidential electors.
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Later, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, but under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method– a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
Why would this not have to be enacted through an amendment to the Constitution? You're saying that if California votes for A but all the rest of the States choose B, California is then compelled to make all their electors vote for B based on what the other States want? There is nothing in the Const. that speaks to how the States must elect a President therefore it is left up to the States by the 10th Amendment. So how do you institute a plan to force all the States to elect the President the same way with no Constitutional authority, except by an amendment?
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The National Popular Vote bill is a state-based approach. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from all the states that have enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
The real goal of F.Zakaria and those like him is to enable a faction of population to take over the country in the future . This is why they need Constitution changes. History shows this never ends well .
Nicely said, Stevenbiot.
Defiance against Tyranny is in our collective DNA...at least those of us whose ancestors have been here for many generations.
It is also contageous.
And it seems to creep into most of the immigrants who were not a part of the original Fight for the freedoms they now enjoy.
So, I have faith...that when pushed too far, we will push back in a mighty way that will make the minions of Tyranny run scurrying for the dark nether regions from whence they came.
Are you talking solely about Mr. Levin?
Or are you referring to Fareed Zaharia with your remarks about 'pseudo-intellectual'?
Because there is nothing 'pseudo' about Mr. Levin's intellect.
Whereas...if you were referring to CNN's Fareed Zacharia, I would have to concur.
From God is the same thing as your #3. The Founders called it our Creator.
I know people think Christian = Conservative, but you couldn't have swallowed that MSM meme any faster.
Hear, Hear.
Well said, Mr. Levin!
This is the guy, Fareed Zakaria...who thinks that we are 'provincial' hicks who are clinging to an "outdated document", the Constitution.
Every time I have listened to this guy Fareed, I have had the urge to drop kick him back to whatever sandy dirt hole he came from.
It hurts my ears to hear his accent, together with his snooty elitist demeanor, lecturing us on how unenlightened we are!
How dare he!
So I cannot listen to him, for it makes me remember every profane word I have ever heard, and even start making some up, while struggling to restrain myself from deploying them in a tirade that I would surely be ashamed of.
You may not have meant for your comment to be funny, but I have to tell you I am LOL'ing at it. I cannot stand that twit either and maybe I'm getting slap happy, but the visualization in my head of your "drop kick" comment in particular really made me laugh! Thanks! :)
BTW, I agree with all that you said - his tone and demeanor irritate me beyond words.
He should irritate you beyond words: he is an enemy of the Constitution. They won't just give up and go away because of an election or two. The Day is approaching, and it will be a messy divorce.
As for zakaria, he is a shining example of [1] the need for immigration standards, and [2] the sorry state of the UK.
Thank you very much, I learned something just now, thank you again for posting Mr. Levin's radio show.
God bless and protect all who support and defend Sarah Palin the next President of The United States of America and her family.
Actually prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures, that said I would agree with abolishing the 17th.
I sure hope that our next president will understand as much as Mark Levin and take the Constitution serioulsy!
I sure hope that our next president will understand as much as Mark Levin and take the Constitution serioulsy!
This isn't a birther thread and you are on notice. Keep trolling this crap and you're gone.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.