Skip to content

Scholars are seeking work around for Constitutional changes..

January 18, 2009

The Constitution is about to go down the Rabbit Hole and they have the means to do it!

constitution_burning3“End Term Limits for President? Abolish the Electoral College? “

“But we’re not so much interested in the 21st Amendment per se; rather, what it meant for the law of the land. First of all it’s the only Amendment to be ratified through state conventions, as opposed to state legislatures. Perhaps more importantly, the 21st Amendment proved that the U.S. Constitutional could not only be added to, when the public demanded it, but also retracted from.

Says David Kyvig, a history professor at Northern Illinois University and an expert on Constitutional amendments: “I think the most important lesson in terms of what it tells us about the Constitution is that it can be what we want it to be.

The idea that it’s too difficult to amend the Constitution is just invalidated by the experiment of national prohibition and by its repeal.”

Today’s WSJ features, a story on the public’s views on amending the Constitution and what amendments some scholars say should be considered. Top of the list? Abolishing the Electoral College and repealing the 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of times someone can be elected President. (See a link on a recent editorial in the NYT on getting rid of the Electoral College.) article

  1. tpt/ny permalink
    January 18, 2009 3:28 pm

    We are going to be VERY Busy!!
    As soon as the replacement for Senator Clinton is named; I’ll join you on this.
    To start we must “STOP” Mayor Bloomberg in NYC from advancing for a 3rd term; after the voters “Clearly” stated in the polling booth that they did not want that to happen…for anyone.

  2. Betty permalink
    January 18, 2009 3:36 pm

    Good place to start ..with Bloomberg. That should be a must. The democrats could be seeing how the people vote and what they think about going for a third term for Bloomberg to use it for the presidency.

  3. January 18, 2009 3:57 pm

    Yes, tpt/ny and Betty,

    New York is going to be their first line of penetration. With Caroline in the driver’s seat, she won’t lift a finger to STOP the takeover of Obama to a presidency without end.

  4. tpt/ny permalink
    January 18, 2009 6:52 pm

    She is NOT going to be in “the driver’s seat”!!
    Not if “we” can help it!!

  5. January 18, 2009 8:34 pm

    If I were a NYer… I’d be picketing on the sidewalk in front of the Governors office and his home every single day of the week.

    We’ve done that here. We have a pathetic Governor, who is one of the worst in our state’s history. He is a source of pain for everyone in our state.

  6. susan permalink
    January 18, 2009 9:42 pm

    What the Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution is “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.”

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, 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 winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

    The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified 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.

  7. susan permalink
    January 18, 2009 9:43 pm

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


  8. susan permalink
    January 18, 2009 9:44 pm

    . 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. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%). In short, the public believes that the candidate that receives the most votes should get elected.

  9. January 18, 2009 10:13 pm

    Thank you for posting this information.

    I have a question, Susan. If the United States relinquishes it’s sovereignty to the New World Order and the European Union won’t the Constitution be functionally obsolete?

  10. January 18, 2009 11:40 pm


    Our Constitution was trampled so many times in this last election cycle that it gives me a headache just thinking about it. My forefathers fought and died for the Republic, and I have been taught all my life that we owe it to our ancestors to continue the fight. I taught this to my children and it pains me more than I can say to see what is happening to this country.

    You’re right on the button about the New World Order. During the Carter administration the group that is pushing it so hard gained a strong foothold and had he been re-elected I shudder to think how much farther they would have gotten.

    I’m speaking about the Bilderbergers, the Trilateralists and The Council on Foreign Relations. A few months ago there was an article posted on “insightanalytical” about the Trilateralists, which is an offshoot of the Bilderberger group. Both of these groups (the Bilderbergers and Trilateralists)are controlled and financed by David Rockefeller and his cohorts. During the Carter administration he appointed 26 members of the Trilateralist Commission to his administration.

    The goal of these people is global control of the finances and commerce and religion. They have been at it a long time, but the inroads they have managed to make recently is enough to curl your hair. (If you have any left after pulling most of it out while worrying)

    I’ve preached this theme to everyone I know and the reaction I get from most of them is “you’re nuts, that could never happen in America” Well, we’ve seen a lot more happen in America that we thought could never take place and the trouble is just beginning.

    Call me Cassandra if you like, but this is what I believe. I’ve researched the Bilderbergers and the Trilateralists and their membership rosters are proof enough for me.

    Remember what Benjamin Franklin said – “You have your Republic if you can hold on to it”. He knew even then that it would be a constant fight.

  11. January 19, 2009 12:20 am


    excellent summary and absolutely accurate. I’ve been aware of them for the last 11 yrs. Here is the wiki:

    You may also want to read the PNAC manifesto which was the Republicans contribution by Newt Gingrich to compliment the TLC.
    PNAC as outlined by Moveon

    Here is an older summary from Crooks and Liars,
    Crooks and Liars

    Do you remember when Wolfowitz licked his comb in front of photogs on the way to a state funeral? And when he knelt down in front of the casket he had holes in his socks? 🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: