Jill Stein's Real goal- the NPVIC

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: xuenchen

no twitter account here. I'm banned

Why?

Just curious....

a reply to: Riffrafter
guilt by association

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Is not going to happen, any time soon no even in 2020, with the record of both parties in congress no party like to mess around with constitutional issues, American history tells the real story about that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Green party rebels against stein

a reply to: jellyrev

Like I say before no party likes to step too much into constitutional issues and neither over steeping on the will of the people because one person feels that they have power to do so.

Stein is a Hillary proxy.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Is not going to happen, any time soon no even in 2020, with the record of both parties in congress no party like to mess around with constitutional issues, American history tells the real story about that.
[/quote




I don't know what is so hard to get about this...it has NOTHING to do with the US Congress, NOTHING to do with the US Senate. NOTHING to do with the SCOTUS. NOTHING to do with Presidents Obama and Trump. It is a state issue. In most states it will take a simple majority IN THAT STATE to pass and a GOVERNOR to sign it...that's it. Done deal. States totaling 165 electoral votes have ALREADY signed it into law. They only need to look at about a dozen states, and they have it. ALL of those states are either blue or purple. It's a lot closer to becoming reality than people think, and that is why it is so low keyed.

edit on 29-11-2016 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: IAMTAT

Green party rebels against stein

They're disgusted with her recount efforts and being associated with Hillary.

I didn't realize there was warrant out for Stein's arrest in North Dakota.
www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: Arizonaguy

I am sure that is more legal issues behind this attempt from some states to do as they wish without asking the citizens in the state for their approval.

States are not just those that are elected to govern but is also the people that elect them.

a reply to: marg6043

No, there really isn't any more to it. The Constitution allows the States to apportion their electoral votes in a manner that is set forth by their legislatures. The people of that state elect their rep to that legislature...that IS their say.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

I took the time to read into the legality of the Compact agreement, and to tell the truth is to many pros and cons, that are base on existing constitutional laws.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution

I bet that if the states that had signed into it, get their majority, congress could step in, but my bet is that it will go all the way up to the supreme court for interpretation.

I am sure that such a step into voters right, will become a big issue with the federal government that will need to congressional approval or the Supreme court.

I can only say that states can propose but congress will have to act.

a reply to: marg6043

No offense, but you're just plain and simple wrong. No two ways about it. If you indeed read that portion of the Constitution then you are not understanding what it is written or you are being willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter either way. Congress CAN NOT tell a state how to apportion it's electoral votes without an Amendment to the Constitution

Was Jill Stein legally allowed to run for President if she had two outstanding arrest warrants issued against her?

Arrest warrants issued for Jill Stein, running mate after N.D. protest

www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT
I would think so. No conviction at all. Since it was a misdemeanor charge I don't see how it could prevent her, even if she was convicted. Bush had a misdemeanor DUI conviction

a reply to: Arizonaguy

No, It means that when it comes to stepping into the voters right in the nation congress will step in either that or the supreme court will.

Plain and simple, history tells the way it will go.

I guess for you right now is just wishful thinking that the states will do as they wish.

As a matter of fact I bet that congress will step in.

How about that.

a reply to: marg6043

You once again are wrong. None of anything that you listed in your prior post gives Congress any of the powerr that you ascribe to it. It's pretty clear too.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I didn't realize there was warrant out for Stein's arrest in North Dakota.
www.cbsnews.com...

Ahhh, so she's on the run!

Someone call Dog the Bounty Hunter.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Riffrafter
guilt by association

Well that sucks...

Sorry to hear it amigo.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

As it stand right now is just hear say, and the constitutional side of it has never been brought forward for debate all is nothing but opinions of what or if, wait when the issue comes to fruition and then I am sure we will be having a nice debate on how congress or the supreme court will deal with it.

I will way when the bridge is build before crossing the river.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: marg6043

No offense, but you're just plain and simple wrong. No two ways about it. If you indeed read that portion of the Constitution then you are not understanding what it is written or you are being willfully ignorant. It doesn't matter either way. Congress CAN NOT tell a state how to apportion it's electoral votes without an Amendment to the Constitution

There close to having a convention of states several have all ready passed the measure. So you may find out thus happens quicker than you believe possible.

There are several things they will vote on including term limits for Congress. These will automatically become amendments per the constitution.