Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America.

By Publius Huldah.

Our Constitution is under constant attack.1   One of the most pernicious attacks is being waged by those who seek to override the constitutional provisions under which The States, as political entities, elect the President; and to replace it with a national popular vote (NPV) under which inhabitants of major metropolitan areas will choose the President.

What Form of Government Did We Create In Our Constitution?

Before you can see why it is so important that The States elect the President, and why the NPV is so execrable, you must understand how our “federal” government was structured and intended to operate. “Federal” actually referred to the form of the national government created in our Constitution, and to the division of powers between the national government and The States.

The “Federation” created by our Constitution is an alliance of independent and sovereign States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY(national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system:  weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery). Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States.  In all other matters, the States retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. 2

So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, 3 our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:

  • State Legislatures were to choose the two U.S. Senators for their State (Art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 1); and,
  • The States, as separate political entities, were to elect the President (Art. II, Sec. 1, cls. 2 & 3).

The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, Sec. 2, cl.1).

James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the national government:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them…[boldface mine] 4

State Legislatures Were To Choose The U.S. Senators!

So! The appointment of Senators by State Legislatures was to “secure the authority” of the State governments in the federal government, and to preserve “the sovereignty remaining in the individual States” (Federalist No. 62, 3rd & 5th paras).  5

Federalist No. 62 goes on to show that another advantage of State Legislatures appointing U.S. Senators is

…the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States … (6th para) [boldface mine]

Do you see?  Since Representatives to the House were chosen by popular vote of the People, and U.S. Senators were to be chosen by the State Legislatures, no law could get passed by Congress unless it was approved by the People (via their Representatives) and by The States (via the State appointed U.S. Senators).

This is what our Framers gave us to protect us from a usurpatious Congress.

 “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 provides that each State is to appoint, in such Manner as the State Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives for that State. These Electors were supposed to be the ones who actually voted for President and Vice President!

Our Framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. While they recognize in Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) that The People are the source of political authority, 6  they knew that all history demonstrates that The People lack the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to make wise choices when voting for politicians.

In Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras), 7 John Jay recognizes that People are ignorant and easily manipulated by small groups who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by the small groups.

Accordingly, the Electors would be “select assemblies” “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens” who would vote for those men who were “the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue”. Furthermore, Electors would not likely “be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism” which “sometimes mislead as well as dazzle”.

In all of Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explains the wisdom of having specially selected Electors who were “most likely to possess…information and discernment” elect the President. He also warns of

… the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? … (5th para)

and shows why specially selected Electors in each State could best protect us from such scheming foreign powers. 8

Now that we see why Our Framers provided that Electors from the Member States were to choose the President of The Federation, let us see how the voting was – and is – to be conducted.

The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

The long ignored 12th Amendment (ratified 1804) sets forth binding procedures for taking and counting Electors’ votes. This is what it requires:

The Electors in each State are to meet and cast their votes for President; and then vote separately for Vice President.  Say a State has 13 Electors, and the voting goes like this:

For President:

Mr. Falconer – 6 votes

Mr. Lossie – 5 votes

Mr. Bell – 2 votes

For Vice President:

Mr. Cross – 5 votes

Mr. Duncan – 5 votes

Mr. Nichols – 3 votes.

The Electors sign and certify this list and send it to the President of the Senate. On the appointed day, and in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate counts the Electors’ votes from The Member States. The person with the greatest number of votes for President becomes the President (if he has a majority).  The person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President becomes the Vice President (if he has a majority). If one or both don’t have a majority – well, here’s a novel idea: read the Amendment to find out what happens.

THIS is how Our Constitution – which all those in the political process took SWORN OATHS to obey – requires the elections of President and Vice President to be conducted.

So! THE STATES, as political entities and as THE MEMBERS of the Federation, are the ones who were to choose the President. This is what our Framers gave us to protect us from a usurpatious President.  It also gave the smaller States a voice in the selection of President.

The Purpose Of Our Framers’ Two Gifts.

So!  Do you see?  The result of The State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President would be that The States would be able to control the national government and keep it in line.

The 17th Amendment.

But we threw one of Our Framers’ Gifts away when, in 1913, we foolishly ratified the 17th Amendment and the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States – The Members of the Federation – lost their representation in Congress and their control over that body.

And the Legislative Branch of the national government became a body for sale to campaign donors. U.S. Senators now answer to their campaign donors, not to their States.

Ignoring The 12th Amendment.

We threw away Our Framer’s second Gift when we foolishly accepted a new system where national political parties handle the elections of President and Vice President. Thus, instead of being the small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men who actually made the selections; Electors became rubber stamps for the popular vote in their States. Instead of the Electors choosing the Vice President, party bosses – then party nominees – chose the “running mates”. Instead of the Electors’ votes being transmitted to the President of the Senate with the total votes listed for each person receiving votes, States began awarding all their “electoral votes” to the person who won the popular vote in their State.

This is how The States – The Members of the Federation – lost their control over the President.

The President became a person for sale to campaign donors. Presidents now answer to their donors, not to The Member States.  And the small groups and “foreign powers” who got the President elected call the shots.

How The National Popular Vote Will Work.

Here is the nefarious 888-word interstate compact. It is written in the bureaucratic style favored by those who seek to confuse, confound and conceal. Their Explanation of National Popular Vote Bill expressly discloses, however, that

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In other words, if the popular vote in Virginia is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Virginia’s 13 Electoral Votes are given to Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State.  Do you see?  And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.

The States Can’t lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!

1. Every aspect of the NPV violates Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment.  So it’s altogether unconstitutional. Compare the detailed procedures set forth in Our Constitution with the proposed NPV!  It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to what Our Constitution requires.

2. Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending the Constitution. “Compact among the States” is not one of the authorized methods of amending the Constitution. So the NPV Compact also violates Article V.

3. Furthermore, Article I, Sec. 10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”.  So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, Sec. 10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfully consent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!

Under The National Popular Vote Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections.

Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these major metropolitan areas would decide the elections for President!

Please look at this 3D map showing how these major metropolitan areas actually voted in the last presidential election:

They all voted for Obama.

The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is won by a Democrat.

Who Is Behind This Plot To Impose The National Popular Vote?

The organizations who have endorsed the NPV  include four organizations (Common Cause, NAACP, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and Public Citizen) which, according to this website, have received funding from George Soros and his Open Society Institute.

Our public school educated People are so woefully ignorant that they are incapable of making wise decisions in presidential (or senatorial) elections. Google ignorant stupid americans – you will get 65,000,000 hits.

This review of Historian Rick Shenkman’s book, “Just How Stupid Are We?”, points out that

…Only 2 of 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government. And 49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution ….

These are the ones who are manipulated to vote the Will of the few, and of the “foreign powers” Hamilton warned us about, who fund and control the hard left.

Oh, State Legislators! Awake! The progressive leftists behind the NPV want a national popular vote for the same two reasons that our Framers opposed having Presidents elected by popular vote.

What Should We Do?

Repeal the 17th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress only those who are committed to repealing the 17th Amendment. This is the only way The States can regain control of Congress.

Return to the 12th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than are the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.

No State primaries. No national conventions. No expensive advertising which enriches liberal progressive TV networks, and excludes the man who is not wealthy. No tampered with voting machines. No cartoon characters or dead people voting. No Black Panthers intimidating white voters with impunity. No unconstitutional federal laws (e.g. McCain-Feingold) which unlawfully restrict political speech. No promises of future favors made by candidates to donors for campaign contributions. In short, the corruption which permeates our present system would be gone.

But in the meantime, even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes. (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas (which vote Democrat) with the more sparsely populated rural areas (which vote Republican). (2) And it gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President. PH


1 E.g., those clamoring for a con con and the Balanced Budget Amendment, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and other judges and politicians who despise Our Constitution.

2 In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison says,

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [boldface added]

Yet anarchists who have infiltrated libertarian groups maliciously assert that Our Constitution is a “statist document”!

3 Alexander Hamilton warned that we must not permit the States to be merged into one national government.  In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), he writes,

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…. [caps are Hamilton’s; boldface mine]

See also Federalist No. 39, 6th para (Madison).

And from Thomas Jefferson’s letter of Feb. 2, 1816 to Joseph C. Cabell (1st para)

…the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body… [boldface mine]

4 See also Federalist No. 39 (4th & 11th paras) and Federalist No. 60 (3rd para).

5 Federalist No. 62:

… on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed…is recommended by … giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems. (3rd para at II) [boldface mine]

…the equal vote allowed to each State is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. (5th para) [boldface mine]

6 As opposed to the State itself being the source of political authority, as with the Western European “divine right of  kings” model (which is based on a perversion of Scripture), and the German statists, such as Hegel and his progeny.

7 Federalist No. 64  (4th para):

As the select assemblies [Electors] for choosing the President … will … be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their … votes will be directed to those men … who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue. … the electors … will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which … sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. … it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess …the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment…

8 Federalist No. 68:  If the appointment of the President depended on any preexisting body of men, they “might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes” in favor of the foreign powers.  Accordingly,

… the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government…(7th para) PH

February 9, 2012

Postscript Feb. 14, 2012:  In this article,  Phyllis Schlafly  of the National Eagle Forum takes a different approach in showing why the NPV is a BAD idea and basically dishonest.
Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

February 9, 2012 - Posted by | 12th Amendment, 17th Amendment, Election of President, Election of U.S. Senators, Electoral College, Electors, National Popular Vote, Presidential Electors | , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. […] – not The People. [There is a reason for that.]  For an illustration of how this works, go HERE and read the subheadings,  “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!  and […]


    Pingback by Publius Huldah: WHO DECIDES whether Someone is qualified for the Office of President of the United States? | NCRenegade | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  2. […] – not The People. [There is a reason for that.]  For an illustration of how this works, go HERE and read the subheadings,  “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!  and […]


    Pingback by WHO DECIDES whether Someone is qualified for the Office of President of the United States? « Publius-Huldah's Blog | February 4, 2016 | Reply

  3. […] National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. […]


    Pingback by National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America by Publius Hudah | Rickey's Place | January 22, 2015 | Reply

  4. The bigger problem in politics is the entrenchment of the two party system. This happens because votes for third parties are wasted — third party voters never get a chance to decide between the top two choices, so it makes more sense for them to hold their noses and vote for the less repugnant of the two than to not have a choice at all. The electoral college doesn’t fix this. The national popular vote also doesn’t fix this, but at least it doesn’t distort the system. I’m not buying the whole “urban vote silences the rural vote” either, because it’s essentially saying the strength of your vote should be tied to land ownership.


    Comment by CourtroomWolf | September 1, 2012 | Reply

    • Wolf:

      1. Look at the 12th Amendment and what I said about it. Besides illustrating how that Amendment is supposed to work, I said we must return to it (It is, after all, the supreme Law of the Land). Do you see anything in the 12th Amendment about political parties?

      2. Think of the original intent of the 12th Amendment – lay aside all the terminology which has since been created and publicized to confuse & confound people. The 12th Amendment doesn’t speak of an “electoral college” – that concept is inconsistent with the 12th Amendment. The specially chosen Electors in each State were to separately convene and cast their votes for President & then, another vote for Vice-president.

      “The “Electoral College” as you are thinking of it doesn’t exist in the 12th Amendment.

      3. YOU are “not buying” the FACT that the people in the major population centers will be the ones who elect the President??? Look at the map(s) I linked to on this point. Do you really want to deny FACTS of reality?

      4. You must think. Not just repeat slogans.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | September 1, 2012 | Reply

  5. […] Read all of  National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. […]


    Pingback by National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. | Grumpy Opinions | August 1, 2012 | Reply

  6. What are the most likely candidates to be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution?…

    I would draft an Amendment repealing the 17th Amendment! Go here to see why the 17th Amendment was such a terrible thing for us:


    Trackback by Quora | June 19, 2012 | Reply

  7. If you had the power to write the 28th amendment to the constitution, what would it be?…

    I would draft an Amendment repealing the 17th Amendment! Go here to see why the 17th Amendment was such a terrible thing for us:


    Trackback by Quora | June 19, 2012 | Reply

  8. Hi PH, have you seen this website… they have some curious things to say.


    Comment by Spense | March 21, 2012 | Reply

    • They are not telling the truth – they are trying to deceive people. “Lies” not “curious”.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 21, 2012 | Reply

  9. Doesn’t NPV also violate the Guarantee Clause by voiding republican representation?

    Also, how shaky is their reasoning if their premise is that individual votes should count, yet they conclude that individuals who disagree with the majority must have their votes effectively changed by force? Logically they should conclude that States’ winner-take-all method should be outlawed, never mind trying to convert the entire process for all States.

    Pretending for a moment to take a stab at defending the indefensible NPV, if States may choose Electors as their legislature decides, then couldn’t the legislature simply make the sole criteria for being an Elector a sworn promise to vote along with the national popular vote totals?

    Only pretending :)


    Comment by Aaron Stovall | March 18, 2012 | Reply

    • WELL DONE, Aaron!

      1. Re: Article IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

      I had never thought about your point. At first, I thought you were stretching things a bit. But I am humble, and you raised something I had never thought of, so I decided to refresh my understanding of just what a “republic” is. So, I went to my online ed. of The Federalist Papers and typed republic in the search box: Federalist No. 10 (Madison) has an excellent discussions of what is the distinguishing characteristic of a “republic”:

      A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place …. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy…

      The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …

      The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

      So! The essence of a “Republic” is that Government is handled by elected representatives – who are supposed to be chosen for their wisdom & virtue.

      If you type republican in the search box, you find Madison’s magnificent No. 39 (one of the most important of The Papers):

      (3rd para )If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior…..

      Madison goes on to say, in the same para:

      …It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character….

      And in the next para:

      On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years…

      Under the search term republican, you also find No. 43: At .6 , Madison specifically discusses Art. IV, Sec. 4.

      So, it seems that in a “republican” form of government, the “representatives” (and I here use that term to refer to everybody in the government (legislators of both houses, the president, and the federal judges) are chosen either directly by The People (by popular vote ) or indirectly (appointed by those chosen directly or indirectly by the People).

      I have to “mull things over” before I can be sure; but with respect to maintaining a “republican” form of government, it seems that such a form can be maintained with popular election of presidents – as it is with popular election of the members of the House in Congress.

      [Somewhere in The Federalist Papers they describe a pure democracy: The people vote on every single issue – and the majority wins (2 wolves and 1 sheep – you get the picture)].

      2. Your second para: You nailed it! An Adolf Hitler can get 32 % of all votes cast in the NPV, but if he is the one who gets the most votes of all the Candidates, then he will get ALL the “electoral votes” of EVERY State in the Country. The NPV does away with the requirement that the President get a “majority” of all votes cast.

      3. Re your 3rd para:

      …couldn’t the legislature simply make the sole criteria for being an Elector a sworn promise to vote along with the national popular vote totals?

      It’s a highly relevant question. No need to apologize for playing the devil’s advocate. One must do that in order to “test” one’s arguments.

      a) The system our Framers gave us is set forth in my paper. The Electors were to be appointed “in such Manner as the [State] Legislatures may direct…” (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2). Then, these Electors were to be the ones who actually exercised their superior knowledge & judgment to make the decisions when they decided how to cast their vote for their State (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 3 & the 12th Amendment). Each Elector’s individual votes were transmitted to the President of the Senate.

      When the States started having the People of their States select the Electors by popular vote [and historically, I don’t know when they started doing this], that still didn’t change the requirements of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 3 (as amended by the 12th Amendment), that the Electors would still be the ones who actually made the decisions for their State as to how their State’s electoral votes would be cast.

      It just made it more likely that Fools would be chosen as Electors instead of the “wise & prudent” men our Framers had in mind. Thus, the People of a State could choose brainless twits like Lady Gaga as their Electors – but still, Lady Gaga would cast her own vote however she felt like doing.

      Then, at some time [I know not when], we morphed into the present system where (1) The Electors don’t exercise their independent judgment, but merely rubber stamp the popular vote of their State, and (2) All of the States’ electoral votes are then cast for whoever gets the majority vote in their State.

      As to your question indented just above: No, because our Constitution still provides that THE STATES are to elect the President and Vice President. The NPV transfers this constitutional power from the STATES – as political entities and as The Sovereign Members of the Federation – TO a national MOB.

      Also: The Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 3 as amended by the 12th Amendment) STILL requires the Electors to make the decision. The power to make the decision was DELEGATED TO THE ELECTORS. The Constitution does NOT DELEGATE THAT POWER TO A NATIONAL MOB!

      [E.g., if I give you a special power of attorney to sell my car – I’m giving the power to YOU! You can’t give it to someone else!]

      As to (2) If the Democrat candidate gets 60% of the popular vote in California, and the Republican candidate gets 40 % of the popular vote; the Democrat candidate is still required by 12th Amendment to get 60% of the electoral votes for that State, and the Republican is to get 40% of the electoral votes for that State. THAT constitutional provision has never been amended out of the Constitution.

      Also, the present system where the person who gets the nomination of his party for President is the one who chooses the Vice President, is unconstitutional. The provisions of the 12th Amendment requiring the Electors to select the Vice President in separate votes have never been amended out of the Constitution.

      The 24th Amendment confuses this – and is another illustration of how FOOLISH we are when we clamor for Amendments we don’t understand. That Amendment, ratified 1964, says that States may permit the people of their State to select – by popular vote – the Electors for their State. But it still doesn’t do away with the Constitutional Requirement that the Electors be the ones who actually decide how to cast the Electoral Votes for their State.

      At some point – and we are at that point now – a Country falls or survives – based on what The People do. We will soon find out whether we are simply too STUPID and SINFUL to survive. Our Framers gave us a federal Constitution which would have PROTECTED US from our own stupidity and sins (greed, envy, lust for power, pride, etc.) by strictly limiting what the federal government could do. Most of the amendments since the 13th have chipped away the protections our Framers gave us to protect us from …. ourselves.

      Thank you, Aaron. You have brought much light into my life today.

      [But I learned that I should write long answers on MS word – and then copy & paste. so much easier to polish. These little boxes are a pain. I need to upgrade my website – but we are seriously ‘puter challenged in this house.]


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 18, 2012 | Reply

      • I’m pleased I brightened your day. The kudos from you had me pretty pleased, too :)

        I had been thinking of the Guarantee Clause applying in that my vote is voided if I don’t go along with the plurality in the Popular Vote, therefore I have no say in my representation (at least in the case of the President). Under the current, horribly twisted system I at least get to cast an indirect vote by voting for a Party’s slate of electors, who then vote on my behalf. Now, other States vote for me, in essence (I live in a State which has already passed NPV).

        Now, after reading your explanation, I see that it runs even deeper than that–not only do I get no direct say, I get no indirect say. I am no longer represented; I am disenfranchised unless I agree with the plurality, mostly in other States. Bearing in mind that my State consistently votes D, I was generally not represented anyway, so this isn’t that big a change for me.

        Your paper makes it crystal clear that there are sufficient grounds for dispensing with this NPV nonsense without the Guarantee Clause even entering into it.

        Please excuse me closing with flattery: You are more humble than I, and with less cause. Thanks again for all you do.


        Comment by Aaron Stovall | March 26, 2012 | Reply

        • Our Framers wanted distance between the individual citizen and the selection of President b/c they knew of The Peoples’ penchant to vote for hitlers, obamas, & clintons.

          That’s why The Peoples’ election of president and vice-president would be indirect: State Legislators elected by The People of their State would devise a system for appointing the Electors who would use their own judgment & knowledge to cast the votes for their State for President & Vice president. That is how we got people like Washington, Jefferson, & Madison elected!

          This also preserved the federal form of our national government: The Sovereign States – as The Members of the Federation – elected the President. And the State Legislatures would select their two U.S. Senators. THIS is how the STATES – as the Members of the Federation – maintained control over the national government.

          Breaks your heart, doesn’t it, that we threw that away? People clamoring for amendments, the ramifications of which they did not understand.

          “Humility” is merely realizing that we am not omniscient and being willing to learn from anyone. I don’t know everything. Sometimes, I learn from others. e.g., once a housewife brought about a radical restructuring of my thinking. I was a philosophy major and knew it all, right? No! I made a statement about cosmology, and a housewife pointed out an error in my thinking. I stood there and listened to her and my brain processed what she had said, and my mind examined the ramifications of what she had said. Unresolved issues stored in my mind came untangled. I got tingles up and down my spine and arms as I worked out the implications and ramifications of what she had said. These are the moments I live for!

          That’s why I am so baffled about why most people use what they already believe as the standard of what is “true” and what is “false”. They miss life’s greatest moments.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 27, 2012 | Reply

          • PH, How would you explain the different positions, under a Federal Government system operating under our Constitution, between soverign states and soverign individuals. As you just pointed out, the soverign states were to devise a plan to select electors and the soverign states would decide who would be the Senators from their respective states. The soverign people elect Representatives and those serving in the state governments. I guess that, as you said, indirectly or directly, it comes back to the people as individuals who are supposed to be in charge and responsible.

            But, there is some nagging itch in the left side of the back part of my brain that is telling me that there may be more here than I am grasping right now. Since I have this brain fog on this issue, I am not sure my question is clear. Maybe I am asking, which is predominant or are they both equal in dominance? Or, is the Federal Government to view the States as their boss in some situations and the individuals in other situations. If you find a logical question here, please respond. Thanks.


            Comment by Mike Foil | March 27, 2012

          • It’s an excellent question, Mike! I’ll mull it over as I am putting up my ducks for the night and starting the dough for the pizza (I grind my own grain to make the flour).


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 27, 2012

          • Mike,
            1. In the first para of Federalist No. 46, Madison explains the relation between The People, The States and the federal government. He points out that both the federal government & the State governments, notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, are both substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. He says “the federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes”, and that the federal and State governments are both to be controlled by their “common superior” – and reminded that the “ultimate authority” resides in the people alone.

            So! On that fundamental question of polity: “What is the Source of Political Power? – Civil government or THE PEOPLE?”, our Framers came down solidly on the side of THE PEOPLE (both with respect to the national and the State governments).

            Contrast our Framers’ view with that of the European statists. The German statist philosophers (Hegel, etc.) said that political power originated with the State; the State was superior to the people; and the people (“subjects”) were completely subject to the will of the State and have only those privileges which the State from time to time permits them to have. In England & France, the unbiblical notion of the “divine right of kings” prevailed under which the King was seen as the source of all political power. The film, Robin Hood, with Cate Blanchette and Russell Crowe, has a wonderful depiction of the conception of the “divine rights of Kings” in the evil King John who seems himself as the SOURCE of all Law and political power. Except for the dreadful musical score, this is a wonderful movie and is well worth watching as a lesson in polity in addition to the pure entertainment. Crowe has one line in there which makes a patriot’s heart sing!

            So what our Framers gave us was a miraculous gift. Unknown in the history of mankind except for the Bible.

            The weakness is the People. As one of our Framers said (I paraphrase), “Our Constitution is fit only for a moral and virtuous people – it is unsuitable for any other”.

            So, faithful to the guidance given by Madison and Jefferson, I drafted the model nullification resolutions to show Our People how they can use their States as their instrument to reign in the federal government from its lawless usurpations. This is an illustration of how political power originates with the People!

            I heard on the radio today that someone has introduced into my State (TN) a bill saying that TN will ignore the federal Dept of Labor rules re children working on farms! But the opponents are warning that this may result in the federal government cutting off funds to the farms in TN!!

            So this illustrates the warning, paraphrased above, from one of our Framers that our Constitution was fit only for a moral & virtuous People. We will see what the people in TN value more: The Constitution or their precious handouts (which are borrowed from Red China and will be paid back by their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.).

            2. As to “sovereignty”: The PEOPLE, who are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22, last para), acting thru special ratifying delegations for their States, ordained & established the Constitution for the United States (Federalist No. 84, 8th para). So THE PEOPLE created the federal government.

            This “creature” – this “federal government” – consists of a federation of member STATES which are united only for the limited purposes enumerated in The Constitution; and are subject to the national (central) government only for those purposes & delegated powers enumerated in the Constitution.

            Within each State, The PEOPLE are the ones who are supposed to ordain & establish their STATE Constitutions. So in the STATES, the People are still the masters.

            Only the PEOPLE are “sovereign”. Both the federal governments and the state governments are their servants and their creatures.

            The States aren’t strictly “sovereign”, and I would never use that term to describe them were our system functioning as it was designed to operate. I use it now only to stress that THE STATES are not the creature of – and not the servant of – the central government. Our political problem for the last 150 years has been that the STATES have permitted the national government to take over – and I am trying to remind the People that the national government is NOT Lord & Master & God. Every day, for the last 150 years, the national government has been erasing the State governments and has been merging us into one national totalitarian system.

            But I see now that my use of that term to describe the States is confusing, so must find another term. What should I use?

            3. The BOSS of the federal government is The Constitution. Not the States. The federal government is supposed to go to the Constitution to find out what WE THE PEOPLE gave it permission to do. If WE didn’t give it permission, then it can’t lawfully do it. If it does it anyway, we are to make use of our servants – the States – to smack the federal government down.

            But the whole thing hinges on a moral & virtuous People who can’t be bribed and who refuse to sell their birthright for a bowl of soup.

            Does this make sense now?


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 28, 2012

          • Yes, it does make sense (the fog is lifting and the itch has been scratched).

            When we, back here at home, feel that we are too removed from Washington and that our representatives are not as responsive to us as they should be; instead of giving up and feeling it is useless, we have an avenue through the States to apply additional pressure and direction. It seems that we neglect the consideration of working with our States when we want Washington to do what is right. Our representatives might be more inclined to listen to those is the state government from their own state than they are to me or my neighbor. In fact, my representative would probably never even see or hear about a request I might make as it would just be “handled” by staff.

            When we talk about the States ratifying the Constitution – was that done by popular vote in each state or by the various state legislatures? That question is part of the crux of my first question(s). In my mind, I considered the process to be done by the legislatures, which it seems would put the state governments in a higher position (not over the individual people, but higher than they otherwise would be viewed) when dealing with their creature at some later time. If they had a direct effect in the creation then the creature might be more inclined to view them as an authority. But, if the creature gained life directly from the People, then it should show the respect for the Boss who created it.

            Your article relates directly with the process of getting Washington to fall back within the boundaries given the government by using the power of the states. Good plan! Until the states decide that self-government is more important than bribes, we will continue down the wrong road. Thanks, PH.


            Comment by Mike Foil | March 28, 2012

          • 1. In various places in The Federalist Papers, Hamilton & Madison cite as one of the defects of the Articles of Confederation that they rested on no higher authority than that of the State Legislatures!

            Thus, they insisted that THE PEOPLE be the ones to ratify the Constitution for the United States, and NOT merely the State legislatures. E.g., the last para of Federalist No. 22.

            I don’t know the mechanics of how it was done in each of the original 13 States. In some (e.g., Virginia), I think the People elected special delegations to examine the proposed Constitution and vote on it. But not the State Legislatures.

            2. Yes, I am convinced that it is a lost cause trying to influence our representatives to the federal government. They treat us with contempt. However, I have found that Representatives to the State legislature DO listen to us. Since our federal representatives ignore us, we must make use of our State Representatives to make the federal representatives IRRELEVANT!

            3. Read the recent discussions on the Nullification Resolution Post. Someone from Nevada has posted comments about the Act admitting Nevada to Statehood. Fascinating. I’d like to see the parallel documents for AZ. See my comments to him.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 28, 2012

  10. […] National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. […]


    Pingback by The battle for the Constitution in Tennessee « Off My Front Porch-Conservative Ranting | March 16, 2012 | Reply

  11. Reblogged this on quotes and notes and opinions and commented:
    The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is won by a Democrat.

    Wow. :???:

    It would be nice to go back to the way it was meant to be.


    Comment by Sherry | March 10, 2012 | Reply

    • “The way it was meant to be” we would not be voting directly for a president. There would be not campaigning, no campaign promises, no catering to special interests, no self-aggrandizing, no billion dollar beauty contest.

      Wise individuals nominating outstanding individuals to become the candidates and the States as equals making the final choice in the House of Representatives.

      Political parties soon destroyed the beautiful system.


      Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 10, 2012 | Reply

      • Carolyn, I am so sorry – I have not had time to read your book. Several people have asked me, “How do we find the wide & prudent people to be the Electors?” “And how should they be appointed?”

        The Federalist Papers don’t address these practical questions. Have you given thought to this? I know very few “wise & prudent” people; and don’t know how to devise a system where the States can find and appoint them.

        I haven’t had time to look thru Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention to see if they discuss practical proposals for finding and appointing “wise & prudent people” to be the Electors for the States. Another place to look would be to the history of our early days – how were Electors found and appointed in the beginning?


        Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 11, 2012 | Reply

        • The method of finding the wise and prudent Electors is left up to every state legislature. Various methods were used. For example, in some states the legislature chose them all; or some allowed each US House district elect two (nominate two) and the state legislature then chose between the two for each district and the legislature themselves elect two (at large). By 1836 (I think all except S.C.) had the electors chosen directly by the people.

          Every State can come up with wise people. Governors, members of state legislature, former public servants (national or local), etc. It is a sad scenario if there are no wise people in a state.

          The main thing to remember is that the Electors are not voting for a final choice, they are nominating wise patriots and statesmen. The Electors vote is a nominating vote. The Elector just need to be a person of integrity who does not need to be lead around by the nose.

          However, political parties soon started manipulating the electors and quickly took over the nomination function. So now instead of nominating the best potential possibilities, it is a rubber-stamp process about 6 weeks after everything is over. (After years of campaigning and direct popular vote and everybody already knows who won the election.) What a farce!

          Then when the Electors nominations were tallied in joint session of Congress in January, the five highest individuals nominated would be chosen by the States in the House of Rep. each State having an equal vote. A choice required a majority of the states. Talk about state sovereignty! Talk about constitutional federalism!

          The president was the president of the union of states–not the “King” of the people.

          You were right when you said that the president was chosen by the states.


          Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 28, 2012 | Reply

          • Thank you so much, Carolyn! I look forward to reading your book and finding out all about HOW the various State Legislatures provided for the appointment of the Electors for their State. I have had no idea as to how it was in practice and how we were manipulated into abandoning the constitutional system.

            And your next to the last sentence,

            The president was the president of the union of states–not the “King” of the people.

            is magnificent. I might change “union” to “federation” since we were united only for the specific enumerated purposes set forth in the Constitution. It is now so clear how the corruption of the Constitutional procedures for electing President corrupted the understanding of The People as to just what the President is. They do see him as “king” with unlimited powers. This is how Charles Krauthammer, the great intellectual (?), views the President.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | April 1, 2012

          • Using the work “union” is referring to “a more perfect union”, not strong central government. I also love the word federation, however it has also been hijacked. Madison Federalist 39, explains how both federal and national principles are incorporated in the new Constitution. Today when we say federal government most people think of the all powerful central government we operate under today.

            We are actually writing another book: “The Evolution and Destruction of Constitutional Federalism” which will explain what we had and what we have lost. We should have written this book first, as those fundamental principles are necessary to understand the presidential electoral system.

            Federalism under the Constitution is different than the federalism under the Articles of Confederation.

            I am glad you are going to read (examine) our book. I can send you a copy if you would like. I look forward to your response and hopefully your endorsement.


            Comment by Carolyn Alder | April 2, 2012

          • I was not up-to-date-on Charles Krauthammer, so I googled his name to see what you meant. I see now, and was familiar, just did not recall it by his name only.


            Comment by Carolyn Alder | April 2, 2012

          • Carolyn, I quote Krauthammer here and link to the video where he said a (an?) horrific thing in my Paper, Why Republican Politicians Sell Us Out.


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | April 2, 2012

          • We are late leaving for Wyoming. I will check it out when we get home in 3 or 4 days.


            Comment by Carolyn Alder | April 2, 2012

          • I hope you have a wonderful trip!


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | April 2, 2012

          • Publis Huldah,

            I should have forwarded an article to you by Henry Lamb published in WND Saturday, in which he featured our book, “This is no way to Elect a President”



            Comment by Carolyn Alder | April 2, 2012

  12. One more thing: could you please elaborate, perhaps in a future blogpost, about the perils of direct democracy? Specifically, I’m referring to this:

    “all history demonstrates that The People lack the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to make wise choices when voting for politicians.

    In Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras), 7 John Jay recognizes that People are ignorant and easily manipulated by small groups who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by the small groups.”

    And that is sad but true. It’s the cause of America’s undoing. These days, elections are decided by 1) special interest groups (AKA lobbies), which produce propaganda ads and have a lot of money to air them and to give to candidates; and 2) ignorant masses who are easily manipulated by these lobbies and money-awash candidates. Thus, the Congress and the White House often enact policies that are unconstitutional, restrict liberty, and/or dole out favors to lobbies, instead of enacting policies that are objectively best for the country.

    If the Senate and the Electors of the President were to be elected by state legislatures again, this problem would be dramatically reduced, although not solved completely. Some kind of law is needed to curtail the influence of lobbies.


    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | March 10, 2012 | Reply

    • Well, I am always reluctant to comment on the perils of direct democracy b/c I am always so bewildered at how people can be so stupid and bad. I have been to meetings of tea party groups and have heard some of the worst ideas proposed. People just spout off about things of which they have no knowledge whatsoever – they don’t think – they don’t analyze – they just spout off. On the internet, I have seen some of the most ignorant AND nastiest stuff put out by ignorant people who think they are experts on the Constitution thus refuse to lay aside the lies they believe and promulgate.

      Our Framers were under no illusions about human nature – they saw us as the seriously fallen beings we all are. THAT’s why they created a federal government of strictly limited powers – to limit the damage which people in the general government could do to the States and the People, while providing the benefits of a uniform commercial system where manufacturing and farming and trade could flourish, and a “national” defense.

      They write about this in various places in the Federalist (Madison discusses the perils of “a pure democracy” in No. 10 (13th para or so); Hamilton writes of the wickedness and weakness of human nature in No. 6; etc.

      People of today are as ignorant as before. But at least before, they didn’t all think they were little gods, and so they listened to the wise and virtuous ones (The Bible, Our Framers). But today, with “self-esteem” classes, “values clarification”, and the existentialist mindset, they all believe that what they have to say about any subject whatsoever is somehow “important” and should be “shared”. And that their precious little opinion is as valuable as anyone else’s.

      Perhaps you heard the pretended president explaining his telephone call to that birth control activist – the law student at George Washington University (or is it Georgetown University?) (a Catholic University), who complained b/c she had to buy her own birth control! She wants the Catholic University she attends to be forced to provide it in their insurance programs for students! Obama said that when his daughters grow up, he wants they to feel free to speak their minds on issues which are important to them. Do you see? It isn’t necessary that people actually KNOW what they are talking about – but they should “speak their minds” even when they don’t know what they are talking about.

      So I am just too angry about this topic to write on it. And too hopeless. I strive to stay positive – and never give up. So I seek to turn the lights on in the minds of those few who actually have minds. When I was a child, my Father always warned me that my greatest problem in life would be dealing with other peoples’ stupidity. He was right. I fear the Stupid will overwhelm us and do us in.

      But I do what I am gifted to do; hope that others will do what they are gifted to do; and pray that God will take of the rest of it.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 11, 2012 | Reply

  13. Excellent article, PH, and this it the part that I like most:

    “No promises of future favors made by candidates to donors for campaign contributions. In short, the corruption which permeates our present system would be gone.”

    This is very important because these days, US presidential elections are basically bought by the person who raises more money and uses it most effectively. This means that these elections are won de facto by Super PAC donors, who, of course, by virtue of such huge donations, hold candidates hostage. But you know what’s the funniest part? Ron Paul’s chief donor, Peter Thiel, who has already given Paul $2.6 mn and plans to give him more, is a Bilderberger!

    I’d like to ask you a different question now. Maybe you would like to write a paper on the subject. Suppose that a pro-life government replaces the Obama Admin and the President, by EO, or the SECDEF, by DOD DIrective, bans abortions on military installations and DOD funding for abortion, in all cases. The NARAL or the ACLU sues. How would you defend such an EO/DODD in court?


    Comment by Zbigniew Mazurak | March 3, 2012 | Reply

    • Well! Interesting question, but I am on my way out of the house. So, for now, just a quick answer:

      Look at Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 14 which delegates to CONGRESS the Power to make rules for the government and Regulation of the land and naval forces. Look also at Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause, which grants to CONGRESS “exclusive Legislation” over forts, dock yards, etc. So CONGRESS has constitutional authority to ban abortions on military bases. CONGRESS may make it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for a military doctor to perform an abortion.

      But the President has no authority to ban them in the military via Executive order. He is CINC, of course, but Our Constitution expressly delegates the lawmaking power over the military to CONGRESS alone. As CINC, the President is like a head general – but not the lawmaker.

      This is not like banning smoking or imposing dress codes within the Executive Branch, which the President may do by Executive Order. Because the Constitution EXPRESSLY grants law making power over the military to CONGRESS. Our Framers did not want the President to have too much power over the military! That’s why the funding for the military is also under the Control of Congress. (And why the Balanced Budget Amendment is such a STUPID thing for “patriots” to support b/c in the version I wrote about, the President would be given control of funding for the military.)


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 3, 2012 | Reply

    • So! If I were President, I would ask Congress to ban abortion on military bases, VA Hospitals, and the like and to make abortion a crime under the UCMJ. I would recognize that I have no constitutional authority to do it by Executive Order.

      If Congress does as I would ask, I would hope and pray that NARAL and the ACLU would then file suit! Because this would be an opportunity for me to (1) Instruct my People about The Constitution and to (2) Smack down the usurping supreme Court!

      I would have a series of Addresses from the oval office on “original intent”, “enumerated powers”, “division of powers”, “checks and balances”, the requirements of the “oath of office”, “federalism”, etc. On TV, radio talk shows, on the internet.

      I would focus on the original intent of the 14th Amendment: To require the States to extend BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS to freed slaves. The 14th Amendment was not enacted so that women could kill their babies, to elevate homosexual sodomy to a “constitutional right”, to bless “homosexual marriage”, etc. [See my papers on the 14th Amendment.] I would show how the supreme Court has abused and perverted the 14th Amendment to enact their own Marquis de Sade agenda.

      I would instruct my Solicitor General to let the federal courts know – without any bowing & scraping or pussyfooting – that we didn’t really care how they ruled; that we deny that they have any constitutional authority WHATSOEVER over “abortion” (or homosexuality or marriage); that abortion & homosexuality in the military and federal enclaves (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause) is a matter SOLELY within the purview of Congress. And further that – respecting the States – power over such matters is reserved exclusively to the States.

      Remember, throughout The Federalist Papers we are warned of collusion between federal judges and other branches of the federal government, that usurpations of power by one branch require connivance of another branch to succeed, etc. And that in Federalist No. 78 (7th para or so) Hamilton reminds us that the federal judges must rely on the executive branch to give effect to their judgments.

      So this could be a turning point in Our History – when the lawless federal judges got their comeuppance.

      But where do we find a person to be President who has that kind of knowledge & spine? These are not common qualities among Our People of today. I would love to find some promising People I could groom on the constitutional & spinal aspects.

      I would be so eager for this fight in the federal courts that if NARAL, et al didn’t promptly file a lawsuit, I would do all I could to get instigators to incite them to file a lawsuit.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 4, 2012 | Reply

      • I see. But, replying to your first comment, can’t the President really ban abortions on DOD installations (and DOD funding for installations) via EO or DOD Directive?

        This is, after all, behavior on DOD property and at DOD installations that we’re talking about. DOD installations & hospitals are to be used in a proper manner, i.e. in the manner in which they were originally intended to be used: as grounds and buildings to house troops, train them, feed them, treat them, and store military equipment and munitions. Likewise, DOD funds are to be spent on military purposes, not on abortions or on contraceptives for the troops.

        DOD Directives and Presidential EOs regulate a lot of issues these days: what interrogation techniques may or may not be used, who is eligible or ineligible for a clearance, how the proceedings for a clearance are to be conducted, how the military is supposed to act in the event of an aircraft hijacking (such as the ones that happened on 9/11), etc.

        If you’re right about the need for a statute, then the case may already be lost, because Congress would never pass such legislation. It would be filibustered to death in the Senate by the Democrats.


        Comment by zbigniewmazurak | March 10, 2012 | Reply

        • I understand what you are saying, Zbigniew. But our Constitution is most careful to divest the President of specific powers over the military:

          Only Congress may declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules re Captures on Land and Water (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11).
          Only Congress may raise and support Armies (cl. 12) and provide and maintain a Navy (cl. 13).
          Only Congress may make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (cl. 14).
          Only Congress may call forth the Militia (cl. 15), and organize, arm, and discipline them, and for governing those who are called into service of the united States. And The States get to appoint the officers of the Militia, not the President (cl. 16).

          Furthermore, it is Congress which has Power to exercise general legislation over the military bases and dock Yards (cl. 17).

          So, the President has been specifically divested of all authority over the military except as CINC – head general. And if you read thru the President’s enumerated powers – being CINC is his sole power respecting the military. [Thou Congress can probably properly make a law which permits the President alone to appoint the Generals & Admirals of the military – Art. II, Sec.2, cl. 2]. But the President’s prime duty re the Military is to execute the laws and rules over the military which CONGRESS makes. and act as head general – but only after CONGRESS has declared war.

          Yes, we have moral degenerates in Congress who love baby killing. But at least when Congress exercises its constitutionally granted powers over such issues, it takes a great many more people to permit baby-killing and open homosexual sodomy in the military; than when just one moral degenerate – the President- purports to permit these things with a stroke of his pen alone.


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 11, 2012 | Reply

  14. Thank you for this wonderful article.
    We take it one step further. Yes, we lost the State representation (check) with the 17th Amendment, but the first branch to fall was the Executive Branch with the 12th Amendment. We lost the concept that each presidential Elector was to nominate TWO outstanding possible presidential candidates. (Not campaign for one.)
    This system was based on past performance, not campaign promises, promoting special interests, or self-aggrandizing.
    Even though George Washington pleaded with us not to go to political parties, we quickly turned our backs on the ingenious system the Framers designed and resorted to party politics.
    I would like to send you a copy of our book “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College”.


    Comment by Carolyn Alder | February 29, 2012 | Reply

    • Please post the link to your book!


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 29, 2012 | Reply

      • “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College” is at:
        Available in print and kindle


        Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 3, 2012 | Reply

  15. […] significantly from the intended course as to be rendered virtually unrecognizable. Refer to articles by Publius Hulldah at […]


    Pingback by Reflections On The Battlefield Against Progressives - Impeach Obama Campaign : Impeach Obama Campaign | February 21, 2012 | Reply

  16. […] significantly from the intended course as to be rendered virtually unrecognizable. Refer to articles by Publius Hulldah at […]


    Pingback by Reflections On The Battlefield Against Progressives | Western | February 21, 2012 | Reply

  17. Oh, PH, I thought I’d mention to you that at this point in your article:

    “Only 2 of 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government. And 49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution …. [boldface mine]”

    you don’t have anything boldfaced. I assume you meant to boldface “And 49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution.”


    Comment by Ross | February 20, 2012 | Reply

    • Thanks, Ross! I fixed it. I really appreciate your pointing this out.

      I’ll answer your question – I’m now working on an outline for my next paper where I explain how “christians” became such a bunch of useless wimps.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 20, 2012 | Reply

  18. Thanks for writing this one! I had previously been a NPV supporter, thought now I see the problems. How would you suggest that Electors be chosen? By the members of the various state legislatures, rather than popular vote of the states?

    And, I’m not sure if I missed something above, but it doesn’t seem like the twelfth amendment or Art 2, sec 2 cl 1 actually forbid this. Assuming the Federal Government doesn’t approve it, it seems like Art 1, sec 10, cl 3 would forbid the NPV compact, but I don’t see anything explicit in the other sections you mentioned.

    As I am sure you know: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct … etc

    Am I missing something?

    Of course I am no lawyer and I completely agree with your argument concerning the power of the States (although I would say that the state legislators would likely choose Electors from among themselves, who are just as flawed as anybody else).

    Again, thanks for writing this one!


    Comment by Ross | February 18, 2012 | Reply

    • Sorry to be so long in answering, Ross.

      Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 leaves it up to the various State Legislatures to decide HOW the Electors for their State are to be appointed.

      The Constitution does not prohibit the State Legislatures from deciding to allow a popular vote in their State to elect the Electors.

      BUT it does violate the Constitution to have the Electors merely rubber stamp the popular vote of their State for President. Because Art. II, Sec. 1, cls. 2 & 3, as modified by the 12th Amendment (ratified 1804), clearly show that the Electors were supposed to be the ones who actually made the decisions for their States!

      The Federalist Papers show that the reason for having Electors make the selections is because The People are too ignorant, irrational, and foolish to make wise decisions.

      At some point in our Country, Electors were converted from the specially selected wise & prudent men who actually made the selections for their States to party hacks who merely rubber stamp the popular vote for their respective States. THIS is the system which gave us the lawless tyrants who have inhabited the White House for some time.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 27, 2012 | Reply

      • Oh, I see. Thanks for the answer.


        Comment by Ross | March 3, 2012 | Reply

    • Nowadays, we believe that we have a “right” to vote for the President. It would be political suicide to say we should not vote for the president. The NPV is operating on this premise that every vote should count equally.

      This nation was established as a constitutional representative republic NOT a democracy. Each federal office was elected by a different method, by a different group, to represent different interests, for a different length term of office. The H of R was the only federal office elected directly by the people.

      A fallacy of the NPV movement is that the state can determine the “outcome” of the electoral votes. As you mention above, they are authorized to “appoint” the electors, but the electors are to be free to nominate who they feel is best qualified to be president.

      That is the principle which was lost with the 12th Amendment. The Electors were to nominate the best possible presidential possibilities, not rubber stamp a popular election.


      Comment by Carolyn Alder | February 29, 2012 | Reply

      • Wow, my dear! You seem to understand it perfectly.

        On another topic, can you get to Sen. Mike Lee to educate him on why the Balanced Budget Amendment is such a BAD idea? Or is he a wolf in sheep’s clothing?


        Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 29, 2012 | Reply

        • I think he means well, but you are right we certainly do not need an amendment, we need a balanced budget. I would really like to send you a copy of our book, “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College”. You have closer to explaining the ingenious system closer than anyone I have heard. You have my email address when I signed in. Perhaps you can send me an email where to send it. I would love your feed back.


          Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 3, 2012 | Reply

      • “A fallacy of the NPV movement is that the state can determine the “outcome” of the electoral votes. As you mention above, they are authorized to “appoint” the electors, but the electors are to be free to nominate who they feel is best qualified to be president.”

        So I guess that those states that disenfranchise electors who don’t vote for the correct candidate are also in violation of the constitution.


        Comment by Ross | March 3, 2012 | Reply

        • Ross, I’m confused about what you mean. Under the system our Framers set up and the 12th Amendment (ratified 1804), the specially selected Electors (i.e., that body of wise & prudent men for each State) are the ones who actually evaluate potential Presidents and Vice Presidents and they themselves decide who would make the best President and Vice President, and thus how their State’s “electoral votes” will be cast. Our Framers never intended for the ignorant & irrational & easily manipulated People to vote for president or Vice President.

          So if you and I both live in Tennessee, and we are both among the specially selected “electors” for Tennessee: We get together and cast our votes. I vote for George MacDonald for President and William Cross for Vice President; you vote for Sam Jones for President and Bob Brown for Vice President; the 9 or so others Electors for Tennessee vote for their choices; and then we all write down the names and votes cast for each; we all sign & certify the list and send it to the President of the Senate to be opened on the appointed day with the lists from the 49 other States.

          So my votes for MacDonald and Cross are counted in the Senate, your votes for Jones and Brown are also counted, and so on with the votes of the other Electors from Tennessee and the other 49 States.

          Historically, I don’t know when this Country began moving to the system we have now where the People dictate how the Electors for their State will be required to vote; and the further indignity where all the States’ electoral votes are awarded to the person who got the most popular votes in their State. I minored in American History, but that was a very long time ago…..


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 4, 2012 | Reply

          • I was just under the impression that right now, when the electoral college meets and votes, certain states have laws that disenfranchise electors who case their vote to a candidate to which they are not bound. ie Romney wins Florida, one of the Florida electors is Joe. Joe can vote for Obama, but then Florida law nullifies his vote. At least this was my impression.

            That’s what I meant by “correct.” I was saying that in light of your explanation above, this law is probably unconstitutional.

            How would you feel about popular vote of electors? And how would you (or the Federalist papers) suggest that we find men who are “wise and prudent?”


            Comment by Ross | March 6, 2012

          • Ross, I do not know the actual practice in the States – as opposed to what The Constitution says. I would not be surprised to find all kinds of unconstitutional stuff going on in the States.

            State Legislatures could make a law which provided that the Electors for their State would be chosen by popular vote; and such a law would not violate the federal Constitution.

            However, I think it is a terrible idea b/c the People are too ignorant, foolish, and easily mislead to make wise choices in elections – even when voting for Electors who would then be the ones to exercise their own judgment in voting for President & Vice President.

            I have found no suggestions in The Federalist Papers as to how such Electors could be chosen. But in those days, The People tended to acknowledge wisdom and learning in others, and their own lack thereof. But today, just about everyone thinks he is an expert in everything!

            Your question reminds me of the ancient Greek philosopher who went around with a lantern looking for an honest man. I don’t remember if he ever found one. I don’t think we have enough wise and prudent people in the whole country to make up the requisite number of Electors for President! How many “wise and prudent” people do you know?


            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 7, 2012

          • It is true that many (probably most) have laws to make sure their Electors are “faithful” to rubber-stamp the states’ popular choice.for president. In Utah it is an automatic resignation and you will be replaced by another Elector of the same party. Some states fine $1,000 for an unfaithful vote, on and on.

            Originally, the State Legislature would decide the method of appointment of the Electors. The state could have the Electors chosen by the people, or they could choose them, or as several states, the people nominated two Electors for each district and the State Legislature would chose from the two nominated from each district and the legislature would choose two at large. It was entirely up to each state to appoint the Electors however they chose.

            The Electors were not bound to a candidate. In fact they were to NOMINATE the candidates. Two nominations each! They were not making a final selection, they were at the beginning of the process.

            The lists of names and the number of votes for each were signed, certified, sealed and sent to the seat of government to be opened in joint secession of Congress. The names of the five highest (who were now candidates) would be sent to the House of Representatives. Each State would have an equal vote to chose a President. The candidate with the highest number of electoral nominations after the President was chosen, was named Vice-President. It was another example of constitutional federalism built in the system. Also another example of “checks”. There was nothing wrong with a President and Vice-President of different persuasions. (The exception to this was if a majority of the Electors nominated the same person, then it would not go to the house. Except for a George Washington, there would probably not be single outstanding individuals whom everybody would choose, until the political parties took over and started manipulating everything.)

            After the 12th Amendment, we lost the concept that the Electors were to nominate. The political parties hijacked the process of nomination. (Which they started before the 12 Amendment–which was why the tie between T.Jefferson and A. Burr )

            Then the States one by one have turned the function of the Electors over to the political parties to choose the Electors and they are bound to rubber-stamp their winning candidate in their state. (Then it evolved to the “winner take all”, except for Maine and Nebraska.) The Electors for each party are usually chosen at their political party state convention. They do not know who the rubber-stamps will be until after the popular election in November.

            It is all such a farce! As you say, the State Legislatures could take back their constitutional authorized function of choosing the Electors, however, since they were also elected by political parties, they would not have guts enough to do so. That would be political suicide.

            We say constitutional government was destroyed by party politics! (The first branch to fall was the executive with the 12 Amendment, the second to fall was the Senate with the 17 Amendment.)

            Until we love freedom and the Constitution more than party politics and government handouts, we will continue to get the best (?) president MONEY can BUY!

            The Framers designed an ingenious system to elect a president who could not be bought at any price. It is totally unknown today.

            “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College”


            Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 7, 2012

  19. […] (b) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Leave a comment […]


    Pingback by Reflections On The Battlefield « wisdomdepot | February 15, 2012 | Reply

  20. I have 2 questions.

    1. Fred Thompson from Tennessee is a co-chairman. Also, there is a New York TeaParty representative who is quite active for New York State. Shouldn’t we be talking with them and educating them?

    2. Article I, Sec. 10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”. – My understanding is they have avoided that problem by simply passing the same laws in each state without reference to any other state. I think each state can repeal the law as they see fit. Did I miss something?


    Comment by Ed Bradford (@egbegb) | February 14, 2012 | Reply

    • I have no access to Fred Thompson or to anyone from New York State. We can call their staffs, send them emails, etc. all we want and they ignore it all.

      If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck – even if one insists that it is a dog.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 14, 2012 | Reply

  21. So much of the original separations and divisions of power have already been destroyed…the federal government holds states hostage with $$$$$ in grants, loans etc, due to their own sorry accounting, corrupting them to sell their constitutional status for a handful of magic beans…like the old saying goes if voting changed anything it would be illegal…


    Comment by ttmuggs | February 14, 2012 | Reply

  22. […] National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. – Publius Huldah . The Hidden Irony In Obama’s Health Care Position – Riehl World View […]


    Pingback by Saturday Afternoon – Cold & Achy – Laundry Time , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings | February 11, 2012 | Reply

  23. […] National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. « Publius-Huldah’s Blog […]


    Pingback by New and Noteworthy for Today, February 10, 2012 - Survival Blog With A Family Focus | February 10, 2012 | Reply

  24. An ewxcellent article, nowever you miss one critical point that has contributed emensly to our ongoing demise – there is no mathematically certain definition anywhere in the Constition setting forth the source and limit of the authority of government.

    How can it be reasonable that men who have no individually Naturally imbued authority cn combine their non-authority in order to crate an authority that does not notherwise exist? How many men would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?

    Thia question proves that voting, whenever the outcome purports to command the obiedience of the otherwise unwilling, is a criminal act!

    The Preamble to the Constitution needs to be ammended to include the following: Nothing in the Constitution created hereunder shall ever be construed to imbue the government created hereunder to have any more authority than the authority Naturally imbued into any one single individual man or woman!


    Comment by Eric Williams | February 10, 2012 | Reply

    • Huh?


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 10, 2012 | Reply

  25. And what recourse are we left when our “representatives” no longer represent us? Voting sure as hell doesn’t seem to help. Only a tax revolt can help. But they have that base covered also.


    Comment by Joyce | February 9, 2012 | Reply

    • Well, an email friend just got the NPV tabled in her State Legislature. We must learn, speak out, lobby, educate, pass out information, etc.

      Most State Legislators don’t know very much; they are shallow; something sounds good on the surface and so they are all for it; they do not understand the consequences of such matters; BUT most of them want to be liked, and many want to do the right thing. So you approach them nicely in groups as large as possible but with the most articulate person as spokesman, and explain your objections.

      Note that I stressed in the Paper that the STATES could reclaim power over the national government by taking the two steps I advise: That was an attempt to win State Legislators over to the Side of The Constitution.

      Never, never, never give up.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 9, 2012 | Reply

      • Awesome, we are working on that in Utah.
        We sent each of our Senators and Reps a pdf copy of our book “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College” at no charge to help them combat the NPV.


        Comment by Carolyn Alder | February 29, 2012 | Reply

        • Carolyn, would you like to post a link to your book here?


          Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 29, 2012 | Reply

          • Thank you very much!
   it is also available at


            Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 4, 2012

  26. […] […]


    Pingback by Publius Huldah - National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America | February 9, 2012 | Reply

  27. The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. ……

    rest of excessively long post deleted by me, PH


    Comment by s e (@oldgulph) | February 9, 2012 | Reply

    • This fellow posted, one after another, in rapid fire succession, a series of very long posts which regurgitate the line put out by those who seek to deceive and manipulate us into supporting the NPV.

      He did not respond to a single point I raised. He just regurgitated rubbish he copied from somewhere else.

      Now! If any of you NPV supporters can address this on an intellectual level, and are able to be honest about it, well, then, have at it.

      But I do not permit stupid drones to clutter up MY website with rubbish. Save the rubbish for your own websites.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 11, 2012 | Reply

  28. […] National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. […]


    Pingback by National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America. | Nebraska Oath Keepers | February 9, 2012 | Reply

  29. Here is what happened when some of the tea party went to the State Convention in PA. If we get treated like this how or when will the State Legislators even hear us? I am so angry PH. We need to find a way around the court system. I wasn’t there but this is written by a candidate who was there.
    I hope it is okay to post this here. Deb

    Dear Conservative,

    If I told you that the Pennsylvania Republican Party threw members of the Tea Party out of the PA State Convention, threatened those Tea Partiers with arrest, threw their petitions in the trash, and then endorsed a recent Democrat who voted for Obama as our candidate for Senate, you wouldn’t believe it.

    But that’s exactly what happened last weekend at the Pennsylvania Republican Convention.

    My name is Sam Rohrer. In the race to replace Senator Bob Casey, I am the only life-long conservative Republican with a proven voting history, and I need your help to stand against ‘Establishment’ Republicans.

    You see, here in Pennsylvania, the GOP often makes a formal endorsement before the Primary. Essentially, they try to tell primary voters who to vote for. Then they deny all the other candidates access to party voter lists and opportunities to speak to or to circulate literature at party events. They even use party money to run negative ads against other “non-endorsed” Republicans that dare to run against them. Worst of all, the Republican County Committees are told that if they don’t enforce all of this, they’ll have their charter revoked from the Republican Party!

    This is an outrageous thing to do to the grassroots. Will you help me fight back?

    We launched an online petition, urging the chairman of the state GOP to stay out of the primary and let the people decide. Nearly 1,600 people from across Pennsylvania signed this petition in just a little under a week. When the members of the Tea Party went to present these 1,600 petitions, the Pennsylvania GOP staff refused to let them deliver their petitions, had them THROWN OUT of the building by hotel security, and then literally threw their petitions in the trash. I was shocked – and angered. The Tea Party folks were told that if they came back they would be arrested!

    After throwing the Tea Partiers and their petitions out, the Republican Party proceeded to endorse a candidate who admits he voted for Obama in the 2008 Primary. He also wrote a check to a liberal Democrat who later ran against our conservative Republican Senator, Pat Toomey in 2010!

    Endorsing a recent Democrat who supported Obama alienates Tea Partiers, freedom-loving people, and everyone else we need to defeat Senator Bob Casey. This is suicide for the Republican Party.

    I am the only life-long Constitutional Republican with a consistent voting history in this race who can win. Two of the current candidates were Democrats until recently. That’s not good enough.

    I am a proud Reagan conservative. I served for 18 years in the PA House, and I never made an unconstitutional vote. During my service, I regularly introduced complete alternate budgets – without any taxes increases or deficit spending. I was never afraid to stand up to leadership in Harrisburg, and that won’t change when I go to Washington.

    Situations may change, principles never do. I’m going to DC to help renew trust in government by restoring truth and to dismantle the oppressive Obama agenda. I will be proud to stand with Senators like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Tom Coburn.

    But I need your help to get there. If the PA GOP has their way, Pennsylvanians will nominate a candidate who voted for Obama! For the sake of PA and the nation, that must not happen!

    We’re going to send a message to the moderate GOP establishment that “The People” want to be heard and want a proven conservative in the Senate. Will you join me?

    Thanks for your support.

    For America,

    Sam Rohrer

    Conservative Republican, Pennsylvania


    Comment by patriotdeb | February 9, 2012 | Reply

    • Sam Rohrer comes very highly recommended by Devvy Kidd as well. She wishes that you would run for President. I sent you a copy of our book at her request. Did you ever read it? “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College.”

      “Situations change, principles never do.” True, what about when the principles have been hidden for 200 years?

      That is the case when it comes to electing a President. No wonder we have so many problems, we get the best president money can buy, not a president that cannot be bought at any price.


      Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 4, 2012 | Reply

  30. Thanks, Huldah, for your good explanation. The Universities and colleges across America have been trying for years to destroy the Electoral College, Constitution of the United States, attacking this brilliant mechanism as an “antiquated appendage”.
    The first move to this POPULAR vote was the 17 Amendment, destroying the “checks and balances” in the Congress, ie Popular election of the Senate. The Founders only intended that the Senate come from the State Legislatures. The Senators were to represent the Legislatures. The 17 Amendment needs to return to the original intent of the Founders, BUT do it the LONG, deliberate way of Amending the Constitution. NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
    I hope your good information will STOP these BAD notions.
    For God & Country


    Comment by ruth ann wilson | February 9, 2012 | Reply

    • Well, it will stop it only if Citizens arms themselves with the Knowledge and fight this in their State Legislatures.
      Many of the State Legislators simply do not understand the horrific consequences of the NPV.
      Some do understand the consequences.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 9, 2012 | Reply

  31. That could not be more clear! Over and over again, I am amazed at the intelligence and foresight of our Founders.


    Comment by Mike Foil | February 9, 2012 | Reply

    • So am I, dear Friend. And I confess I had to wipe away the tears when I described the two Gifts Our Framers gave us and how we threw them both away.


      Comment by Publius/Huldah | February 9, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,596 other followers

%d bloggers like this: