From the AP:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee has been named a co-champion of the nonpartisan National Popular Vote campaign.
The project is promoting reform of the Electoral College by stressing popular votes instead of the winner-takes-all system according to state.
Thompson, who also ran briefly for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, said the campaign is consistent with the country’s constitutional principles.
Thus dies the Republic, one piece of appeasement at a time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo nullifying the effect of one part of the Constitution without passing an amendment to do so is "consistent with the country's constitutional principles"? Who'd'a thunk it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis could be a joke aimed at friday's TresDecaPhobics
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the words of Yoda: Unexpected this is, and unfortunate.
This is great if you like the idea of losing our republic.
I'm sorry I donated to the senator's campaign for president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRobin, how does this nullify a part of the constitution? The constitution gives state legislatures the ability select their presidential electors as they see fit. If legislatures prefer to assign them to the winner of the national popular vote, isn't that their prerogative under the constitution?
In December 2000, the Florida legislature declared it was going to select the Bush electors regardless of the recount efforts. Was that "nullifying the effect of one part of the Constitution without passing an amendment?" How is this different?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere goes the man crush. Hopefully I will read that John Bolton supports "negoseeations" with Iran and then I know that this is simply a bad dream.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is disappointing. I don't know which would be worse: him doing this as a a lobbying job for a check, or actually beliving in the cause. Either way, he's lowered in my estimation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHopefully, this is as successful as his candidacy for president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've always been a big fan of FT. I thought his folksy and genuine style was about as Reaganesque as one could hope for in this day and age. I'm sure he has other minor policy positions with which I disagree but would be willing to set aside. However, for him to say that this campaign is consistent with the country's constitutional principles is very disappointing indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis doesn't surprise me, but the reaction of other conservatives to Fred Thompson has often surprised me. We seem to have collectively forgotten that Fred Thompson enthusiastically supported the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, and often supported McCain as he engaged in his "renegade" ways. I watched Fred Thompson's 2008 campaign with detached amusement as he tried to portray himself as a conservative's conservative, and I was not sorry to watch him drop out early.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt nullifies the intent of the Constitution. Obviously, the states' legislatures can vote for whatever reasons they want but the intent is that they vote on their own state's interests. So it's hard to see how voting with the popular national vote is within the state's interests when the state's people have voted differently.
Hi Jason:
So if a legislature decided to assign their presidential electors to the presidential candidate whose platform was to reinstate slavery, is that constitutional?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bigtvhomey, Sure, why wouldn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFreddy went to Hollywood.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFred was doing better work when he represented Hugo Chavez on "The Good Wife."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason: The state legislature was only acting because the Democrats were trying to force recounts that would go past the constitutionally mandated date by which electors must be selected.
Bush had won every single recount, Gore was trying to force the state into a blatantly unconstitutional recount (IE, only count those counties that would help him, and ignore the rest.) The Supreme court agreed that the recount that Gore wanted was unconstitutional by a 7-2 vote.
The FL legislature was following the will of the voters of FL. This bill wants the state to ignore the will of it's voters in favor of the will of voters from other states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only reason to do this, is to make cheating easier. Which is why the liberals are so much in favor of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It nullifies the intent of the Constitution. "
Where are the strict constructionists and states' rights advocates?
The plain language of the constitution give states the power to choose electors as they see fit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"The constitution gives state legislatures the ability select their presidential electors as they see fit"
That's debatable. If the people of Ohio vote for one candidate, may the state legislature direct that the states electoral votes nevertheless be awarded to a different candidate?
The US Constitution says that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Does your state still have a "republican form of government" under National Popular Vote?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother one bites the dust. Romney stuck us MA'ers with RomneyCare, and now Fred backs NPV.
You'd almost think there isn't a real conservative anywhere, and they're just yanking our chains.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse