So You Want A Civil War?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-05-26 10:30 by Karl Denninger
in States , 843 references Ignore this thread
So You Want A Civil War?
[Comments enabled]

When in the course of human events.....

There are only a few ways to lawfully amend the Constitution -- they're enumerated in the process that it provides within its boundaries for doing so.

There are myriad ways to break the contract the Constitution provides.  Once broken no other party allegedly bound by the terms of a deal have any obligation -- not ethically, morally or legally -- to uphold the bargain themselves.

The State "popular vote compact" is one such attempt.

There are many who claim that those who disagree with the concept should be afraid of further states signing on.

I'm not afraid at all.

The Electoral College was constructed by the Founders to guarantee that less-populous states and regions had a reasonable voice in the selection of the President and Vice-President.  The reason for it is identical to the purpose of The Senate; to prevent tyranny of the majority, especially a concentrated majority in major population centers..

Those protections are an inherent and inviolate component of the Constitution.

Proponents argue that the Constitution directly stipulates that the legislature of a given state may select how electors are chosen.  This is true, however there is a problem: Congress must consent to any Interstate Compact, which makes any such agreement without an explicit enabling federal law void.

So says Article 1 Section 10, prohibited powers:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So while the state legislatures may set forth the elector process they may not collude with other States without the explicit consent of Congress.  There is some case law on this at the USSC, and the boundary is clearly set there -- state compacts that impact, lessen or abrogate federal power always require Congressional approval.  This compact would effectively remove the US House of Representative's ability to break ties because there would never be a tie; it therefore has the effect of writing out an entire section of the Constitution and thus diminishes federal power.

It's facially unconstitutional for this reason and the legislatures know it.

Never mind that I can find another means by which it's unconstitutional -- specifically, it is effectively "selling" the electors of a state to voters who are not residents of said state.  That the "price" is votes instead of dollars is not material; something of value (a popular vote) is exchanged for something of value (an electoral vote.)  The state legislature is not empowered to effectively sell its electoral process, especially to persons outside of the state in question, and yet that is exactly what the compact envisions.

Now perhaps that's a bit of interpretation and who knows how the Supremes would rule on it.

But the compact issue isn't a matter of interpretation; that's a black letter prohibition on state governments in Article 1 Section 10.

A State that declares and acts in furtherance of putting up the middle finger by engaging in an explicit prohibited act in the Constitution has declared said Constitution including its benefits to said state and the residents thereof VOID.

Wanna go there?  Go right ahead.  By declaring the benefits and protections of the Constitution VOID said state has made itself ineligible to submit electors at all.  It is no longer within the State's right demand any of the benefits and privileges of Statehood nor any of the protections of the Constitution.

Should it thereafter attempt to demand same every other state and citizen of any other said state can quite-legitimately tell said government agents (including law enforcement, tax collectors and similar) to pound sand as they are no longer entitled to the full faith and credit of their laws beyond their state boundaries (one of the privileges and benefits of being a State) and should they try to enforce same the people have every right to declare such an act of civil war against them and respond accordingly.

This does not just apply to government agencies either.  Want gas through that pipe or electrical power through that overhead line as it crosses a state boundary?  Tough crap.  Try to force it to happen?  How?  You've declared you're not part of the Constitution any more; therefore you're not entitled to the protections that lie in the Interstate Commerce Clause.  Try to enforce that and again the other states have the right to treat that as an act of civil war.

Still wanna go there folks?

Down this road lies madness -- a literal shooting war between state agencies (e.g. state cops, etc) and the citizens of all the other states they try to demand respect from.  This is not only a numerical loser it's a strategic loser on an instant basis; California, for example, would be rendered unable to provide power to homes and businesses as fully one third of their electrical power comes from outside the state and they are thus utterly dependent on that outside supply.  Never mind the water issue; Southern California is utterly dependent on neighboring states for its fresh water supply as well and on the very day this goes into effect none of those states have any obligation to allow one drop of said water to flow.

Go ahead and do it; there are hills worth dying on and this is one of them.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info So You Want A Civil War? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Imustbenutz
Posts: 333
Incept: 2010-11-04

Absurdistan, USSA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Interesting analysis, but what are you referring to?
Captainkidd
Posts: 1381
Incept: 2010-05-25

Houston, Texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I agree, wholeheartedly....
And, I, too, feel this is a hill worth dying on...
But, are there enough that are not too sheepish to stand on that hill, and die if necessary, with us???
Is there a state, or group of states, that would be willing to throw down that gauntlet?

----------
A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns. --Mario Puzo

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. -- Henry Ford
Maynard
Posts: 1209
Incept: 2007-11-27

gig harbor wa
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
uhhh Nutz I think he lays it out pretty clearly and citing the constitution too. Interpretation as well.
Quote:
So while the state legislatures may set forth the elector process they may not collude with other States without the explicit consent of Congress.

And thats exactly what they are trying to do.
Aztrader
Posts: 8343
Incept: 2007-09-10

Scottsdale, AZ
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
These states know that if they use the popular vote with all the illegals that they handed drivers licenses too, they can easily take over our government and run the country into the ground. The last election was a crap storm of illegals voting with ballot harvesting every where. We watched Arizona elect a demonrat senator 2 weeks after the election using fake polling places and allowing anyone to vote without ID.
We watched Southern California go to the democrats with voting attendance exceeding the total amount of voters in several cities.
The only chance the GOP has in 2020 is if there was a federal voter ID issued that would allow only citizens to vote. Unfortunately, there is no time or effort to do this, so kiss our country goodbye after the next election.
Our choice will be to fight the left or become slaves.
Drifter
Posts: 279
Incept: 2016-02-11

Pacific Northwest
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
GOP cucks will roll over; Trump will just issue some tweets. Libs will never lose another election.

We all know this is a 'heads I win tails you lose' proposition. If Trump wins the popular vote, they'll still cast their vote for the Dem. Essentially, progs have gone full fascist-- their electors will never vote Repub.

Lobo
Posts: 607
Incept: 2013-12-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Imustbenutz wrote..
Interesting analysis, but what are you referring to?


He is referring to the line in bold that I've quoted below:

Quote:
Every four years Nevada voters along with the rest of America go to the polls to choose our President.

But the actual election of the President takes place later--as members of the electoral college meet in state capitols around the country. Nevada's six votes-- based on the size of its congressional delegation-- all go to the top vote getter in the state.

It's an afterthought which rarely garners attention, except when the winner of the national popular vote is not the winner in the electoral college.That's happened five times in our history, most recently in 2016. Frustration with that result has added momentum to a campaign to do something about it.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact wouldn't do away with the electoral college. It's an agreement between states to cast their electoral college votes for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the vote totals in their states.


As KD said, it is collusion with another state to cast their state electoral college votes for the national winner of the popular vote.
In other words, screw some of the voters in the state, even if a majority of them vote for someone else, all the electoral votes may go to the other candidate.

State legislators are playing with fire with that idea.

----------
Village Idiot
Mjsmith
Posts: 205
Incept: 2011-12-08

United States
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It seems to me that if the people who claim to have a beef with the electoral college system were sincere, the most reasonable thing to advocate for would be for more states to adopt some kind of "proportional" method of allocation of their electors.

After all, if you are claiming that your goal is "fairness" and "representation of the will of the people," and if you are sincere about that, why aren't the "all-or-nothing" states the primary target of your ire?

The "popular" vote in even the most lopsided states, in either direction, is very far from "all or nothing."

Tickerguy
Posts: 157552
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
And that is clearly constitutional

----------
Winding it down.
Handyone55
Posts: 176
Incept: 2010-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I recently read two books by Kurt Schlichter, Indian Country and People's Republic. The books talk about the war leading to the country splitting apart and some events after.

Even if you are down to your last 30 dollars, buy these books. You may as well know what is going to happen so you can prepare accordingly.

I pray it does not happen but fear that it will.
Wa9jml
Posts: 401
Incept: 2017-04-29

DeKalb, Illinois
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Back around the turn of the 20th Century, the Republicans and the Democrats were upset that minor parties were getting Electoral Votes. So they colluded at the state level to make the states award their Electoral Votes on a winner-take-all basis. This froze the minor parties out of the Electoral College, but as Karl points out, since they worked at the state level this was Constitutional. The current scam fostered by the Democrats is not.
Radiosity
Posts: 227
Incept: 2009-03-05

Sunny UK
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Meanwhile, they're simultaneously passing unconstitutional laws and other bull**** to allow them to disarm people so they can't fight back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9pCL8NC....
Tickerguy
Posts: 157552
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Wa9jml -- Yep.

The left doesn't WANT proportional EVs as that hurts them rather than helps. But a flatly-unconstitutional act intended to disenfranchise the less-populated states is asking for an open shooting war AND blockade -- and worse, the people responsible for it are trivially identified since they're announcing their intent.

----------
Winding it down.
Emg
Posts: 384
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"These states know that if they use the popular vote with all the illegals that they handed drivers licenses too, they can easily take over our government and run the country into the ground."

Yes. Currently they have to engage in electoral fraud in multiple states, which is a lot of work. They'd much prefer to be able to just fake a hundred million votes in California, and control the country forever.
Xkn
Posts: 67
Incept: 2011-04-30

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It is amusing to see how communists pushed state and city laws in open violation of federal laws (sanctuary cities, popular vote compact, bans on firearms, ammo etc.) but never expected that other side can play by the same playbook. The recent raft of anti-abortion laws, many of which, de-facto, represent a near-total ban on abortion, in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade decision, are good example of that. So, SCOTUS will have to take these cases, it has no choice, but if it rules what wanton disregard of federal laws and even constitution by communist-run states and cities is OK it will automatically consign themselves to total irrelevance. This will be fun to watch how it plays out. My bet is that SCOTUS will not want to end-up irrelevant in American political process. But if abortion bans are not OK, why would sanctuary cities be OK? How to resolve that conundrum? Perhaps chief justice Roberts can figure that out.
Alosix
Posts: 1154
Incept: 2009-03-31

Behind enemy lines..
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Discounting the illegal-ness of this mess (CO just did that as well, triggering me to start looking at moving again). I do wonder just what its effectiveness would be.

It seems like most all of the states in this compact have gone the full left crazy and likely always give their votes to the lefty candidate anyway. It just seems like a method of appeasing the bernie crowd without really changing the status quo much.

I am waiting for the next election to have a rightly candidate date the popular vote and screw this up for all of them.


----------
"Software Development is one of those jobs, like picking lettuce, or cleaning toilets, that Americans just refuse to do." : STCM
Djloche
Posts: 3929
Incept: 2008-07-07

Vancouver, WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
My guess is that they intend to go full hog with the ballot harvesting fraud in CA and run up the numbers everywhere

Theyll register 80% of everyone not registered and print off a ballot for them and fill it out and put it in the box, and then claim they went door to door to collect ballots and get out the vote

So when they put all their money into cheating, and trump wins what should have been an electoral landslide, they will claim victory because they printed up more than enough ballots to cover the popular vote deficit

Except that will spark war and then you really wont have a country left



----------
"The Constitution is the IDE. The 2nd Amendment is the debugger."
Tickerguy
Posts: 157552
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Are there any actual men left in this nation?


----------
Winding it down.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ