Now some may think of this as unthinkable and treasonous, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is the federal government itself has become treasonous and anti freedom and anti individual rights.
The electoral college is no where close to the original intention.
- Each State’s Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
- In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a “favorite son” of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone’s second favorite choice.
- The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
- The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president – an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
- In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
Under the original Constitution the senate was to be elected by the state legislator. Both of these were enacted to protect the minority and the smaller states form the threat of majoritism, it protected the smaller states and the minority from having their rights usurped by a populist vote dominated by major cities and not necessarily the views of America as a whole.
The election of the senate was changed to a more populist view by the 17th amendment.
The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitutionestablished direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. . . .
Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of state legislatures, as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures.[2]In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
Originally under the Constitution, each state legislature elected its state’s senators for six-year terms.[4] Each state, regardless of size, is entitled to two senators as part of theConnecticut Compromise between the small and large states.[5] This contrasted with theHouse of Representatives, a body elected by popular vote, and was described as an uncontroversial decision to make; James Wilson was the sole advocate of popularly electing the Senate and his proposal was defeated 10–1.[6] There were many advantages to the original method of electing senators. Prior to the Constitution, a federal body was one where states effectively formed nothing more than permanent treaties, with citizens retaining their loyalty to their original state. However, under the Constitution the states were subordinated to a central government; the election of senators by the states reassured Antifederalists that there would be some protection against the swallowing up of states and their powers by an ever-expanding federal government,[7] providing a check on the power of the federal government.[8]
Additionally, the longer terms and avoidance of popular election turned the Senate into a body to “temper” the populism of the House. While the Representatives existed in a two-year direct election cycle, the senators could afford to “take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.[1] State legislatures also retained the theoretical right to “instruct” their senators to vote for or against proposals, giving them both direct and indirect representation in the federal government.[9] The Senate also provided formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government being subject to “special interests”.[10] Members of the Constitutional Convention also saw it as an equivalent to the House of Lords, containing the “better men” of society; it was hoped that they would provide more coolness and stability than the House of Representatives due to the senators’ status.[11]
None of these protections exist today. NONE. A look at the electoral map clearly shows this.
But if you break it down by county and the picture even gets uglier.
The intent of the founder and the rational is shown by the following video.
Today we live not in a Constitutional Republic but a Statist state based on a populist view. Individual rights and state rights have been usurped by federal government through bureaucracy’s and mandates.
Judge Andrew Nepolitano discusses the constitution, he discusses libido dominandi (The will topower; the desire to dominate; the lust forgovernment.)
So Secession may not only be viable and desirable, but inevitable.
Update of course the wussies at the Huffing Post censor comments.
Veritas Vincit Pro Libertate 