Liberty Letters presents the Phyllis Schlafly report:

The Plan to Ditch the Electoral College
The liberals really don't like our constitutional process of electing
Presidents by the Electoral College, and every few years they come up
with a new plan to abolish, change or bypass it, sometimes by
unconstitutional means. One such plan has been launched by three losers
who were defeated in the 1980 Reagan landslide: John Anderson, Birch
Bayh and John Buchanan.

Our Constitution requires that a president be elected by a majority
of votes in the Electoral College, with each state's vote weighted
based on its population. But some who took an oath to defend our
Constitution are plotting to undermine its essential structure by a
compact among as few as eleven of the most populous states.

The plan of this Campaign for the National Popular Vote (NPV)
is to get states with at least 270 votes in the Electoral College to
enact identical bills requiring their own electors to ignore the winner
of their own state's election and cast all their state's ballots for
the candidate who the state believes received more popular votes than
the other candidates nationwide, even if he fails to win a majority of
the popular vote.

It's ridiculous and un-American to try to force electors to
vote against their constituents. Yet NPV wants to require a state like
Louisiana to vote for the candidate who won in other states such as New
York. The U.S. Constitution established our method of electing
presidents and it has served us well for more than two centuries. It
ain't broke and doesn't need fixing.

The Electoral College represents the inspired genius of our
Founding Fathers. It was part of the great compromise which transformed
us from thirteen rival colonies into a constitutional republic.

This great compromise gave us a Congress consisting of the Senate based
on equal representation of the states and the House based on
population. The Electoral College is the mirror image of this brilliant
compromise and allows all states to be players in the process of
electing our President.

The Electoral College is the successful vehicle by which a
presidential candidate achieves a majority in a functioning political
process. NPV is an outrageous proposal to construct a fake majority by
stealing votes away from some candidates and transferring them to
another candidate.

Because of third parties, we've had many elections (including
three of the last four) when no presidential candidate received a
popular-vote majority. Abraham Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular
vote and relied on his Electoral College majority for his authority.

Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while
ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they
won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs
55-27 and in hits 91-60. No one challenges the fact that the Pirates
fairly won that Series, 4 games to 3.

The fact that most elections are very close makes the Electoral
College particularly advantageous. With our loose election procedures
(that need to be reformed in several ways), it's easy to make credible
charges of election fraud. We remember the Florida recount in 2000 and
the attempt to recount Ohio in 2004. If the popular vote were
controlling, chaos would be the predictable result in any close
election. An allegation of voter fraud in one state would begin a fatal
chain reaction of challenges and recounts as campaign managers try to
scrape up additional hundreds of votes in many states at once.

The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make
irrelevant the votes of Americans in about 25 states because candidates
would zero in on piling up votes in large-population states. Big-city
machines would take over, and candidates from California or New York
would enjoy a built-in advantage. The Electoral College provides an
essential safeguard against the democratic factionalism decried by
James Madison in Federalist 10.
The Electoral College ensures that no single faction or issue can elect
a president because he must win many diverse states to be elected.

The NPV slogan "Every Vote Equal" is stunningly dishonest
because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing and on
changing the rules of presidential elections by a compact of as few as
eleven states instead of the 38 states needed to amend the
Constitution. NPV should be repudiated.

The NPV proposal would also eliminate the constitutional role
of Congress in dealing with the occasional happenstance of a candidate
failing to get a majority of Electoral College votes. The Constitution
dealt adequately with that problem in 1824.

The NPV plan has been editorially endorsed by the New York Times, which called the Electoral College "an anti-democratic relic." The New York Times
could demonstrate its devotion to democracy by adopting a democratic
one-share-one-vote system of control of its own newspaper instead of
its current system that locks in a preferential voting category for the
Sulzberger family holdings.

Other Bad Plans to Rewrite the Constitution
Some
people, especially liberals, just don't like our United States
Constitution. Every few years, they come up with wild or devious plans
to make major changes. The would-be rewriters of the Constitution do
not merely propose amendments to remedy a problem, as allowed for in
Article V. They seek structural change after hurling put-downs such as
archaic, out-of-date, and dating from the horse-and-buggy era.

The latest to imagine that he can write a 21st century
improvement on our great Constitution is University of Virginia
professor Larry J. Sabato, whom the Washington Post
once dubbed "the Mark McGwire of political analysts." His rhetoric may
be on steroids but his ideas for a "more perfect" Constitution sound
like warmed-over Rhodes-scholar dissatisfaction with impudent American
revolutionaries who dared to reject the British system and write an
original document. Here are some of Sabato's "23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution," which he set forth in his new book entitled A More Perfect Constitution.

• Sabato wants to make all former Presidents and Vice Presidents
  "National Senators." I guess the prospect of Bill Clinton as First
  Gentleman in the White House isn't a sure thing, so we should meanwhile
  guarantee him a speaking platform in the Senate.
• Sabato would erase the great compromise of our
  Constitution which produced a federal union: the bicameral Congress
  with the House based population and the Senate based on state
  representation. He wants to give the 10 most populous states two
  additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states one additional
  Senator, and the District of Columbia one Senator.
• Of course, Sabato doesn't like our Electoral College. The
  liberals have been carping about the Electoral College system for
  years, and when Hillary Clinton celebrated her victory as Senator from
  New York, her first pronouncement was that we have "outlived the need
  for an Electoral College" and it should be abolished.Sabato wants to manipulate the Electoral College in a way he claims
  will reduce the chances that a president will win without a majority of
  the popular vote. The public should be reminded that we've had many
  elections (including three of the last four), when no presidential
  candidate received a popular-vote majority. Sabato can't prevent this
  unless he bans third parties. We are fortunate that we now have a
  proven system that allows our President to achieve an Electoral College
  majority that validates his election.
• Sabato would abolish the constitutional provision that the
  President and Vice President shall be "a natural born citizen." That
  will bring cheers from the open-borders crowd eager to build a majority
  of diverse people unfamiliar with our American rule of law.
• Sabato wants to elect our President and all Senate and
  House members at the same time. He would accomplish this by changing
  House terms from two to three years, and setting Senate terms to
  coincide with presidential elections. But our Constitution was not
  designed for efficiency of process in either elections or legislation.
  It was designed to limit the power of government in order to preserve
  liberty. Sabato wants to allow Members of the House of Representatives
  to be appointed (rather than elected) in the event of extensive deaths
  or incapacitation. It's a very undemocratic idea ever to abandon the
  requirement that House Members must be elected by the people.Sabato's proposals are a potpourri of so many bad liberal ideas.
  His proposed constitution would require two years of mandatory national
  (military) service for all young men and women, and taxpayer financing for congressional campaigns.
• Sabato calls for giving federal judges guaranteed
  cost-of-living pay increases. That's one more way to reinforce special
  privilege for elitist judges.
• Sabato wants to write a new procedure for a four-month
  presidential primary system into the Constitution. Whatever problems we
  have with primaries cannot be remedied by imposing the rigidity of a
  constitutionally mandated calendar.
• Who knows what mischief is lurking under Sabato's proposal
  that his new constitution would require an automatic registration
  system for U.S. citizens in order to guarantee that their right to vote
  is not "abridged by bureaucratic requirements"? Is this an underhanded
  way to help the liberals repeal state requirements that voters show a
  valid ID?
• The worst of all Sabato's proposals is to call for a new
  Constitutional Convention that would scrap our present Constitution and
  start over from a clean slate. We don't see any James Madisons, George
  Washingtons or Ben Franklins around today, and we're mighty worried
  about the men who think they are capable of rewriting our Constitution.

When Sabato gathered a few people to discuss his proposals, Supreme
Court Justice Samuel Alito summed up the reaction not only of those at
the meeting, but of the rest of us, too. "I'm pretty fond of the
Constitution we have now," he said. Thank you, Justice Alito. So are
we.
D.C. Is Not a Congressional District
Some
current Members of Congress are toying with a devious plan to subvert
the District Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8,
clause 17), which makes clear that the District of Columbia is not
a state or a congressional district, and that Congress is given the
power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over
such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States."

Our Constitution's framers decided on a separate and
independent federal enclave to serve as the seat of the new government,
a territory outside of and independent from every state. This means
that the District of Columbia does not have its own Senators and
Representatives. That decision was not a mistake by the Founding
Fathers, but was an integral part of the original constitutional design
to keep the seat of our Federal Government out of the political
process.

In the 1980s, the liberals who don't like our Constitution the
way it was written tried to eliminate this provision by a proposed
constitutional amendment to give Washington, D.C. representation in the
Congress "as though it were a state." The proposed amendment, called
the "D.C. Representation" Amendment, passed Congress, but it was
rejected by the American people and died on August 22, 1985, after a
decisive majority of 34 of the 50 states refused to ratify it.

The 23rd Amendment, which was ratified in 1961, is our modern
reaffirmation of the District of Columbia as a unique juridical entity
in the American system. The 23rd Amendment allows District residents to
vote for President and Vice President just like all other citizens, and
even gives them an electoral vote disproportionately larger than all
but the smallest states. That should have been the end of it, but some
misguided Members of Congress keep trying to make an end run around the
Constitution.

Some liberal Members of Congress led by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA)
have launched an attempt to bypass the District Clause of the U.S.
Constitution by pretending the District is something that it isn't.
They would give the District a House seat by stating: "The District of
Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of
representation in the House of Representatives."

Assuming that a Representative from the District would always
be a Democrat, the Democrats hope to get Republicans on board by
including in the D.C. bill a provision to increase the number of House
members from 435 to 437 and give the extra Representative to Utah, a
Republican state.

The chief problem with this plan is that it is unconstitutional — D.C. is not a state and not
a Congressional district, and it should not have voting power in
Congress. The District of Columbia already has more voting power than
it is entitled to in the Electoral College.

Creating a Race-Based State
Hawaii
is asking Congress to create a Hawaiian race-based government for
persons with Native Hawaiian blood living anywhere in the United
States. A Native Hawaiian is defined as anyone of the "indigenous,
native people of Hawaii" who is a "direct lineal descendant of the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people" who resided in the Hawaiian
Islands before 1893 and "exercised sovereignty" in that region. That
convoluted definition must have been written by lawyers. The use of the
word sovereignty is peculiar because only nations and kings or queens
exercise sovereignty. Hawaii was a monarchy in 1893, and Queen
Liliuokalani exercised sovereignty, but the bill can't mean only her
direct lineal descendants.

So, to be a Native Hawaiian, you don't need to have lived in
Hawaii or ever had any affiliation with Native Hawaiian culture,
language or politics. You just need to have one drop of the right kind
of blood.

The Hawaii bill would create a racially separate government that would
operate like an Indian tribe with its own laws and racial voting
restrictions anywhere in the United States. This new "tribe" would
include about 20% of Hawaii's residents plus some 400,000 Americans
nationwide, making it larger than all Indian tribes. The people under
the jurisdiction of this new government would not be defined by
geography, community or cultural cohesiveness, but by race. This sort
of racial division, separatism, and ethnic separation is so offensive
that it's hard to see how grown-ups could be seriously considering it.

Hawaii is our preeminent example of the success of the melting-pot
theory: people of all races have intermarried for nearly two centuries.
Nearly half of all marriages in Hawaii are interracial, a figure that
is ten times higher than the rest of the United States. Three-fourths
of those who claim to be "pure" Native Hawaiians marry other races.
More than half of those who claim to be "part" Native Hawaiian do
likewise.

We are trying to spread democracy around the world, but that
message doesn't seem to have reached Hawaii. This bill does not assure
that the new race-based government will be democratic; nothing in the
bill prevents it from becoming a theocratic monarchy (with a new Queen
Liliuokalani?). Nor is there any procedure to enable Hawaiians to
decide whether they want to authorize this race-based government in our
midst.

When Hawaii became a state, it became settled law that Hawaiians would
accept the United States Constitution and give up its monarchy,
separate government, and sovereignty for Native Hawaiians. We had a
national consensus both in and out of Hawaii that Native Hawaiians
would be Americans, not treated as a separate racial group. Advocates
for Hawaiian statehood then repeatedly emphasized that Hawaii is a
melting pot of racial and national origins who are joined in a common
patriotism and faith in American institutions.

Creating a race-based society would take us in the wrong direction.
It's a step backwards, offensive to our Constitution and to our
national commitment to equal justice for all.
Deceitful Tactics to Make Puerto Rico a State
Even
though Puerto Rico has three times voted against becoming a U.S. state,
yet another effort is being made to persuade Puerto Rico to change its
mind by the Puerto Rico statehood bill (H.R. 900).
Of course, the Democratic Party thinks making Puerto Rico our 51st
state is a cool idea because that would give the Democrats two
additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House,
more Congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states.

Despite millions of dollars being spent to promote statehood,
on December 13, 1998, Puerto Ricans voted only 46.5% for statehood,
2.5% for independence, and 50.5% for "none of the above," which must be
seen as an endorsement of the status quo, the present commonwealth
status.

The Puerto Rican independence faction is small, but that doesn't mean
its members would acquiesce in being outvoted in a democratic election.
They are among the most militant groups in the world and are
responsible for domestic terrorist incidents in the United States. The
1998 percentage of Puerto Ricans favoring statehood was approximately
the same as in the 1993 referendum. It is asking for big trouble to
admit a new state in which nearly half the people oppose the idea.

The most important issue about Puerto Rico statehood is that it
would transform the United States overnight into a bilingual nation. At
least half of Puerto Ricans don't speak English, and Puerto Rico's
leaders are antagonistic to the whole idea of having English as our
official language. English is the language of our Declaration of
Independence and our United States Constitution. It would be divisive
and troublesome to admit a state whose people don't speak the language
of our founding documents.

Puerto Rican statehood would cost the rest of us plenty in
taxes. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of
our poorest state. The infrastructure and environment are far below
American standards, so statehood would bring immediate demands for
massive federal funding.

The smoking gun proving that Puerto Rico statehood is designed to make
us a bilingual nation is H.Con.Res.11 introduced by Rep. Jose Serrano
(D-NY), who is also the sponsor of the Puerto Rico statehood bill.
H.Con.Res.11 levels a stinging attack on English as our national
language and demands that the Federal Government "oppose" our many
state laws and bills that designate English as our official language.

H.Con.Res.11 demands that our government provide services in
languages other than English and even encourage all U.S. residents to
learn languages other than English. The bill falsely asserts that our
nation has "drawn strength from a diversity of languages," whereas the
truth is that having English as our common language is a principal
factor in making us e pluribus unum.

H.Con.Res.11 is dishonestly entitled "English Plus Resolution"
and is all dressed up in flowery rhetoric to make it appear that its
purpose is to protect Native American Indian languages. That ruse
doesn't fool anyone; it's obvious that the bill is just cover for the
impudent demand that we accept Puerto Rico as a Spanish-language or
bilingual state.

Serrano's statehood bill, H.R.900,
would set up two plebiscites that rig the process to deceive Puerto
Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first plebiscite, scheduled
for this year, Puerto Ricans would be given a choice of (a) remaining
as a U.S. territory or (b) pursuing an (undefined) "constitutionally
viable permanent non-territorial status."

If the majority chooses (a), Puerto Rico would be required to
vote again at least every eight years (presumably until they are
bamboozled into voting for statehood). If the majority chooses (b), a
second plebiscite would be held at which Puerto Ricans could choose
between "only" two "nonterritorial" options: statehood or independence.

Not only is the double-plebiscite procedure rigged to prevent a vote to
continue the present commonwealth status, but the ballot propositions
are written so that only a lawyer can figure out what they really mean.

A vote on Puerto Rico would have momentous effects on whether
America remains "one nation, indivisible" or whether we start down the
road of countries that have fought bloody wars when minority
populations tried to maintain a separate language and cultural identity
within another nation, such as Quebec, Ireland, Bosnia and Iraq.

With a 92% turnout in the October 30, 1995 referendum in
Quebec, secession lost by only a razor-thin margin: 50.6% of Quebeckers
voted to keep Canada one nation, while 49.4% voted for Quebec to secede
from Canada. The close vote adversely affected Quebec's financial
markets and caused a flight of capital and people.

Puerto Rico is a vestige of the 19th century era of
colonialism; we got it as booty in the Spanish American War of 1898. In
the 21st century, colonialism is so retro; we should give Puerto Rico
its independence. Tell your Representatives to vote NO on all Puerto
Rico bills.

Used with permission.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Phyllis Schlafly