Constitutional Bullshit

So I don't know if anyone is paying attention to the huge bullshit coming out of California in the past couple of days, but man does it stink. None of the major news papers have done a fact based article on it yet - I guess because there aren't any facts yet, it's just an idea right now, so here is a NYT's editorial.

I don't know why this isn't being portrayed as what it is: unconstitutional. I see Tim Russert on the Today Show just saying it would be huge blow to a Democrat trying to win the White House - but no discussion at all about how this is not a right given to the states (Article 10.)

The manor for electing a president, the process in total, is specifically laid out in the constitution, Article 2. It can be amended by the congress or a constitutional convention. California can not just decide to not follow the constitution, for any reason.

This is probably just a way to make the Democratic party waste millions of dollars in California before the actual election in November of '08 - but it could be a short term plan for a GOP victory in an election year that heavily favors the Democratic party. I say short term because even if California votes approve this electoral vote splitting and it becomes California law, the Supreme Court will knock it down - but probably not until 2009 or 2010, well after Mitt Romney or Rudy Gulliani have already started to fuck our country up even more, and in the formers case I'm sure I'll be living in a religious re-education camp and will be unaware that it was overturned at all.

Everyone knows that California is the "crazy" state. Thats why we love California. And everyone knows that since George H.W. Bush won his presidency no Republican has won California. But it would be wrong to assume that it is completely safe for Democrats. The Republicans in California are, in my opinion, "the craziest" of the crazy Republicans. They find all kinds of shifty ways to effect California, recall anyone? They know the state law, and they know how to manipulate the one huge majority in California - the Nut Jobs.

I fall in with Barbara Boxer on this. Except that I don't believe in a popular vote for the presidency. If we are to change the way we elect a president, I believe that it must be done through a constitutional convention - not congress, and certainly not through the white house - that should be convened right after a presidential election and recessed right before the following midterm. 2 years should do the trick, and if there can be no solution in that time the constitution would remain unaltered and the process would have to be tabled until after the next presidential election.

Politicians would go a lot farther if they stopped just trying to win, and started thinking about America's well being.