Tom McMillin seeks to violate the Constitution of the United States; should he be expelled?

Michigan Messenger reports that conservative state representative Tom McMillin has introduced a bill that would ignore federal law and allow incandescent light bulbs to be manufactured in the state of Michigan.

McMillin's bill claims:

An incandescent lightbulb that is manufactured in this state without the inclusion of parts, other than generic or insignificant parts, imported from outside of this state and that remains within this state has not entered into interstate commerce and is not subject to congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

First of all: How does one define "generic or insignificant parts?"

Second - and more importantly - McMillin is attempting to supersede a federal law, the Energy Independence and Security Act, which phases out incandescent light bulbs.

McMillin's bill is bad enough in that it would undermine America and our energy security.

What makes it worse, however, is that McMillin is openly violating his oath to "support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state" as required by Michigan's own Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States is clear:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, by merely proposing this bill, Tom McMillin is violating the oath of office provided for under Michigan's Constitution by failing to uphold the United States Constitution and instead seeking to violate it.

Tom McMillin is breaking the law.

For the sake of the rule of law, Tom McMillin needs to be expelled from the Michigan House of Representatives.

Not that they'd do that to a fellow Republican, but you know they would try that if a Democrat did this.

Happy Constitution Day!

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2008 Electoral College tie would likely yield Democratic President

The US Constitution requires that the President and Vice President be elected by a majority vote of the Electoral College. Because the Electoral College has 538 members, a majority would equal 270. However, it is possible to have a 269-269 tie. Here are some ways in which a tie in the Electoral College could happen - and how it would be broken.

How a tie could happen
The states Kerry won in 2004 account for 252 electoral votes. We need 18 more votes to win outright, 17 more to tie. Here are just a few ways in which a tie mighty happen.

1. We win all of the states Kerry win, plus Iowa (7 electoral votes) - which Bush won by just a few thousand votes - and either Arizona (10) or both Nevada (5) and New Mexico (5).
2. We lose Wisconsin (10) but win in either Florida (27) or both Ohio (20) and Iowa.
3. We win Colorado (9), New Mexico, and Iowa, but lose New Hampshire.
4. We lose Pennsylvania (21) but win Florida and Missouri (11).
5. We lose Michigan (17) but win Florida and Iowa.
6. We lose Michigan but win Ohio, New Mexico, and Colorado.
7. We lose Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania but win Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and either New Mexico or Nevada.

Casting and counting the electoral votes
So as you can see, there are a number of ways in which the two tickets can deadlock at 269 EVs apiece, many of which I haven't even mentioned. So what happens then? Some of you know exactly how the process works, but for those who don't, here's a synopsis.

1. November 4, 2008: When voters vote in presidential elections, they are actually voting for a slate of electors (usually nominated by state parties) who are pledged to vote for a specific Pres/VP ticket.

2. December 15, 2008: Those electors will gather in their state capitals to officially vote for the new President and VP on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. In some states (but not all), it is entirely possible that one elector will vote for the candidates opposite the ones for whom they were pledged to vote, and thus break the tie.

3. January 6, 2009, or thereabouts: Shortly after the 111th Congress convenes, Congress will meet in joint session to officially count the electoral votes. If a candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, they are elected.

4. If no candidate receives 270, however, Congress settles the matter. Amendment XII tells us how that would work.

...the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ...

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; ... and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

In other words, each state's House delegation gets one vote to determine who will become the next President of the United States, while each Senator votes for the next Vice President. This means that one can assume that a state's vote for President will go to the candidate whose party has the majority of Congress(wo)men from that state, while each Senator will vote alonmg party lines.

What this means for 2008/2009
So had the Electoral College deadlocked at 269 apiece in the 2004 election, Bush would still have been declared the winner, receiving the votes of 28 states to Kerry's 19 (assuming Vermont's lone rep, then Independent Bernie Sanders, would've voted for Kerry). However, thanks to the gains Democrats made in 2006, we now hold a 26-21 lead in delegations, with Arizona, Kansas, and Mississippi tied. (Don't ask me how those three states would vote.)

What this tells us is that providing the Democrats do not lose any seats in the House - or that any seats they do lose are in states where it wouldn't cost them the majority in any state's delegation - then we can likely expect a Democratic President in 85 weeks.

Many expect the Democrats to expand their lead in the Senate, winning at least the seat in Colorado, if not New Hampshire, Virginia, or elsewhere. Let's hope this happens, but if there's anything 2005 and 2006 taught us, it's that things can change quite a lot in a short time. (A one-seat majority is not much of a majority!)

Now imagine split control of Congress. Say the Democrats control a majority of delegations in the 111th House, while the GOP wins back the Senate. If they vote on party lines, this would result in a bipartisan split - a Democratic President and a Repub VP - the first time since 1801 that the two have been of opposite parties.

Then there are so many other intriguing possibilities. Ordinarily, a majority in the Senate equals 51 votes, but right now there are only 99 Senators because of the passing of Senator Thomas, so 50 is a majority. In Maine and Nebraska, the winner in each Congressional district gets one vote and the winner of the state as a whole gets two. Then there's the issue of faithless electors - which I barely touched on here.

Confused? I don't blame you. If I had my way, the Electoral College wouldn't exist. But since it doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon, I hope this gives you a better sense of what would happen in the event of a tied Electoral Vote.

Of course, I also hope that a landslide Democratic win will allow us not to have to worry about that.

From Senator Chris Dodd: Restore Habeas Corpus!

Democatic Presidential Candidate and Lover of the Constitution Chris Dodd has launched a new website, Restore-Habeas.org. There you can become a 'citizen co-sponsor' of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007.

Today, I plan on re-introducing the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. The bill will restore Habeas Corpus protections to detainees, bar information acquired through torture from being introduced as evidence in trials, and limit presidential authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Become A Citizen Co-Sponsor:

Please take a moment to watch the video and read the text of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, sign on as a citizen co-sponsor, and forward the bill to your personal networks. While you and I are acutely aware of the damage President Bush has done to our country's national reputation, too many of our family, friends and neighbors have no idea how far this Administration has gone.