Axis of Right Radio, Show #8, August 11, 2010

by Sal on August 11, 2010

in Axis of Right Radio,Culture,Economy,Health Care,Judicial Watch,Law,Podcast,Politics,Right to Life,Stupid government

Episode #8 of Axis of Right Radio is now available. In this episode, Mike, Ryan, and Sal discuss the role of the federal government; several states that are fighting back against ObamaCare; the economy’s loss of another 131,000 jobs; Pelosi and the Word; Massachusetts ditching the Electoral College; A federal judge ignoring Federalism and the Constitution by overturning California Prop 8; and A little girl who can no longer sell Lemonade because of stupid liberals.

Axis of Right Radio is available on iTunes, or you can subscribe to the podcast via RSS here.

You can also listen to the show right here:

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz August 12, 2010 at 12:49 am

Spoke to a friend in the US who is a lecturer on constitutional law and he takes a different approach to you on the prop 8 ruling. (He’s much further right than I am)

He says, as the constitution is written, taking it at face value on the wording alone (as gun supporters do when insisting on the right to bear..), then the judge is correct. What he does say is that the Supremes will ‘interpret’ the constitution and strike his ruling down, even though the conservatives on the bench supposedly do not ‘interpret’, but rely on a basic reading of the written ammendment without trying to guess the motives that may have been behind it (I think one of you did the same on the children of illegals, added an interpretation to, rather than insisting on taking it as writ if I understood you correctly) – his view on that is that the written paragraph says flatly, born here = citizen, no ‘unless…’ qualifiers.

There in lies the problem with written constitutions – they will always be argued over as each side places their own interpretation, no matter how ‘constructuionist’ they claim to be.

I happen to support your position on just how dumb that is in the ‘illegals’ debate. Send the sods home! Our conservative leader (Abbot – you’d like him – good Catholic boy, running for P.M. is proposing minimum jail terms for anyone involved in people smuggling. I live in hope that by some miracle Gillard (She knifed Rudd in the back a month back), will get thrown out and we can go back to sane government, (though the Greenies and hard right religious party will have the balance of power in the Upper House) – We just MIGHT get our first Sex Party member in the House – free sex for all! (Not really, they have a reasonably right wing lean, just opposed to the mandatory internet filter that will put us in the company of China, Iran and the likes for our internet freedom)

While I respect your ethical/moral stance on the gay marriage issue (I happen to be on the opposite camp), I’m expecting the judge is going to get a spanking from the Supreme’s as they WILL judge the matter according to their personal views on the issue, and interpret the constitution to suit.


kohler August 12, 2010 at 11:43 am

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast – just as votes from every county are equal and important when a vote is cast in a Governor’s race. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a stateā€™s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These six states possess 73 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.



kohler August 12, 2010 at 11:45 am

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”[Spelling as per original]

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.

Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the “safe harbor” provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state’s “final determination” of its presidential election returns is “conclusive”(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at


kohler August 12, 2010 at 11:48 am

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.


kohler August 12, 2010 at 11:50 am

Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support . It would no longer matter who won a state.

Now the state-by-state winner-take-all Electoral College always ignores the smallest states (3-4 electoral votes). 12 of the 13 smallest states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Eight state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections– NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states’ total 166 electoral votes.

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However,,if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

With National Popular Vote, big states, that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. It would no longer matter who won a state. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.


Ryan August 12, 2010 at 1:31 pm

Apparently, Kohler hasn’t taken his meds today.


Mike August 12, 2010 at 6:56 pm

Hi Oz:

I hope all is well down under. Good luck getting Mr. Abbott in there. We’re pulling for him too.

Thanks for listening to our Podcast. I didn’t think anyone did. And thanks for giving us thoughtful comments (as you always do) that aren’t just cut and paste spam jobs that are probably posted on hundreds of blogs.

As usual, we disagree, though not as much usual. Like your friend, I am an American attorney, but unlike him or her, I can state with certainty that the judge was incorrect under the plain language of the equal protection clause. The key question one needs to ask about equal protection is the right to what. By definition, a marriage is the monogamous union between a man and a woman. Gay people do not seek that. If they did, they wouldn’t be gay and it wouldn’t be an issue.

What gay people seek is something different than marriage, a monogamous union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The states are free to offer legal status to those kinds of unions but are not obligated to do so under he plain language of the Constitution.

You raise good points about interpretation, though you’re a little off base. As with any written laws, there will always be a need for interpretation. For example, if there is a law stating that no vehicles are allowed in the park, does that mean that an ambulance could enter the park during a medical emergency? Of course it could, but the conclusion requires interpretation of what words actually mean in a given context.

The problem conservatives have with liberals is not that they interpret the law, its that they simply invent it. Any honest reading of the Constitution would lead to the conclusion that states are not mandated to legalize abortion any more than it can force states to impose tax rates no greater than five percent. Interpretation is one thing. Invention is quite another.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what this judge did. He ignored the plain language of the Constitution as well as the plain meaning of the English language. And if you want to analyze personal views, it was the District Court judge who imposed his own bias. Not the Supreme Court Justices who may or may not reverse the rogue judge.

Either way, its important to separate our policy views from Constitutional analysis. And that’s what the District Court judge did not do.


rightonoz August 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Hi Mike,

I’ve already postal voted as I will be interstate on election day.

Had a quick chat to friend and his reply was that definition of ‘marriage’ is a significant part of the problem. While most of us see it a man/woman, part of the issue is that that definition is a made up one that if one looks at it logically (?) should not be legally considered thus. To say that it can only apply to a hetro couple discriminates against those who consider that it should apply to any committed partnership. Guess we could back and forth for ever on that one.

I personally support the concept of gay marriage as I believe that all committed couples should be trated equally in law. That said, I also know that the party I support is TOTALLY against it and that disagreement would not turn me to support any other party. At the end of the day, I want solid government that does the best for the country. The only move I might make is to vote for either the Secular Party or Sex Party in the Senate (proportional style representation in the Senate) simply as my stand against the fact that the Lib/Nat’s give their preferences to the Family First party which is a very bigoted religious party funded by the richest church in the country. Have no issue with religious input in politics, just when the church tries to rule the country under the guise of a heading that masks the reality of their background. As one of two parties who may hold the balance of power in the Senate, they wield power far beyond their level of support in the electorate.

In the main House we have a diabolical preferential voting electoral system that often results in the party with least support getting elected. For instance, at present the Lib/Nats (Abbott) have the highest primary support. Under our preferential system, by the time the Green Party (3rd party) give their preferences to Labor (Gillard), Labor is likely to win. It’s the most dumb-ass system that could be invented, and we have it! I could explain it in detail, but I guess you can easily see more about it on line if you are interested in how not to do it. – I have to admit to liking the sound of the suggested changes in the US – every vote counts ONCE and no faceless people in back rooms get to tamper with the will of the voters!


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: