Connect with us

Nation

Dem lawmaker introduces resolution to ‘abolish’ Electoral College: How would it be done?

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 01 12 at 5.09.48 PM

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN, introduced a resolution to the House Judiciary Committee Monday to abolish the Electoral College.

“More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators,” Rep. Cohen added in a statement. “It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President. The Electoral College is a vestige of the 18th Century when voters didn’t know the candidates who now appear daily on their phones and television screens.”

Rep. Cohen added, “Last week’s mayhem at the Capitol shows that attempts to manipulate the Electoral College vote by politicians employing falsehoods is a real danger. The President should always be elected by the people, not by politicians.”

The following is Rep. Cohen’s proposed amendment:

“Article —

“Section 1.

“The President and Vice President shall be elected by the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.

“Section 2.

“The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most populous branch of the legislature of the State; although Congress may establish uniform age qualifications.

“Section 3.

“Each elector shall cast a single vote for two persons who have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for President and Vice President. No elector shall be prohibited from casting a vote for a candidate for President or Vice President because either candidate, or both, are inhabitants of the same State as the elector.

“Section 4.

“The pair of candidates having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.

“Section 5.

“The times, places, and manner of holding such elections and entitlement to inclusion on the ballot shall be determined by Congress.

“Section 6.

“The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death or any other disqualification of any candidate for President or Vice President before the day on which the President-elect or Vice President-elect has been chosen; and for the case of a tie in any election.

“Section 7.

“This article shall take effect one year after the first day of January following ratification.”.

In order to pass a constitutional amendment, it must “be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures,” according to the National Archives.

It only becomes an amendment when “it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”

Continue Reading

Nation

Experts say Congress needs to intervene: troops could be hit with courts-martial for refusing to use preferred pronouns

Published

on

US troops scaled

Military experts believe Congress needs to intervene in the military’s carried away woke agenda “before it’s too late.” Captain Thomas Wheatley, an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told the Daily Caller News Foundation the military could seek to formally punish service members for refusing to use another service member’s preferred pronouns under existing policy.

The military “is right to want to protect the rights and welfare of its transgender service members. But it owes the same protection to those who share a different perspective on the issue, especially when that perspective is a deep-seated expression of personal conscience,” Wheatley told the DCNF.

None of the military’s rules explicitly prohibit so-called “misgendering,” when someone uses pronouns to describe a transgender person which do not correspond to the person’s new gender identity, Wheatley explained. However, existing guidance implies that using pronouns rejected by another person violates Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) regulations against sex-based harassment and discrimination.

The DCNF reports:

A 2020 Equal Opportunity law opened the door for commanders to subject someone who refuses to affirm a transgender servicemember’s so-called gender identity to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for charges related to harassment, Capt. Thomas Wheatley, an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Such a move would likely infringe on a servicemember’s constitutional rights to uphold their conscience, but it might not prevent leaders from employing more subtle ways of disciplining service members.

Service members could conceivably be court-martialed for “refusing to use another person’s self-identified pronouns, even when their refusal stems from principled religious conviction,” Wheatley told the DCNF. “This law applies to service members at all times and in all locations, even when they’re off duty and in the privacy of their off-post residence.”

The UCMJ also prohibits “conduct unbecoming of an officer” under Article 133 and activity that could be seen to discredit the military institution under Article 134 — the same article the military uses to prosecute child pornographers and other acts of sexual deviance, he explained.

“Is it now ‘unbecoming’ and incompatible with service as a commissioned officer to openly hold sincere religious convictions surrounding the act of creation and the nature of human sex?” Wheatley asked.

Wheatley said his interest in the issue was sparked four years ago, when the Army updated its MEO policy stating “violations of MEO and Harassment Prevention and Response policies may result in disciplinary action under the UCMJ.”

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending