• Author: Mike Rosen

    With their majority in both houses of the state legislature and the office of governor, Democrats exploited their monopoly on state government to ram through a measure that commits Colorado to a nationwide plot to subvert presidential elections. It’s called the National Popular Vote (NPV) Compact.

    It’s a devious scheme to circumvent the Electoral College which was brilliantly crafted by our founders to conform with the constitutional republic they created, as codified in Article IV, Section 4 guaranteeing to every state a “republican form of government.” And decidedly not a direct democracy. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The notion that we have a national popular vote for president is a fiction. What we have are 51 separate elections, one in each of the states and the District of Columbia. It’s only as a matter of curiosity that we tally the votes of those 51 popular elections to produce a national total. But it has no force of law.

    The democratic principle of “one person one vote” applies more appropriately to the US House where seats are apportioned strictly by population; but not in the Senate where each state gets two votes regardless of population. Electoral votes for president are also assigned among the states to disproportionally favor states with low populations, and they’re cast winner-take-all (except in Nebraska and Maine) rather than proportionately based on a state’s popular vote. James Madison explained that, “The immediate election of the president is to be made by the states in their political characters.” That is, as individual entities not as members of any collective “compact.”

    To read the rest of this story, click (HERE):

  • The 2019 Colorado legislature session is over and in the books.

    What happened?  What bills were passed?  How will it affect your life?  What will be on the ballot this November?  With Democrats in the majority in both the state House, state Senate, and Governor’s office, how bad did they overreach?  What about the recall efforts?  2nd Amendment Rights?  Oil and Gas industry?

    Lots of questions to answer.

    Kevin Priola, SD-25’s Kevin Priola will give us his ground-level take.

    You don’t want to miss this NSRF meeting on Saturday, May 11th, from 9:00am-11:00am at Amazing Grace Community Church, 541 E 99th Place in Thornton.

    Admission is $5 with a continental breakfast provided.

  • Michael Fields@MichaelCLFields Tweeted:
    The state budget went up by $1.6B again this year. Government has enough money already.
     

    Coloradans may face 4 spending questions this year. Will new nicotine tax measure overload the ballot?

    The proposal, announced Wednesday by Gov. Jared Polis and Democratic state lawmakers, would set a uniform nicotine tax at 62 percent. That would lift the taxes on a package of cigarettes to $2.49 from 84 cents.

    Read more …

  • Colorado AG tells sheriffs they must follow law if ‘red flag’ gun control bill passes

    Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser speaks during a news conference Feb. 19, 2019, in Denver. David Zalubowski | AP Photo?

    Image from Phil Weiser’s campaign video for Colorado attorney general. Screenshot courtesy of Phil for Colorado?

    By Derek Draplin | Watchdog.org

    Mar 15, 2019

    Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser reminded local law enforcement that they swore an “oath to uphold the rule of law” in a statement Thursday. The reminder comes after numerous counties have passed resolutions denouncing “red flag” gun control legislation that’s expected to pass.

    House Bill 1177 would allow family members or law enforcement to petition a judge to issue a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) for a person thought to be a threat, after which the person’s weapons could be temporarily seized for up to a year.

    Weiser supports the bill and said he believes “it passes constitutional muster.” Read more …

  • Why the “National Public Vote” scheme is unconstitutional

    Why the “National Public Vote” scheme is unconstitutional

    This article first appeared in the Daily Caller.

    The U.S. Supreme Court says each state legislature has “plenary” (complete) power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are chosen.

    But suppose a state legislature decided to raise cash by selling its electors to the highest bidder. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a measure?

    If your answer is “no,” then you intuitively grasp a basic principle of constitutional law—one overlooked by those proposing the “National Popular Vote Compact” (NPV).

    NPV is a plan to change how we elect our president. Under the plan, each state signs a compact to award all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The compact comes into effect when states with a majority of presidential electors sign on.

    In assessing the constitutionality of NPV, you have to consider some of its central features. First, NPV abandons the idea that presidential electors represent the people of their own states. Second, it discards an election system balanced among interests and values in favor of one recognizing only national popularity. That popularity need not be high: A state joining the NPV compact agrees to assign its electors to even the winner of a tiny plurality in a multi-candidate election.

    Third, because NPV states would have a majority of votes in the Electoral College, NPV would effectively repeal the Constitution’s provision for run-off elections in the House of Representatives.

    Read more …

  • Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College

    The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.nett site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns the Electoral College. The Electoral College is embodied in the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and in the 12th Amendment.


    The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.

    Though the term is never used in the Constitution itself, the electors that choose the President at each election are traditionally called a College. In the context of the Constitution, the meaning of college is not that of a school, but of a group of people organized toward a common goal.

    The Electoral College insulates the election of the President from the people by having the people elect not the person of the President, but the person of an Elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person for President. Though the ballot may read “John McCain” or “Barack Obama,” you’re really voting for “John Smith” who is a McCain supporter or “Jack Jones” who is an Obama supporter. Read more …

  • We’ve searched the Bill of Rights but can’t find anything where healthcare is a “right” contrary to what several presidential candidates say. In case you forgot, the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare was a “tax” not a “right”

  • Effort launched to repeal Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights; possible ballot issue before the Title Board

    The Title Board is the first step in putting a citizen-initiated question before voters.

    TABOR is a constitutional amendment that was passed by voters in 1992 that requires voter approval to increase taxes or take on new debt.  It also limits the growth of a portion of the state budget to a formula of population growth plus inflation. It has been a controversial topic since its inception, and it’s been debated in the courts numerous times.

    Many Democrats say it is a threat to Colorado’s education, transportation and health care funding, while Republicans counter that it is what has allowed the Colorado economy to prosper, as well as allowing Colorado to more easily weather economic downturns than states that lack taxpayer protections such as TABOR.

    Many attempts to repeal or tweak portions of the amendment have come before the Title Board. This is the first time, however, that anyone can recall where a full repeal of the amendment has been proposed.

    Read more …

  • Who’s Attacking Political Norms Now?

    Democrats target the ‘legitimacy’ of the Supreme Court.

    Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Sept. 28.
    Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Sept. 28. PHOTO: AARON P. BERNSTEIN/BLOOMBERG NEWS
    After the extraordinary tumult of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings ended, three normal things happened that are embedded in this country’s Constitution and traditions.
     
    The full Senate voted on the nomination, and Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed. Then Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Mr. Kavanaugh as an Associate Justice. Last Tuesday Justice Kavanaugh, sitting as the most junior Justice next to Justice Elena Kagan, participated in oral arguments in two cases involving the Armed Career Criminal Act.
     
    For Democrats, this return to normalcy is intolerable. They are doubling down on their war against the new Justice.
     
    They have several related goals: Undermine Justice Kavanaugh’s authority on the Court, argue that his presence undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself, drive Justice Kavanaugh off the Court through impeachment if they win control of the House of Representatives, and, most fantastic of all, consider expanding the size of the Court if they regain control of the government.
     
    At his political rallies, President Trump has taken to calling out “the radical Democrats.” Democrats are appalled at the President’s rhetoric. We can’t imagine why. If the party’s post-confirmation campaign against Justice Kavanaugh isn’t a radical departure from the norms of American politics, we can’t imagine what is.
     
    Dianne Feinstein, speaking from her Senatorial platform on Twitter , wrote that Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation “undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.” Possibly Twitter’s character limitations prevented Senator Feinstein from explaining exactly how the legitimacy of the Court was being undermined, but the idea has taken hold among Democrats.

    Read more …

US National Debt Clock

Come join us

Please join us to discuss current Colorado political issues from The Right Side.

The NSRF meets on the second Saturday of every month from 9:00 am-11:00 am at Amazing Grace Church, 541 E. 99th Place in Thornton . Use the north door to enter. Admission is $5 per person. Coffee, orange juice, bottled water, fruit, & pastries are included with your admission.

To receive our monthly newsletter, send an email with the word "subscribe" in the subject line to: info@northsuburbanrepublicanforum.com.

You can also join our Facebook Group page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum/