MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[Dragon]

There is a national organization that is lobbying for states to change the law, and they have gotten a number of states to write laws that do so on the condition that enough states actually doing it will trigger them doing it. The fact that all the laws are so similar is enough to tell anyone that looks that there is an agreement.

By the way, there are movements to call for a constitutional convention. My understanding is that a couple of them are close to having enough states sign on, but a few fear mongers go around opposing it and saying that the convention could propose anything, even totally rewrite the constitution.

List of state applications for an Article V Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: as always, pointless and gratuitous personal insults are snipped as meriting no reply. When addressing posts to me, you may as well not bother going there. Of course, it's your bandwidth to waste if you insist on it.

As I said, this sort of thing is not what that clause of the Constitution is meant to forbid. Clearly, neither the movement to end the Electoral College by this method, nor the push for a constitutional convention -- whose existence in no way refutes what I'm saying here, but rather reinforces it if anything -- infringes that clause of the Constitution. That would be an restriction on the powers of the states that no advocate of our federal system should be arguing.

If you think otherwise, I'm sure you can find cases being brought in court to argue legally as you are doing here. Be my guest.

 

[The T]

Sigh. T, calm down, and talk rationally, please.

Fakey? You may bite my ass. YOU are in no position to ask for squat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

T, you rarely make rational statements. Your passion is noted, but it does not excuse your irrationality,

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a national organization that is lobbying for states to change the law, and they have gotten a number of states to write laws that do so on the condition that enough states actually doing it will trigger them doing it. The fact that all the laws are so similar is enough to tell anyone that looks that there is an agreement.

By the way, there are movements to call for a constitutional convention. My understanding is that a couple of them are close to having enough states sign on, but a few fear mongers go around opposing it and saying that the convention could propose anything, even totally rewrite the constitution.

List of state applications for an Article V Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: as always, pointless and gratuitous personal insults are snipped as meriting no reply. When addressing posts to me, you may as well not bother going there. Of course, it's your bandwidth to waste if you insist on it.

As I said, this sort of thing is not what that clause of the Constitution is meant to forbid. Clearly, neither the movement to end the Electoral College by this method, nor the push for a constitutional convention -- whose existence in no way refutes what I'm saying here, but rather reinforces it if anything -- infringes that clause of the Constitution. That would be an restriction on the powers of the states that no advocate of our federal system should be arguing.

If you think otherwise, I'm sure you can find cases being brought in court to argue legally as you are doing here. Be my guest.

The Supreme Court said that any formal or informal agreement, that increases the political power of the states, or undermines federal supremacy, is covered. A compact that has the state giving its electoral college votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote increases the political power of some states, and also violates federal law, and thus federal supremacy, it needs congressional approval before it will be legal.

As for your idiotic argument that states calling for a constitutional convention proves that you are right, all it really indicates is how ignorant you are. Interstate compacts are specifically forbidden under the constitution, and a call for a convention is specifically authorized. Arguing that one proves the other is right is no different than arguing that it is legal to do drugs because it is legal to drive.

I like pointless and gratuitous insults, especially when they are neither pointless nor gratuitous. Your understanding of this issue just opens you up for them, feel free to act superior if it makes you feel better though.

 

[Dragon]

The Supreme Court said that any formal or informal agreement, that increases the political power of the states, or undermines federal supremacy, is covered.

What decision was that, please? Link it if you can, but at least name it.

Interstate compacts are specifically forbidden under the constitution, and a call for a convention is specifically authorized. Arguing that one proves the other is right is no different than arguing that it is legal to do drugs because it is legal to drive.

The states make informal agreements all the time. If those were banned by the Constitution, there should be court cases enjoining them from doing so. I know of no court cases of that sort. If you do, please share the information.

I like pointless and gratuitous insults

In that case, don't bother answering. You just earned a spot on my ignore list.

 

[The T]

T, you rarely make rational statements. Your passion is noted, but it does not excuse your irrationality,

Your idiocy is oft noted here, but yet you sill make them.

Game set match.

Get a grip assclown.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Supreme Court said that any formal or informal agreement, that increases the political power of the states, or undermines federal supremacy, is covered.

What decision was that, please? Link it if you can, but at least name it.

Go back through the thread and read my posts, I already did.

Interstate compacts are specifically forbidden under the constitution, and a call for a convention is specifically authorized. Arguing that one proves the other is right is no different than arguing that it is legal to do drugs because it is legal to drive.

The states make informal agreements all the time. If those were banned by the Constitution, there should be court cases enjoining them from doing so. I know of no court cases of that sort. If you do, please share the information.

They are fine as long as they neither expand the political power of the states nor violate federal supremacy, like I have said repeatedly. Go read the thread, I provided the information.

I like pointless and gratuitous insults

In that case, don't bother answering. You just earned a spot on my ignore list.

On no, not the ignore list. How will I ever survive?

 

[JakeStarkey]

T, you rarely make rational statements. Your passion is noted, but it does not excuse your irrationality,

Your idiocy is oft noted here, but yet you sill make them.

Game set match.

Get a grip assclown.

Your fail, son. You are drinking early again.

 

[Vast LWC]

Go back through the thread and read my posts, I already did.

They are fine as long as they neither expand the political power of the states nor violate federal supremacy, like I have said repeatedly. Go read the thread, I provided the information.

OK, I give up, how would converting to a popular vote "expand the political power of the state or violate federal supremacy"?

I'm just not seeing it, I guess.

On no, not the ignore list. How will I ever survive?