All these blue states need to award Trump their Electoral Votes.

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution only says "consent of Congress". That could be a simple resolution...

Resolutions do not have force of law; force of law requires legislation.
Congress can only -act- through legislation.

 

[para bellum]

Resolutions do not have force of law; force of law requires legislation.
Congress can only -act- through legislation.

So then it goes to a Dem POTUS and he signs it. You are saying they can nullify the EC without an Amendment, and it would be Constitutional providing both chambers pass the measure and the President signs it.

Back to voting. You say a State can remove the President and Vice President from the ballot and it would be Constitutional. There is no inherent right to vote for those offices, and you base that on the decision in McPherson.

There is a large body of election law that was passed after McPherson that does recognize an inherent Constitutional right to vote, and the President and Vice President are included in the federal offices that are covered by that right.

How do you resolve that, considering the Congress's power to make or alter State elections laws, the recognized need for uniform voting laws, and the Supremacy clause? The voting rights amendments empower the Congress to enforce them by appropriate legislation, and the Congress has passed legislation to enforce them, and it is codified in USC Title 52.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So then it goes to a Dem POTUS and he signs it. You are saying they can nullify the EC without an Amendment, and it would be Constitutional providing both chambers pass the measure and the President signs it.

Nope. The EC remains in place.

Back to voting. You say a State can remove the President and Vice President from the ballot and it would be Constitutional. There is no inherent right to vote for those offices...

Nope.. The USSC says that. Almost verbatim.

There is a large body of election law that was passed after McPherson that does recognize an inherent Constitutional right to vote, and the President and Vice President are included in the federal offices that are covered by that right.

Legislation does not override the constitution, and the position of the court is as recent as December 2000.
Should the issue come before the court, the first thing the court will look at is the precedents it set; those precedents are painfully clear.

How do you resolve that,

See above.

 

[para bellum]

Nope. The EC remains in place.

It would be rendered irrelevant, as you have already state.

Nope.. The USSC says that. Almost verbatim.

Legislation does not override the constitution, and the position of the court is as recent as December 2000.
Should the issue come before the court, the first thing the court will look at is the precedents it set; those precedents are painfully clear.

I think not. Your entire argument is based on McPherson. Bush v. Gore was relying on Mcpherson. Neither of those cases were about a State eliminating the right to vote for the President or Vice President.

The Congress also has powers granted in the Elections clause to make or alter any State election law, and has recognized that every citizen has an inherent Constitutional right to vote for the President and Vice President.

The State's power to appoint electors is not unlimited. It cannot be exercised in a way that violates other Constitutional provisions. In Williams v Rhodes the court did set limitations on the way Ohio could select electors to be on the ballot, and recognized the right to vote is inherent in the First Amendment right of association.

Speaking of the Electors clause- the Court stated: "There, of course, can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution . . . . [It cannot be] thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws . . . . Obviously we must reject the notion that Art. II, § 1, gives the States power to impose burdens on the right to vote, where such burdens are expressly prohibited in other constitutional provisions."

me: There is no greater burden on the right to vote than eliminating it entirely.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would be rendered irrelevant, as you have already state.

Hardly. It's still the only means to elect the President.

I think not. Your entire argument is based on McPherson. Bush v. Gore was relying on Mcpherson.

When were these rulings overturned by the court?

Speaking of the Electors clause- the Court stated:

Citation?

 

[para bellum]

Hardly. It's still the only means to elect the President.

You already said the purpose of the NPVC was to render the electoral votes of other States irrelevant. If it's that easy to render the electoral votes of a large number of States irrelevant, all it takes is some creative lawyers to come up with other ways to render other sections irrelevant as well.

When were these rulings overturned by the court?

They were not overruled, you are interpreting them too broadly. Bush v. Gore recognized the 14th amendment violation, it just said there was no time to remedy it.

At the least, the right to vote is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th and the first amendment right to associate. Bush v. Gore and McPherson do not take that away.

Citation?

Her is a pdf of the full decision. The part I cited begins on page 6 of the pdf.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep393/usrep393023/usrep393023.pdf

 

[M14 Shooter]

You already said the purpose of the NPVC was to render the electoral votes of other States irrelevant. I

Which is different than "nullifying" it.
It remains in place.

They were not overruled, you are interpreting them too broadly.

I interpreted them literally.
They literally support the argument I made because they say the same thing.
As you agree they have not been overturned - and are therefore still in force - my argument remains sound.

Bush v. Gore recognized the 14th amendment violation, it just said there was no time to remedy it.

True, but irrelevant.

At the least, the right to vote is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th and the first amendment right to associate. Bush v. Gore and McPherson do not take that away.

Correct. Also,, irrelevant to my argument.

Her is a pdf of the full decision. The part I cited begins on page 6 of the pdf.

This is an equal protection case, just like Bush v Gore.
Does nothing to support the idea the states are required to put the selection of it electors to a popular vote.

 

[para bellum]

Which is different than "nullifying" it.
It remains in place.

Great, we'll just make the Constitution irrelevant by a majority vote whenever it's convenient. I mean, you know, it will still be in place...

I interpreted them literally.
They literally support the argument I made because they say the same thing.
As you agree they have not been overturned - and are therefore still in force - my argument remains sound.

I concede that Bush v Gore said a State could take away the franchise, I think it would violate other provisions of the Constitution and Federal voting laws if they try.

It won't be tested because no State would try.

It would be in direct conflict with the Congress's power to make election laws, because Federal election law already recognizes the citizen's right to vote in all Federal elections.

True, but irrelevant.

Correct. Also,, irrelevant to my argument.

This is an equal protection case, just like Bush v Gore.
Does nothing to support the idea the states are required to put the selection of it electors to a popular vote.

It puts limits on the way a State can select electors. That means States do not have unlimited discretion.

It recognizes voting as a fundamental right protected by the First and 14th Amendments.

Title 52 does the same.

10502:

"The Congress hereby finds that the imposition and application of the durational residency requirement as a precondition to voting for the offices of President and Vice President, and the lack of sufficient opportunities for absentee registration and absentee balloting in presidential elections-

(1) denies or abridges the inherent constitutional right of citizens to vote for their President and Vice President;"

20501:

The Congress finds that-
(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;

30101:
(3) The term "Federal office" means the office of President or Vice President, or of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

Me again:

There is no greater burden on the right to vote than eliminating it entirely.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Great, we'll just make the Constitution irrelevant by a majority vote whenever it's convenient. I mean, you know, it will still be in place...

You don't have to like the fact the constitution says states can - with congressional permission - enter into such a pact with one another - but it does.

I concede that Bush v Gore said a State could take away the franchise, I think it would violate other provisions of the Constitution and Federal voting laws if they try.

It doesn't. The statement is Bush v Gore cannot be more clear.

It puts limits on the way a State can select electors. That means States do not have unlimited discretion.

Removing the selection of electors from a popular vote does not violate the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments
Any federal law which requires the popular selection of electors violates Article II.

 

[para bellum]

Any federal law which requires the popular selection of electors violates Article II.

Well, Title 52 already says it's a fundamental right to vote in all federal elections...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, Title 52 already says it's a fundamental right to vote in all federal elections...

This has been addressed by the SCotUS
Any federal law which requires the popular selection of electors violates Article II.

 

[para bellum]

This has been addressed by the SCotUS
Any federal law which requires the popular selection of electors violates Article II.

So why didn't they strike down Title 52's provisions regarding federal elections?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why didn't they strike down Title 52's provisions regarding federal elections?

1: It hasn't been taken before the court
2: It does not require the states to select their electors through a popular vote.

 

[para bellum]

2: It does not require the states to select their electors through a popular vote.

Not in those words, but it says every citizen has a fundamental right to vote in Federal elections, and the President and Vice President are included in the Federal offices.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not in those words...

... or at all.

 

[para bellum]

... or at all.

I already quoted some of it in my post #68...

 

[para bellum]

1: It hasn't been taken before the court

Well you said it had already been addressed by the court.

If that was the case, the Court should have struck down the provisions relating to Federal elections.

They are based on what you are basically saying is an incorrect finding-that the right to vote for a President and Vice President is an inherent Constitutional right.

And btw, parts of Title 52 were struck in Shelby County v Holder, so apparently they thought some of it was okay...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already quoted some of it in my post #68...

You're arguing an inference based on language from legislation not directly related to the issue.
The USSC directly stated, in clear, unambiguous language, the actual, literal text of the relevant section of the constitution says opposite to be true.
You may choose to be wrong at your leisure.

 

[para bellum]

The USSC directly stated, in clear, unambiguous language, the actual, literal text of the relevant section of the constitution says opposite to be true.
You may choose to be wrong at your leisure.

The section of the Constitution that you refer to does NOT say anything of the sort.

Title 52 says the right to vote for the President and Vice President are inherent Constitutional rights- i.e. unenumerated rights.

Article II does not say otherwise. It gives legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed, that is all.

It does not refute the right as stated in Title 52, and if a State were to take away the right it would be in conflict with the 1st and 14th amendments as noted in Williams v. Rhodes.

That would have to go back to the SCOTUS for resolution.

Bush v. Gore said the electors clause gave States the power (citing McPherson), it did NOT rule whether or not exercising that power to revoke the franchise would be in conflict with other Constitutional provisions.

 

[para bellum]

You don't have to like the fact the constitution says states can - with congressional permission - enter into such a pact with one another - but it does.

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void"

-Chief Justice John Marshall
Marbury v Madison (1803)

me: Any law that serves to render the Electoral College (or any other provision of the Constitution) irrelevant, is repugnant to the Constitution.