National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional

[bendog]

The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]

Seems like that applies here, eh?

Actually the opposite

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]

Seems like that applies here, eh?

Actually the opposite

Because...?

 

[Penelope]

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american...eferer=&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=lpb

Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause Michael Brody George Mason University School of Law

Democracy - Two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner

Republic - A well armed lamb contesting the results

My my, the Republican would have a easier time of wining if the EC was gone away with according to Trump and Andrew Jackson , who he admires as one of the best, wanted to get rid of the EC as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” [3] A state can allocate their electoral votes however they want – most states do it in a winner-takes-all system, where all their electoral votes go the winner of their own state, but Maine and Nebraska do it differently, as is within their power. The Compact is simply the agreement of a state to appoint electors who would vote for the national popular vote winner. This is a state power, and it does not challenge the supremacy of the federal government. Therefore, in accordance to Virginia v. Tennessee, this Compact does not require congressional approval – the states are entirely allowed to do it themselves.

The Constitutionality of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner...t

Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

[Lesh]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The Constitution can only be changed in accordance with Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article II is what the Democrats are trying to illegally override with their seditious compact:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview

the states lack the power to appoint their presidential electors on the basis of votes of citizens outside the state’s jurisdiction and, therefore, states are without authority to adopt the NPVC. Although Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution entrusts to the state legislatures the power to determine the manner in which presidential electors are selected, that power is not plenary in the customary sense. Rather, that power is limited, and the extent of that limitation is borne out by the historical understanding of the scope of state authority under Article II. At the time of the Framing of the U.S. Constitution, the framers envisioned a system in which states would select electors in accordance with the sentiments of state citizens, not the nation generally. Moreover, in the years following the Framing, every single state, both original and newly admitted, established a system of selecting presidential electors based either directly or indirectly on the sentiments of state voters. At no point in our nation’s history has any state sought to appoint its electors on the basis of voter sentiment outside the state, let alone the national popular vote. The Constitution’s delegation of power to the state legislature must therefore be read in light of this uniform, uncontested understanding that states are required to select electors in accordance with popular sentiment of voters in the state or the districts within it. While this conclusion may strike many as counterintuitive, a detailed examination of American constitutional history as it relates to presidential elections demonstrates its veracity. Part I briefly describes the presidential election process, the criticism of it, and how the NPVC seeks to transform the process. Part II then explores the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, revealing that the framers expressly rejected the direct popular election of the President and instead settled on the Electoral College as a way to preserve the influence of the states, particularly smaller states, in the selection of the President. Significantly, this Part establishes that the framers expected state legislatures to select electors in accordance with state sentiment, not a national popular vote

Wrong. It's not an "agreement with another state".

States can apportion their electoral votes in any manner they choose.

Wow. This really has you tards scared.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong. It's not an "agreement with another state".

I love how you are not afraid to put your ignorance on display

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner...t

Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In reality it is a law that must be passed in each state. Agreeing to choose their electors in a similar manner does not violate the Constitution because each state has complete Constitutional authority in choosing it's electors in any manner they chose.

If enough states pass similar laws, no doubt the GOP will try and have it reversed in the courts. Unless they win.

 

[skews13]

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS Understanding Interstate Compacts Interstate compacts represent an opportunity for multistate cooperation, reinforcing state sovereignty and avoiding federal intervention. The emergence of broad public policy issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries present new governing challenges to state authorities. Compacts enable the states – in their sovereign capacity – to act jointly and collectively, generally outside the confines of the federal legislative or regulatory process while respecting the view of Congress on the appropriateness of joint action. Unlike federal actions that impose unilateral, rigid mandates, compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self regulatory systems over which the party states can maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process. Compacts enable the states to develop adaptive structures that can evolve to meet new and increased challenges that naturally arise over time. What is an Interstate Compact? Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states creating an agreement on a particular policy issue, adopting a certain standard or cooperating on regional or national matters. Interstate compacts are the most powerful, durable, and adaptive tools for ensuring cooperative action among the states. Unlike federally imposed mandates that often dictate unfunded and rigid requirements, interstate compacts provide a statedeveloped structure for collaborative and dynamic action, while building consensus among the states and evolving to meet new and increased demands over time. General purposes for creating an interstate compact include: • Establish a formal, legal relationship among states to address common problems or promote a common agenda. • Create independent, multistate governmental authorities (e.g., commissions) that can address issues more effectively than a state agency acting independently, or when no state has the authority to act unilaterally. • Establish uniform guidelines, standards, or procedures for agencies in the compact’s member states. • Create economies of scale to reduce administrative and other costs. • Respond to national priorities in consultation or in partnership with the federal government. • Retain state sovereignty in matters traditionally reserved for the states. • Settle interstate disputes. It should be noted that an interstate compact is not a uniform state law. In fact, an interstate compact differs from a uniform state law in several ways, most notably that a uniform law does not depend on contractual obligations and a state can therefore change any portion of the law, thus losing any degree of uniformity initially intended.

Second, courts of different states may interpret the provisions of a uniform state law differently


COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS and since the highest court in a state is the final arbiter on legal issues within that state, there is no satisfactory way to achieve a reconciliation of divergent interpretations. Compacts are created when an offer is made by one state, usually by statute that adopts the terms of a compact requiring approval by one or more other states to become effective. Other states accept the offer by adopting identical compact language. Once the required number of states has adopted the pact, the “contract” among them is valid and becomes effective as provided.

How prevalent are Interstate Compacts? Compacts were seldom used until the 20th century. Between 1783 and 1920, states approved just 36 compacts, most of which were used to settle boundary disputes. But in the last 75 years, more than 150 compacts have been created, most since the end of World War II. On average, a state today belongs to 25 interstate compacts.



Although there are many types of interstate compacts, they can generally be divided into three camps: • Border Compacts: agreements between two or more states that establish or alter the boundaries of a state. • Advisory Compacts: agreements between two or more states that create study commissions. The purpose of the commission is to examine a problem and report to the respective states on their findings. • Regulatory Compacts: broadest and largest category of interstate compacts may be called “regulatory” or “administrative” compacts. Regulatory compacts create ongoing administrative agencies whose rules and regulations may be binding on the states to the extent authorized by the compact.

None of those categories fit the definition of this Compact: This is a political compact, akin to a treaty or an alliance.

This is not a clause that Democrats even want to try to test. It will result in Civil War, secession and very little of the original Union will remain when the dust clears.

You liberals really don't think shit through, do you? Why do you think the Electoral College, the Amendment Process and the Compact Clauses all exist in the manner in which they are written?

Wrong.

The Federal Constitution provides that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives is prescribed in each state by the state legislature. However, Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Accordingly, the Constitution grants the states broad power to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, which power is matched by state control over the election process for state offices[ii].

Pursuant to the Elections Clause, states maintain a discretionary power over elections[iii]. The states are given and in fact exercise wide discretion in the formulation of a system for electing representatives in Congress[iv].

The Constitutional provisions embrace the authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections as to times and places, notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns[v].

Thus, the power of the states for electing federal representatives encompasses nearly every procedural facet of a federal election. The Elections Clause grants to the states broad power to prescribe the procedural mechanisms for holding congressional elections[vi].

 

[Billy_Bob]

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

The states can be all or nothing for the winner within the state. They can not However give their electoral college votes to the "popular" winner as that disenfranchises the voters of that state.

 

[Edgetho]

I would welcome a National Popular vote for POTUS. Seriously.

dimocraps, being stupid, think that because dirtbags like ManBearPig and Ubercunt got more popular votes, that that is an automatic shoo-in for them if they could just get the Constitution amended.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Conservatives living in dimocrap controlled States aren't stupid. Quite the opposite, in fact. If they thought for one minute that their vote would count toward a Presidential Candidate, they'd vote in much, much, much greater numbers than they do now.

They know, for a fact (as does everybody else) that their votes just aren't gonna matter in places like Kalifornication, Illinoise, New Yawk, Minnersoder, Vermont, The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, etc.

So they just stay home. By the Millions. No...... By the Tens of Millions. What's the point in voting? Their Electoral Votes were decided long ago.

But with millions of votes, under Federal supervision -- I think it would be the death of the dimocrap party if they ever get a National Popular Vote for POTUS.

 

[BlindBoo]

I would welcome a National Popular vote for POTUS. Seriously.

dimocraps, being stupid, think that because dirtbags like ManBearPig and Ubercunt got more popular votes, that that is an automatic shoo-in for them if they could just get the Constitution amended.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Conservatives living in dimocrap controlled States aren't stupid. Quite the opposite, in fact. If they thought for one minute that their vote would count toward a Presidential Candidate, they'd vote in much, much, much greater numbers than they do now.

They know, for a fact (as does everybody else) that their votes just aren't gonna matter in places like Kalifornication, Illinoise, New Yawk, Minnersoder, Vermont, The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, etc.

So they just stay home. By the Millions. No...... By the Tens of Millions. What's the point in voting? Their Electoral Votes were decided long ago.

But with millions of votes, under Federal supervision -- I think it would be the death of the dimocrap party if they ever get a National Popular Vote for POTUS.

The same is true for liberals in Red States. I think it would improve voter turnout tremendously.

 

[my2¢]

Even if the Supreme Court looked at each of the participating states' laws and toss out some parts, there is nothing they can hang their hat on which demands how states must pick their electors.

 

[skews13]

I would welcome a National Popular vote for POTUS. Seriously.

dimocraps, being stupid, think that because dirtbags like ManBearPig and Ubercunt got more popular votes, that that is an automatic shoo-in for them if they could just get the Constitution amended.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Conservatives living in dimocrap controlled States aren't stupid. Quite the opposite, in fact. If they thought for one minute that their vote would count toward a Presidential Candidate, they'd vote in much, much, much greater numbers than they do now.

They know, for a fact (as does everybody else) that their votes just aren't gonna matter in places like Kalifornication, Illinoise, New Yawk, Minnersoder, Vermont, The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, etc.

So they just stay home. By the Millions. No...... By the Tens of Millions. What's the point in voting? Their Electoral Votes were decided long ago.

But with millions of votes, under Federal supervision -- I think it would be the death of the dimocrap party if they ever get a National Popular Vote for POTUS.

The same is true for liberals in Red States. I think it would improve voter turnout tremendously.

The largest number of voters are conservatives in every state. It's when the Liberals that usually stay at home, show up that Democrats win handily. The midterms last year proved that beyond any doubt. A record number of conservatives in every state voted, and still lost by very big numbers, even places they would normally win in.

Look for that same scenario again next year.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I would welcome a National Popular vote for POTUS. Seriously.

dimocraps, being stupid, think that because dirtbags like ManBearPig and Ubercunt got more popular votes, that that is an automatic shoo-in for them if they could just get the Constitution amended.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Conservatives living in dimocrap controlled States aren't stupid. Quite the opposite, in fact. If they thought for one minute that their vote would count toward a Presidential Candidate, they'd vote in much, much, much greater numbers than they do now.

They know, for a fact (as does everybody else) that their votes just aren't gonna matter in places like Kalifornication, Illinoise, New Yawk, Minnersoder, Vermont, The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, etc.

So they just stay home. By the Millions. No...... By the Tens of Millions. What's the point in voting? Their Electoral Votes were decided long ago.

But with millions of votes, under Federal supervision -- I think it would be the death of the dimocrap party if they ever get a National Popular Vote for POTUS.

The same is true for liberals in Red States. I think it would improve voter turnout tremendously.

The largest number of voters are conservatives in every state. It's when the Liberals that usually stay at home, show up that Democrats win handily. The midterms last year proved that beyond any doubt. A record number of conservatives in every state voted, and still lost by very big numbers, even places they would normally win in.

Look for that same scenario again next year.

Well sure....except for that whole gaining seats in the Senate thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner...t

Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In reality it is a law that must be passed in each state. Agreeing to choose their electors in a similar manner does not violate the Constitution because each state has complete Constitutional authority in choosing it's electors in any manner they chose.

The fact each state has in its own constitution the power to do what it is doing does not negate the fact the US constitutional prohibits the states from entering into said agreement with one another.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner...t

Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In reality it is a law that must be passed in each state. Agreeing to choose their electors in a similar manner does not violate the Constitution because each state has complete Constitutional authority in choosing it's electors in any manner they chose.

The fact each state has in its own constitution the power to do what it is doing does not negate the fact the US constitutional prohibits the states from entering into said agreement with one another.

No in fact it doesn't. Congress could deny them consent, but there are arguments that since it would not encroach on federal supremacy at all, the states already have the power to choose their electors, Congressional approval is not necessary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner...t

Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In reality it is a law that must be passed in each state. Agreeing to choose their electors in a similar manner does not violate the Constitution because each state has complete Constitutional authority in choosing it's electors in any manner they chose.

The fact each state has in its own constitution the power to do what it is doing does not negate the fact the US constitutional prohibits the states from entering into said agreement with one another.

No in fact it doesn't.

It does. Verbatim.

 

[DJT for Life]

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

But the Constitution says the President is elected by the Electoral College.

The moment this compact reaches 270, it will be stricken by SCOTUS. Only a Constitutional Amendment can eliminate the Electoral College and
put in a popular vote. That ain't gonna happen.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution vests the power of choosing electors for the Electoral College entirely in the states; Article Two, Section Two reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner...t

Article 1 Sec 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In reality it is a law that must be passed in each state. Agreeing to choose their electors in a similar manner does not violate the Constitution because each state has complete Constitutional authority in choosing it's electors in any manner they chose.

The fact each state has in its own constitution the power to do what it is doing does not negate the fact the US constitutional prohibits the states from entering into said agreement with one another.

No in fact it doesn't.

It does. Verbatim.

Nope. ".. without the Consent of Congress, .. " means what in that sentence?