National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional

[BlindBoo]

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.

Not really, the EC will still be intact and will still elect the President.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Has Congress give its consent?
No?
Verbatim.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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
Here's the problem BlindBoo

Here's a VERY REAL scenario that would most likely occur at some point:

Suppose Ohio votes Republican, but the other states in the Compact vote Democrat. Ohio decides to break the Compact and award its Electoral Votes to the Republican, the Republican nominee wins the election as a result (remember that the Electoral votes are actually casted in December, a month after the election).

The Democrats (and the nation) initially thought there was going to be a Democrat President, but a month after the election and much deliberation, Ohio decides to cast Republican votes, and break the Compact, in order to not abridge the votes casted by their the own state.

The Republican nominee (who every one thought lost) now becomes the President elect late December.

Do they bring the matter before a federal court, which will rule against the Compact in accordance with Article I (argument one)?

Or will the federal court instead uphold the Compact, but rule that Ohio has every right, under Article II, to break said compact and cast their votes however they wish (argument 2)?

Either way, the federal courts will rule in Ohio's favor. So what then?

How does New York react against Ohio? Does New York send their National Guard to invade Ohio and arrest the Legislature and bring them before a New York State Court? In other words does New York declare war and invade Ohio?

How on earth do you actually expect the Compact to be enforced BlindBoo ? It's an empty compact in the end, unless New York is going to invade its neighbor and rule through force.

How then does the federal government react to New York invading Ohio? What if other States in compact, that voted like New York, such as California, assist New York and begin an eastward military offensive in the "name of democracy," while New York launches a westward invasion also "in the name of democracy," while Texas and Midwest states fight back on both fronts "in the name of the Republic and the Constitution."

You ******* liberals really need to learn the wisdom of this phrase:
"The best intentions often have the worst results."

You can virtue signal each other with "democracy" all you want, but all you're ultimately going to get is shot down in the federal courts, or worst, shot down literally by the US Armed Forces pledged to uphold the Constitution.

If you don't like the Electoral College --- AMEND IT --- if you can....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do they bring the matter before a federal court, which will rule against the Compact in accordance with Article I (argument one)?

The Democrats will do whatever it takes to win. They care about nothing else.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Do they bring the matter before a federal court, which will rule against the Compact in accordance with Article I (argument one)?

The Democrats will do whatever it takes to win. They care about nothing else.

One thing they wont do is bring it to federal court. Even the most liberal court would strike it down.

How exactly then do Democrats intend to seek recourse against any State (like Ohio in the above example) breaks the Compact, short of military invasion?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do they bring the matter before a federal court, which will rule against the Compact in accordance with Article I (argument one)?

The Democrats will do whatever it takes to win. They care about nothing else.

One thing they wont do is bring it to federal court. Even the most liberal court would strike it down.
How exactly then do Democrats intend to seek recourse against any State (like Ohio in the above example) breaks the Compact, short of military invasion?

State A has no recourse, should state B renege on an agreement they could not constitutionally enter into.

 

[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
Here's the problem BlindBoo

Here's a VERY REAL scenario that would most likely occur at some point:

Suppose Ohio votes Republican, but the other states in the Compact vote Democrat. Ohio decides to break the Compact and award its Electoral Votes to the Republican, the Republican nominee wins the election as a result (remember that the Electoral votes are actually casted in December, a month after the election).

The Democrats (and the nation) initially thought there was going to be a Democrat President, but a month after the election and much deliberation, Ohio decides to cast Republican votes, and break the Compact, in order to not abridge the votes casted by their the own state.

The Republican nominee (who every one thought lost) now becomes the President elect late December.

Do they bring the matter before a federal court, which will rule against the Compact in accordance with Article I (argument one)?

Or will the federal court instead uphold the Compact, but rule that Ohio has every right, under Article II, to break said compact and cast their votes however they wish (argument 2)?

Either way, the federal courts will rule in Ohio's favor. So what then?

How does New York react against Ohio? Does New York send their National Guard to invade Ohio and arrest the Legislature and bring them before a New York State Court? In other words does New York declare war and invade Ohio?

How on earth do you actually expect the Compact to be enforced BlindBoo ? It's an empty compact in the end, unless New York is going to invade its neighbor and rule through force.

How then does the federal government react to New York invading Ohio? What if other States in compact, that voted like New York, such as California, assist New York and begin an eastward military offensive in the "name of democracy," while New York launches a westward invasion also "in the name of democracy," while Texas and Midwest states fight back on both fronts "in the name of the Republic and the Constitution."

You ******* liberals really need to learn the wisdom of this phrase:
"The best intentions often have the worst results."

You can virtue signal each other with "democracy" all you want, but all you're ultimately going to get is shot down in the federal courts, or worst, shot down literally by the US Armed Forces pledged to uphold the Constitution.

If you don't like the Electoral College --- AMEND IT --- if you can....

Yes anyone who plays chess and can plan at least one move ahead can see a scenario where a single state could opt out and destroy the pact. However an elector or a whole group of electors going rouge, are just as likely now as under the proposed pact. Nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do they bring the matter before a federal court, which will rule against the Compact in accordance with Article I (argument one)?

The Democrats will do whatever it takes to win. They care about nothing else.

One thing they wont do is bring it to federal court. Even the most liberal court would strike it down.
How exactly then do Democrats intend to seek recourse against any State (like Ohio in the above example) breaks the Compact, short of military invasion?

State A has no recourse, should state B renege on an agreement they could not constitutionally enter into.

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

 

[Dragonlady]

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 States have the legal right under the Constitution, to decide one what basis their members of the Electoral College cast their votes. The section which you have highlighted in red, is not applicable to this situation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The States have the legal right under the Constitution, to decide one what basis their members of the Electoral College cast their votes. The section which you have highlighted in red, is not applicable to this situation.

You speak from the deepest depths of ignorance.
The clause is -perfectly- applicable -- in fact, the clause is there to keep the states from doing exactly the sort of thing they are trying to do here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

Nice try

Each state is deciding through its own legislature how it will assign their EVs

No Collusion

 

[BlindBoo]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

So in essence, the States would be asking Congress for consent to be able to choose how they select their Presidential Electors. Something the Constitution already grants to the States 100%.

Sounds silly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

So in essence, the States would be asking Congress for consent to be able to choose how they select their Presidential Electors.

You are fully aware of the error in your statement

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

So in essence, the States would be asking Congress for consent to be able to choose how they select their Presidential Electors.

You are fully aware of the error in your statement

Only if Congress (federal congress) actually approves the Compact, at which point Congress would redirect their efforts towards a Constitutional Amendment under Article V.

You don't really think the other states are going to allow NYC and LA decide the Presidency for the next 200 years right?

 

[BlindBoo]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

So in essence, the States would be asking Congress for consent to be able to choose how they select their Presidential Electors.

You are fully aware of the error in your statement

Only if Congress (federal congress) actually approves the Compact, at which point Congress would redirect their efforts towards a Constitutional Amendment under Article V.

You don't really think the other states are going to allow NYC and LA decide the Presidency for the next 200 years right?

Several states already filed suit to challenge it.

 

[rightwinger]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

So in essence, the States would be asking Congress for consent to be able to choose how they select their Presidential Electors.

You are fully aware of the error in your statement

Only if Congress (federal congress) actually approves the Compact, at which point Congress would redirect their efforts towards a Constitutional Amendment under Article V.

You don't really think the other states are going to allow NYC and LA decide the Presidency for the next 200 years right?

American voters will decide the presidency regardless of where they live

 

[JWBooth]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” Spooner

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If the State passes a law to tie their state electors to the national popular vote, I think they'd need to pass another law to select their elector another way.

And in doing so, solidifies the violation of the Article 1 Section 10 clause under discussion.

So in essence, the States would be asking Congress for consent to be able to choose how they select their Presidential Electors.

You are fully aware of the error in your statement

Only if Congress (federal congress) actually approves the Compact, at which point Congress would redirect their efforts towards a Constitutional Amendment under Article V.

You don't really think the other states are going to allow NYC and LA decide the Presidency for the next 200 years right?

American voters will decide the presidency regardless of where they live

Your American voters will consist of Blue States. The Red States will secede.

There is no reason for the Red States to stay in the union if LA and NYC determine everything.