Stacey Abrams Says She’d ‘Go Around Constitution’ To End ‘Racist’ Electoral College

[Mac-7]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Stacey Abrams Says She’d ‘Go Around Constitution’

How long would that take? 2032?

She has an electric scooter for long trips such as shopping at the grocery store

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution gives states the power to select electors, and doesn't limit it. So, I don't see why the compact is unconstitutional.

States are prohibited by the constitution form entering into agreements/compacts with other states, absent congressional approval.

I think we'd be better off just agreeing to allocate EVs in each state according to proportional voting.

It is unlikely the Democrats will allow any of of the electoral votes from CA NY and IL to go to a Republican.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The SC doesn't have the authority to tell the State Legislators how to choose their electors.

The SC -does- have he authority to overturn the laws to that effect, should they violate the constitution.

 

[bendog]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

I remember when the electoral vote was the BEST THING since sliced bread..when it was in favor of Democrats. Now that Trump may win again...its time to dump it.

When did a dem win without at least the plurality of votes?

I just don't recall dems being all that enamoured with it.

 

[Lastamender]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Stacey Abrams Says She’d ‘Go Around Constitution’

How long would that take? 2032?

She has an electric scooter for long trips such as shopping at the grocery store

She is too fat for a scooter.

 

[BlindBoo]

The SC doesn't have the authority to tell the State Legislators how to choose their electors.

The SC -does- have he authority to overturn the laws to that effect, should they violate the constitution.

• The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Because the choice of method of appointing presidential electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority.
• Thus, under established compact jurisprudence, congressional consent would not be necessary for the National Popular Vote compact to become effective.
• Nonetheless, National Popular Vote is working to obtain support for the compact in Congress.

9.16 Myths about Interstate Compacts and Congressional Consent

 

[M14 Shooter]

• The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congresional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Because the choice of method of appointing presidential electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority.

I suggest you actually read the case in question rather than the synopsis provided to you by the organization pushing the compact.
When you do you'll find direct reference to agreements that serve to enlarge the power of the states party to the compact relative to the states that are not.

The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary, and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of Congress may well be required
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)
Page 148 U. S. 520

The NPVC serves to render immaterial the electoral votes of all states not party to same, and thus, serves to increase the power of those states relative to the others. Thus, the compact, under the USSC decision you reference, requires congressional consent.

The SC -does- have he authority to overturn the laws to that effect, should they violate the constitution, and under current jurisprudence, will overturn the state election laws that reference this compact.

 

[CWayne]

So states agreeing to award their EV to the popular winner is treason for you guys? LOL

No, but it does disenfranchise the voters in that state.

 

[BlindBoo]

The NPVC serves to render immaterial the electoral votes of all states not party to same, and thus, serves to increase the power of those states relative to the others. Thus, the compact, under the USSC decision you reference, requires congressional consent.

The 1893 rulling stated " ...it is evident that the prohibition 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."

They do not mention the other states at all. Just the supremacy of the Federal Government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NPVC serves to render immaterial the electoral votes of all states not party to same, and thus, serves to increase the power of those states relative to the others. Thus, the compact, under the USSC decision you reference, requires congressional consent.

The 1893 rulling stated " ...it is evident that the prohibition 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."
They do not mention the other states at all. Just the supremacy of the Federal Government.

You choose to not read the read of the case, because you know it undermines your position.
Your concession, accepted.

 

[WEATHER53]

Another loser whose main claim to fame is to proclaim loudly and profanely “I did not lose...white people done did me bad”

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Funny how everyone says the Left hate America.

Stacey Abrams Tells Eager 'View' She'd 'Go Around Constitution' to End 'Racist' Electoral College

Do you know how the EC came into being?

Staci Abrams apparently does not.

You certainly don't. LOL

I have a degree and taught government for most my career as a teacher. How dare you say I am wrong on this topic! You need to just STFU!

 

[Osiris-ODS]

I don't think you can go around the constitution. Even the interstate compact is problematic. No I think we need a new amendment to elect the President by popular vote.

...
The constitution gives states the power to select electors, and doesn't limit it. So, I don't see why the compact is unconstitutional. I think we'd be better off just agreeing to allocate EVs in each state according to proportional voting. That way in States like Wyoming an individual vote would be more powerful than an individ vote in say …. Texas or Fla. Or Calif or NY

It's unconstitutional on its face per Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and that's notwithstanding any of the substantive constitutional concerns.

 

[80zephyr]

Marriage is not a Right. We ban a lot of people and combinations from marriage, because society says to do so.

I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.

And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.

I0 year olds? I hope not

Why not? Now you want the government to regulate marriage?

Mark

Umm no.
Saying gays shouldnt get married. Or someone couldn't marry 5 people IS regulating it.

So is saying a 10 year old can't marry.

Mark

 

[TNHarley]

I would agree if the govt never got involved. But they did.

And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.

I0 year olds? I hope not

Why not? Now you want the government to regulate marriage?

Mark

Umm no.
Saying gays shouldnt get married. Or someone couldn't marry 5 people IS regulating it.

So is saying a 10 year old can't marry.

Mark

Lol come on dude. Geez

 

[80zephyr]

And one day sooner than later you’ll be able to marry a dozen 10 year olds.

I0 year olds? I hope not

Why not? Now you want the government to regulate marriage?

Mark

Umm no.
Saying gays shouldnt get married. Or someone couldn't marry 5 people IS regulating it.

So is saying a 10 year old can't marry.

Mark

Lol come on dude. Geez

What? You act "'enlightened" until its an activity you don't agree with. So, heres a question. Lets say an 11 year old girl hits puberty, why does society tell her she is not ready to have sex when nature clearly says she is? You seem to believe that regulation is bad, so how about for her?

Mark

 

[LeeOnLido]

its so sad that a hamsters IQ is 70 points higher than Stacey

 

[TNHarley]

I0 year olds? I hope not

Why not? Now you want the government to regulate marriage?

Mark

Umm no.
Saying gays shouldnt get married. Or someone couldn't marry 5 people IS regulating it.

So is saying a 10 year old can't marry.

Mark

Lol come on dude. Geez

What? You act "'enlightened" until its an activity you don't agree with. So, heres a question. Lets say an 11 year old girl hits puberty, why does society tell her she is not ready to have sex when nature clearly says she is? You seem to believe that regulation is bad, so how about for her?

Mark

You have went from adult gays to children.
This is ridiculous. Good day.

 

[LeeOnLido]

im pretty sure stacey has no problem going around a dominos pizza

 

[80zephyr]

Why not? Now you want the government to regulate marriage?

Mark

Umm no.
Saying gays shouldnt get married. Or someone couldn't marry 5 people IS regulating it.

So is saying a 10 year old can't marry.

Mark

Lol come on dude. Geez

What? You act "'enlightened" until its an activity you don't agree with. So, heres a question. Lets say an 11 year old girl hits puberty, why does society tell her she is not ready to have sex when nature clearly says she is? You seem to believe that regulation is bad, so how about for her?

Mark

You have went from adult gays to children.
This is ridiculous. Good day.

Oh, I get it. You CAN regulate in society if you want to. And you do want to.

Mark