Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:37 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Did you see the exchange that started at post #220? Same thing.
  #252  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:48 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
I read the handwaving in 224 and decided to re-engage.
  #253  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:49 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
You still need to get 60 Senators, which is easier than getting 67, but only slightly more so. But the bigger hurdle is probably getting the thing to pass enough states in the first place, and there does not appear to be a realistic path for that happen.
Why is everything 60 votes anymore? Didn't we use to pass things with 50? I know the republicans filibustered everything while Obama was president, but is that something that needs to continue forever?

Anyway, that doesn't answer my question. If congress were to pass a bill allowing this compact, would that not make all of the constitutional arguments in this thread moot?
  #254  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:53 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Why is everything 60 votes anymore? Didn't we use to pass things with 50? I know the republicans filibustered everything while Obama was president, but is that something that needs to continue forever?
Well, it hasn't been changed yet. Not for this type of vote.

If Congress approved the compact, then that should resolve one constitutional problem. There might still be the issue of the states having to provide a "republican form of government". Not sure how that would play out.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-09-2018 at 04:56 PM.
  #255  
Old 01-09-2018, 05:30 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you think that states are free to disregard the 24th Amendment (abolition of poll taxes) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections with poll taxes?

Do you think that states are free to disregard the 15th Amendment (right to vote not abridged by race) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections that are whites-only?

Do you think that states are free to disregard the 19th Amendment (right to vote not abridged by sex) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as establishing elections that are men-only?

Do you think that states are free to disregard Art VI sec 3 (prohibition on religious tests for all public officers) under the argument that states can choose electors in any manner they wish, such as requiring electors to be only from the faith of the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?

After considering the above, is it still your contention that Art II sec 1 (the appointing of electors) shall be read to the exclusion of all other provisions of the Constitution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bush v. Gore
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated''') (quoting

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that

of another. See, e. g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).
So, it seems that any election permitted by the Legislature to allocate electors must abide by the 14th amendment and other voting rights provisions of the Constitution. The Supreme Court was silent on whether the other methods must also comport with equal protection and due process, but if it did not, it would be the only provision of the Constitution that does not.

The only thing off the top of my head is that impeachment and conviction is held to be an unreviewable political question. However, what if the Congress in 2009 openly stated that it did not believe that a black person should be President and impeached and convicted Obama on those grounds. My guess is that the political question doctrine would be reviewed.
  #256  
Old 01-09-2018, 05:44 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Only if popular voting is the Manner chosen by the Legislature for allocating electors, then the voting rights laws do kick in. It has not always been the Manner chosen - states often used to have their legislatures select electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires it, in fact it explicitly stays out of it. None of the other clauses that Ravenman unaccountably wants to be relevant, the actual text of the Constitution be damned, come into effect either, unless the Legislature chooses the Manner to be state-level popular vote.
  #257  
Old 01-09-2018, 06:05 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Just to clarify, for those who I'm sure need it, yes, there is still voting going on and all the same legal protections of voting rights still apply. It's just that the voting is for the President, by citizens of the US acting as such, not for a slate of electors, by citizens of that state acting as such.
  #258  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:27 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Only if popular voting is the Manner chosen by the Legislature for allocating electors, then the voting rights laws do kick in. It has not always been the Manner chosen - states often used to have their legislatures select electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires it, in fact it explicitly stays out of it. None of the other clauses that Ravenman unaccountably wants to be relevant, the actual text of the Constitution be damned, come into effect either, unless the Legislature chooses the Manner to be state-level popular vote.
Enough with the evasion. You’ve done it once before, and you’re doing it again. Can states ignore the constitutional amendments I referenced? The question requires no explanation, just a “yes, they can” or “no, they can’t.”

I can hardly wait for an answer that is neither yes nor no, of course.
  #259  
Old 01-09-2018, 08:09 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
It's inconceivable that someone would propose that an amendment does NOT supersede the existing text of the constitution, and any amendments preceding it*. That is what an amendment is-- a change to the constitution.

Amendments 11 and going forward. The first 10 are part of the original constitution, and are co-equal with it and each other.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-09-2018 at 08:09 PM.
  #260  
Old 01-09-2018, 09:44 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Only if popular voting is the Manner chosen by the Legislature for allocating electors, then the voting rights laws do kick in. It has not always been the Manner chosen - states often used to have their legislatures select electors. Nothing in the Constitution requires it, in fact it explicitly stays out of it. None of the other clauses that Ravenman unaccountably wants to be relevant, the actual text of the Constitution be damned, come into effect either, unless the Legislature chooses the Manner to be state-level popular vote.
So it is your contention that so long as their is no popular voting in the state for President and Vice President, the state can allocate their electors in absolutely whatever manner it chooses, without regard to equal protection or due process?

Could Alabama, in 2020, appoint its electors by, say, passing a law that the first white male property owner that calls the Governor on Election Day gets to select the slate of electors?
  #261  
Old 01-10-2018, 07:21 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Subject to the constraints of the Alabama state constitution, yes. Why would you think otherwise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Enough with the evasion
It isn't evading a topic to simply point out its irrelevance.

You've been asked multiple times to state your point, if indeed you have one. I'll take your failure to do so as a failure to have one, okay?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-10-2018 at 07:22 AM.
  #262  
Old 01-10-2018, 07:35 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Subject to the constraints of the Alabama state constitution, yes. Why would you think otherwise?
Because there's multiple provisions of the Constitution that literally everyone but you thinks also apply.

Quote:
You've been asked multiple times to state your point, if indeed you have one. I'll take your failure to do so as a failure to have one, okay?
My main point has been made here, here, here, and here. I'm certain you've seen my main point, since you responded to some of those posts.

But if you're only going to read one of those links, read this one.

I also find it very disturbing that you think that "state's rights" override the 14th Amendment. That's an argument I expect out of white supremacists, not you. (I'm not calling or implying that you are a white supremacist -- I am certain you are not. But for reasons that are beyond me, the argument you are presenting here is so extreme and offensive that it has to be stated how outrageous it is.)

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-10-2018 at 07:35 AM.
  #263  
Old 01-10-2018, 08:12 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Amendments don't change the constitution. Who knew???
  #264  
Old 01-10-2018, 10:09 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Because there's multiple provisions of the Constitution that literally everyone but you thinks also apply.
That's already been explained to you.

Quote:
I also find it very disturbing that you think that "state's rights" override the 14th Amendment.
I find it very disturbing that you think I think so.

Horse, water. Shrug.
  #265  
Old 01-10-2018, 10:12 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Yeah, this horse has been beaten to death. Everything has been said, it just doesn't need to be said for the 20th time.
  #266  
Old 01-10-2018, 12:58 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
You've been having a great deal of trouble separating what should be from what is. The Constitution doesn't provide what you want just because you want it to. The protections and guarantees you seem to take for granted just aren't there, and pouting when somebody tries to tell you so doesn't help you or anyone.

Yes, our democracy really is far more fragile than many understand it to be, with a much less solid legal and constitutional foundation, and it does take constant maintenance to preserve and improve it. This electoral plan is part of that effort. It's perhaps ironic that Constitutional definitions that were originally intended to preserve the Ruling Classes' power at the expense of the common people actually assist the effort, but there it is - and it isn't going to be stopped by anyone who isn't clear on how to stop it, or even what the relevant parts of the Constitution are.
  #267  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:05 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Is there anyone else on this MB who agrees with Elvis' interpretation? That is, that the 14th amendment does not put any constraints on the process by which a state selects its electors? In particular, that "a state could appoint its electors by passing a law that the first white male property owner that calls the Governor on Election Day gets to select the slate of electors?"
  #268  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Yeah, whatever. The Constitution was amended to prohibit discrimination in voting based on race and sex, and you have apparently contended that those amendments don't count because of Art II sec 1.

It's an insane argument.

Totally and completely insane.

I cannot imagine anyone but the very fringes of the worst elements of society advocating that view, and it is clear to me that you don't share their prejudices. Why you appear to be agreeing with them on this utterly ridiculous point is completely puzzling to me.

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-10-2018 at 01:07 PM.
  #269  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:16 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
BTW, if 270 ev's of states sign up for NPVIC and it goes into effect for 2020, but the new Census reapportions and those states have less than 270 ev's for 2024, what happens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Why is everything 60 votes anymore? Didn't we use to pass things with 50?
It's 60 Democrats OR 50 Republicans. Don't they teach this in High School Civics?
  #270  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:27 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Is there anyone else on this MB who agrees with Elvis' interpretation? That is, that the 14th amendment does not put any constraints on the process by which a state selects its electors?
You certainly haven't put out an argument to the contrary, just childish name-calling and pouting. Isn't it about time you either went to the Pit or dropped it?

Ravenman, is the problem that you think the laws regulating voting mean the right to vote is itself constitutionally fundamental and guaranteed? Because, remarkably or not, it isn't, not at the federal level. Maybe that's the source of your trouble. Voting laws only kick in if you have voting.

septimus, a state's EV total is set long before Election Day, which is well before the day the Electoral College meets. If the total EV's in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now.
  #271  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:57 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You certainly haven't put out an argument to the contrary, just childish name-calling and pouting.
If you think I've called you names, I would urge you to report those posts and have them moderated. Just a suggestion.

But I'm genuinely curious if anyone shares your novel method of constitutional interpretation. It's a legit question, and if you think it's a problem, my suggestion would be to report that post. Again, just a suggestion.

Quote:
Isn't it about time you either went to the Pit or dropped it?
No.
  #272  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:28 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Ravenman, is the problem that you think the laws regulating voting mean the right to vote is itself constitutionally fundamental and guaranteed? Because, remarkably or not, it isn't, not at the federal level. Maybe that's the source of your trouble. Voting laws only kick in if you have voting.

septimus, a state's EV total is set long before Election Day, which is well before the day the Electoral College meets. If the total EV's in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now.
(post shortened)

The NPVIC laws have yet to be challenged in federal AND state courts. Lots-O-questions will need to be answered sometime between a state's decision to trigger NPVIC and the POTUS swearing-in ceremony.
-States can actually conspire to change their EC electors based on the results from other states vote totals, but state courts will still be asked to decide if the change is legal, lawful, and constitutional within each NPVIC state.
-Since there doesn't seem to be any state penalty if a state's election chairperson (or whatever each state calls it's chief election person) refuses to abide by the NPVIC, how many state courts will be called on to decide that issue?
  #273  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:35 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
You're a few pages behind.
  #274  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:38 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm genuinely curious if anyone shares your novel method of constitutional interpretation. It's a legit question
One which you could easily research yourself, with the power of Google. You need to do your own work, not whine when reality isn't spoon-fed to you.

When you can find a federal fundamental right to vote established anywhere, do please let us know, will you? Here's a hint: It's not novel, and anyone who was actually paying some fucking attention in 2000 already knows it well.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-10-2018 at 02:41 PM.
  #275  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:40 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Of course we still need to see if Electors are bound by state laws. Baca v Hickenlooper got thrown out of court after the judge called it a publicity stunt which IMO was in error. Keep in mind too that this judge said he didn't believe Secretary of State Williams would replace the elector so the lawsuit was moot and of course Williams replaced the elector so I consider Baca poorly (I would argue impeachable for incompetency) done.

We still have Koller v. Brown
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #276  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:45 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Some states, not all, do legally bind electors to vote as pledged. None of them have had a faithless elector problem since doing so, so there haven't been any court issues that would confirm the states' authority to enact those laws. Those laws could be extended to provide that the vote total submitted to the feds on Electoral College Day would be as the agreement directs, regardless of any faithless voting.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-10-2018 at 02:46 PM.
  #277  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:53 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
One which you could easily research yourself, with the power of Google. You need to do your own work, not whine when reality isn't spoon-fed to you.

When you can find a federal fundamental right to vote established anywhere, do please let us know, will you? Here's a hint: It's not novel, and anyone who was actually paying some fucking attention in 2000 already knows it well.
No one here (except maybe you) is talking about a "fundamental right to vote". We're talking about whether there are any constitutional constraints on the authority of the states to select electors. You are the only person who claims that that there are none. I'm wondering if anyone else here shares those views. I don't care about Google. I care about the SDMB, where we are all posting. I'm not sure why you seem to be so upset that I'm asking questions of other people. You are free to respond, of course, but I'm not asking anything from you, nor am I asking you to do anything.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-10-2018 at 02:55 PM.
  #278  
Old 01-10-2018, 02:55 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
When you can find such constraints after doing some work of your own, do please let us know.
  #279  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:02 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Some states, not all, do legally bind electors to vote as pledged. None of them have had a faithless elector problem since doing so, so there haven't been any court issues that would confirm the states' authority to enact those laws.
Did you not read the thread on Colorado's issue?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #280  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:03 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Missed that one, thanks. Looks inconclusive on the point, after another look.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-10-2018 at 03:05 PM.
  #281  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:04 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
When you can find such constraints after doing some work of your own, do please let us know.
I named several specific constitutional constraints on how states choose electors. You have been pretending they don’t exist.
  #282  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:11 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I named several specific constitutional constraints on how states choose electors. You have been pretending they don’t exist.
You have found some things that you wish applied, but do not. Hint: Prohibitions on states forming military and diplomatic alliances of their own have nothing to do with elector selection. But the part that explicitly assigns elector selection to the state legislatures somehow, to you, does not apply. That is ... remarkable. Maybe John should be asking you if anyone but him agrees.

Any "pretense" here is your own. Continuation of your "Compact compact compact" claim is not driven by fact or reason.
  #283  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:18 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You have found some things that you wish applied, but do not. Hint: Prohibitions on states forming military and diplomatic alliances of their own have nothing to do with elector selection. But the part that explicitly assigns elector selection to the state legislatures somehow, to you, does not apply. That is ... remarkable. Maybe John should be asking you if anyone but him agrees.

Any "pretense" here is your own. Continuation of your "Compact compact compact" claim is not driven by fact or reason.
The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me that Art II sec 1 is limited by other constitutional provisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Black
The State also contends that it has absolute power to put any burdens it pleases on the selection of electors because of the First Section of the Second Article of the Constitution, providing that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." to choose a President and Vice President. 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. For example, Congress is granted broad power to "lay and collect Taxes," [Footnote 2] but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination. [Footnote 3] Nor can it 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. Clearly, the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were intended to bar the Federal Government and the States from denying the right to vote on grounds of race and sex in presidential elections. And the Twenty-fourth Amendment clearly and literally bars any State from imposing a poll tax on the right to vote "for electors for President or Vice President." 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. We therefore hold that no State can pass a law regulating elections that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's command that "No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws."
Thread over.
  #284  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:20 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
When you can find such constraints after doing some work of your own, do please let us know.
This has already been done multiple times, but you hand-wave them all away. In fact, you've hand-waved away the idea that an amendment is meant to change the constituent even though that is the very definition of what an amendment is and does.

My thinking is that if we can find someone else who shares your views, that person might be better able to explain them. Alternatively, if no one steps up, then perhaps you will be made aware that no one else on this MB does share those views, and you will at least see that they are not clear and obvious, even if you still insist on holding to them.
  #285  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me that Art II sec 1 is limited by other constitutional provisions.

Thread over.
Dicta in a case about George Wallace's party getting a ballot listing - as in, Ohio couldn't ban him from having a slate of electors. All of that, mind you, is based on Ohio establishing state-level popular vote as the method for selecting electors, but that is not a Constitutional requirement.

IOW keep looking. John, start looking. Actually, you can start by re-reading the thread, much more slowly, so you'll gain some idea of what has actually been said in it. You're quite a bit short on that.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-10-2018 at 03:33 PM.
  #286  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:58 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
John, start looking. Actually, you can start by re-reading the thread, much more slowly, so you'll gain some idea of what has actually been said in it. You're quite a bit short on that.
As much as I appreciate your advice, I think I'll pass on taking it. I'm OK with waiting for other posters to come into the thread and take up your cause.
  #287  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:18 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Dicta in a case about George Wallace's party getting a ballot listing - as in, Ohio couldn't ban him from having a slate of electors. All of that, mind you, is based on Ohio establishing state-level popular vote as the method for selecting electors, but that is not a Constitutional requirement.

IOW keep looking.
You aren't understanding the context. I found someone else, aside from you, that argued that Art II sec 1 was an unlimited power: the State of Ohio in 1968. And that argument was completely rejected.
  #288  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:21 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
BTW, perhaps the wikipedia article is more approachable in terms of understanding the decision that Ravenman quoted:

Quote:
Opinion of the Court
On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in the Socialist Labor Case, but modified the District Court's judgment in the American Independent Party Case, granting that party the right to have its name printed on the ballot. Black wrote for a 5-4 court.

The Court held that defendants had failed to show any "compelling interest" that would justify imposing heavy burdens on the right to vote and to associate. The totality of the Ohio restrictive laws imposed a burden on voting and associational rights, which the court held was invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

It was held that (1) the equal protection clause was violated by the Ohio election laws, which made it virtually impossible for any party except the Republican and Democratic Parties to qualify on the ballot, and (2) the American Independent Party was, and the Socialist Labor Party was not, entitled to have its name placed on the ballots, because the former promptly sought injunctive relief in the United States Supreme Court, thus avoiding interruption of the state's electoral process, and the latter delayed in seeking such relief.

Held:

1. The controversy in these cases is justiciable. P. 28.

2. State laws enacted pursuant to Art. II, § 1, of the Constitution to regulate the selection of electors must meet the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. pp. 28–29.

[etc.]
Emphasis added
  #289  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:39 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Subject to the constraints of the Alabama state constitution, yes. Why would you think otherwise?
Because it is an astounding proposition. Putting aside the common sense that the Supreme Court would never go for it, you are reading the single provision in isolation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
You have quoted this at length. However, there are other portions of the Constitution that have to be read along with this. This is not the end of the matter full stop. The 14th amendment also applies.

Think of it this way. Congress has the power "to provide and maintain a Navy." If Congress said no blacks or Catholics in the Navy, it would seem that your argument is that Congress has an absolute right to provide for the Navy as it sees fit, the other parts of the Constitution be damned.

It makes no sense.
  #290  
Old 01-10-2018, 04:55 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
IOW keep looking. John, start looking. Actually, you can start by re-reading the thread, much more slowly, so you'll gain some idea of what has actually been said in it. You're quite a bit short on that.
Jonathan Chance already cautioned you against being a jerk in post #236.

I'm sure your disagreement with others isn't based on anyone's reading ability or failure to read the thread. To be more clear, knock off the jerkish condescension, including but not limited to telling people to re-read and at what speed.

If you wish to comment about the moderation, do so in ATMB - you've exhausted your 1 freebie in post #237. This is the extent of my forbearance.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 01-10-2018 at 05:00 PM.
  #291  
Old 01-11-2018, 02:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... If the total EV's in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now.
Cite? I don't see this case explicitly mentioned in California's AB-459. I think it's just another ambiguity for possible litigation.
  #292  
Old 01-11-2018, 06:35 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Cite? I don't see this case explicitly mentioned in California's AB-459. I think it's just another ambiguity for possible litigation.
Yeah, the compact has a provision that explicitly says states can withdraw at any time, and one would presume they would all do so if the EV count of participants dropped below 50%. But that is voluntary, and if some state didn't do so, that would certainly invited litigation.
  #293  
Old 01-11-2018, 07:38 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Cite? I don't see this case explicitly mentioned in California's AB-459. I think it's just another ambiguity for possible litigation.
Here. PDF page 21.
Quote:
The second clause of Article IV of the compact permits a state to withdraw from the compact but provides for a “blackout” period (of approximately six months) restricting withdrawals:
“Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”

The purpose for the delay in the effective date of a withdrawal is to ensure that a withdrawal will not be undertaken—perhaps for partisan political purposes—in the midst of a presidential campaign or in the period between the popular voting in early November and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This restriction on withdrawals is warranted in light of the subject matter of the compact.

The blackout period starts on July 20 of a presidential election year and would normally end on January 20 of the following year (the scheduled inauguration date). Thus, if a statute repealing the compact in a particular state were enacted and came into effect in the midst of the presidential election process, that state’s withdrawal from the compact would not take effect until completion of the entire current presidential election cycle. The language used in the compact tracks the wording of the 20th Amendment.

The date for the end of the present President’s term is fixed by the 20th Amendment
as January 20; however, the 20th Amendment recognizes the possibility that a new President might, under certain circumstances, not have been “qualified” by that date. The blackout period in the compact ends when the entire presidential election cycle is completed under the terms of the 20th Amendment.
Formatting cleaned up for readability.

Yes, naturally there would be legal challenges, because that's the American way.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-11-2018 at 07:40 AM.
  #294  
Old 01-11-2018, 09:05 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
That's not what septimus was asking about-- where in the contract does it explicitly say that "If the total EV's in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now". As I already noted, that says that it is possible for the states to "go back to doing what they do now", but it doesn't ensure that it does. Of course states can exit if they choose, even without that clause. If they can pass this legislation, they can rescind it. That clause actually attempts to put some limits on the exiting process, and could prevent some states from exiting if they did not have enough time to react to another state's exit.
  #295  
Old 01-11-2018, 10:04 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
I feel sure that septimus is capable of saying for himself if his question has been answered.

If you have a different one yourself, well, there's the link. Have at it.
  #296  
Old 01-12-2018, 07:25 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
FWIW, I take John Mace's side in the latest micro-dispute. That dispute is of much less interest than the way it was just addressed here. This all tends to support my worry:
NPVIC doesn't turn the election over to the People; it turns it over to the Lawyers.
  #297  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:49 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
That's not what septimus was asking about-- where in the contract does it explicitly say that "If the total EV's in the agreement drops below 270, then the states just go back to doing what they do now". As I already noted, that says that it is possible for the states to "go back to doing what they do now", but it doesn't ensure that it does. Of course states can exit if they choose, even without that clause. If they can pass this legislation, they can rescind it. That clause actually attempts to put some limits on the exiting process, and could prevent some states from exiting if they did not have enough time to react to another state's exit.
Further, what would happen if a State withdrew in violation of the agreement? Would another State have standing to challenge the violation in court? Would a candidate? An elector?

What would be the remedy? Money damages? Specific performance? What would be the specific performance?

Wouldn't the prohibition of a withdrawal from the compact within the 6 month period violate a State's constitutional power to select its electors in a manner it chooses?
  #298  
Old 01-13-2018, 07:07 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Further, what would happen if a State withdrew in violation of the agreement? Would another State have standing to challenge the violation in court? Would a candidate? An elector?
If you want to make it really interesting suppose two states are in the compact, and state A has an election cert date earlier than state B. State A certifies its electors per the compact, and then state B decides to withdraw.

Quote:
What would be the remedy? Money damages? Specific performance? What would be the specific performance?

Wouldn't the prohibition of a withdrawal from the compact within the 6 month period violate a State's constitutional power to select its electors in a manner it chooses?
Heh.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-13-2018 at 07:07 PM.
  #299  
Old 01-14-2018, 10:49 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,296
And I think we have found the reason that interstate compacts are forbidden in the constituion.

There is no way for one state to hold another state accountable to a compact that they signed on for.

That's why congress would need to be involved, so that there is an entity that can hold the states accountable to hold up their end of the deal.
  #300  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:32 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And I think we have found the reason that interstate compacts are forbidden in the constituion.
The context there is all about military and diplomatic alliances, forbidding them outside the structure of the federal government, which would be essentially meaningless if they were permitted. So no.

Quote:
There is no way for one state to hold another state accountable to a compact that they signed on for.
There doesn't have to be. There only needs to be a defined course of action in response.

There's no constitutional requirement that multiple slates of electors be chosen by parties and pledged prior to Election Day. That's by statute only, and is overridden when the Compact (it's a word, get over it) kicks in. The state's electors, who can be a single slate pledged to follow the law, just need to know how they're legally required to vote on December 19. If enough states weasel on their own Compact laws to get the total EV count below 50%, they do what they do now. But no state needs to hold another accountable.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017