No, it’s the rule where, if you can find a part of the Constitution that’s obviously intended for another use but has the same word in it as in the name of a law that you object to, then you can claim equivalence to a part that explicitly permits it.
Unless it’s the rule that lets you keep arguing even after you’ve been shown to be wrong. Maybe that’s it.
Then it’s clear that the answer to Ravenman’s questions are: No and no.
Which is all I meant to establish, really.
I wonder if this approach may apply to how ElvisL1ves may read a last will and testament. Imagine one that reads:
He may think: I don’t want the dog or the car, so I will hire an attorney to ask the judge to only enforce clauses 3, 4, and 5. The will makes perfect sense if we just ignore 1 and 2!!! Besides, those whiners Joe and Jan are just hand wavers anyway.
Say, here’s an idea around the “interstate compacts are unconstitutional” problem:
The minute that enough states support it so it would take effect, have those state legislatures “repeal and replace” it with identical laws that are not subject to other states’ laws.
The only problems I can see with this off hand are:
(a) Not every state might let the legislature do this, but might require a vote of the people;
(b) There’s no guarantee that every state that voted for the compact still wants it, in which case, you run the risk of the popular vote winner not being elected - but you would think that enough electoral votes would be decided this way that the chance of the popular vote winner not being elected would be slim.
Remember when courts looked at Trump’s travel ban and his history of saying “Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban Muslim ban… uh, this is NOT a Muslim ban… yeah, that’s the ticket!”
You think the courts were generally swayed by the last few words uttered in pure coveryourassery, and ignored everything else said previously?
If not, why do you think “Compact compact compact compact compact compact compact… uh, it isn’t a compact anymore… that’s the ticket!” is more convincing?
Better idea. Interstate compacts are not unconstitutional in the first place.
They are unconstitutional if they are not approved by congress, but as long as congress give its blessing then there is no problem, right?
In order to get congress to pass a bill making these compacts legal would require far less than needed to get an amendment fixing the EC.
If congress passed a bill making this compact valid, would any of the arguments against it in this thread be relevant anymore?
Sigh … Which of these parts of the Constitution applies to selecting electors? The one about states forming military alliances with each other, outside the structure of the federal government:
Or the one that actually is about the selection of electors:
You can keep saying “Compact compact compact” if you think that’s actually a relevant argument, but I assure you it is not, and that the laughter and pointing will only continue.
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.
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?
Did you see the exchange that started at post #220? Same thing.
I read the handwaving in 224 and decided to re-engage.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?