Subject to the constraints of the Alabama *state *constitution, yes. Why would you think otherwise?
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?
Because there’s multiple provisions of the Constitution that literally everyone but you thinks also apply.
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.)
Amendments don’t change the constitution. Who knew???
That’s already been explained to you.
I find it very disturbing that you think I think so.
Horse, water. Shrug.
Yeah, this horse has been beaten to death. Everything has been said, it just doesn’t need to be said for the 20th time.
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.
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?”
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.
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?
It’s 60 Democrats OR 50 Republicans. Don’t they teach this in High School Civics?
*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.
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.
No.
(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?
You’re a few pages behind.
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.
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
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.
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.
When you can find such constraints after doing some work of your own, do please let us know.
Did you not read the thread on Colorado’s issue?
Missed that one, thanks. Looks inconclusive on the point, after another look.