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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
**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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.