Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 National Popular Vote Update 
    Senior Member old dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    the high desert
    Posts
    2,880
    This initiative would require the signatory states to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner as soon as it is agreed to by states controlling 270 electoral votes. As of July 2020, it has been adopted by 16 states possessing 196 electoral votes.

    In my opinion it is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10:

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ...
    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ...
    You must DEMAND that your candidates for state legislature and state house oppose this measure or rescind it if it's already in place.

    The recent SCOTUS electoral college ruling DOES NOT address this proposal's constitutionality.




    PS Can anybody fix my spelling error in the title of this thread?

    The United States Navy, fighting Moslem barbarians since 1801.

    *****************************************
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    ******************************************
    Democrat evolution: JFK PUT A MAN ON THE MOON AND OBAMA PUT A MAN IN THE LADIES BATHROOM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    19,233
    Can Monday’s SCOTUS decision cut into that framework? I read it as so goes the votes, so goes the electoral college and the popular vote movement would be unconstitutional.

    States can require members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for the presidential candidates they had pledged to support, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday, curbing the independence of electors and limiting one potential source of uncertainty in the 2020 presidential election.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    . If you ain't havin' fun, it's your own damn fault
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    19,233
    On second reading, likely not. It would if only the state had the ruling re: dance with the one who brung you but ... if it says you have to change your vote that’s different from being a faithless one.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    . If you ain't havin' fun, it's your own damn fault
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member old dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    the high desert
    Posts
    2,880
    I'm not so sure about that, Retread.

    Justice Kagan wrote an opinion joined by 8 justices (including Justice Gorsuch). This opinion relied heavily of Article II, section 1, and included the following points:

    "Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors 'in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.' ... This Court has described that clause as 'conveying the broadest power of determination' over who becomes an elector." [Emphasis added]
    "The Constitution is bare-bones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. ... That is all." [Emphasis added]
    "Article II and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors."

    Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the outcome, but reached that conclusion based on the 10th Amendment, instead of Article II, section 1. Justice Gorsuch joined part II of Justice Thomas's concurring opinion, which included the following points:

    "When the Constitution is silent, authority resides with the States or the people. This allocation of power is both embodied in the structure of our Constitution and expressly required by the Tenth Amendment. ... Nothing in the Constitution prevents States from requiring Presidential electors to vote for the candidate chosen by the people." [Emphasis added]
    "Of course, the powers reserved to the States concerning Presidential electors cannot 'be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands' [Williams v. Rhodes, 1968]. That is, powers related to electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power. Thus, to invalidate a state law, there must be 'something in the Federal Constitution that deprives the [States of] the power to enact such a measure.'”
    The Article 1, Section 10 prohibitions could apply according to Justice Thomas's opinion but not according to Justice Kagan's and the other seven.

    The best bet is to NEVER let it get to the Supreme Court.

    Full text at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-465_i425.pdf

    The United States Navy, fighting Moslem barbarians since 1801.

    *****************************************
    “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    ******************************************
    Democrat evolution: JFK PUT A MAN ON THE MOON AND OBAMA PUT A MAN IN THE LADIES BATHROOM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,758
    It has been fully adopted only in Blue states that believe they will have the popular vote majority, the best outcome would be if Trump won the national popular vote and then they would all crap themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    21,740
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    It has been fully adopted only in Blue states that believe they will have the popular vote majority, the best outcome would be if Trump won the national popular vote and then they would all crap themselves.
    Which I believe will happen.
    Progressivism is a bottomless pit of absurdity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    19,233
    Because the Constitution gives states the power to appoint electors, Kagan wrote, that power allows them to impose conditions on their appointment.

    If that state has put the popular vote law into force for their state then I think this comment favors enforcing that rule on their electors. The only real hope IMHO is to not let the 270 electors goal get reached. The problem there is the 84 votes that are already through one or two levels of legislative approval in several states.
    Last edited by Retread; 07-07-2020 at 06:42 PM.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    . If you ain't havin' fun, it's your own damn fault
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Banacek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Peoples Republic of Connecticut
    Posts
    15,608
    I don't like the word "can". It means "is allowed". It doesn't mean "can't. It allows for discretion


    The wording should be "must" or maybe "will". Must is affirmative, it allows no discretion. Will, is less
    powerful but, in my opinion, also does not allow discretion.
    Unknown philosopher at a St. Patrick's Day celebration 1967

    1 beer between 3 guys is better than no beers between no guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •