Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States have the authority to pass all sorts of laws, and sometimes they get overturned by the Supreme Court. In the past State attempts to disenfranchise classes of voters have been ruled unconstitutional. That is what this compact is attempting to do. The authors of this legislation expect Democrats to win the national popular vote and are putting this compact in place as a safeguard in case the Republicans carry the popular vote in their State. They are attempting to disenfranchise Republicans, and let's not pretend otherwise. It will not stand a Supreme Court challenge. If by some strange chance it did and States that voted Republican have their electoral votes stolen, you will see a true constitutional crisis and perhaps Civil War II. The majority voters of States are not going to quietly accept being disenfranchised. The Dems are fools if they think so.
I posted the relevant info. I don't support doing this but states clearly can.
Bernie would have won Michigan and Wisconsin. He could have won Pennsylvania as he didn't have the baggage Hillary did.
You have every right to that belief, But your own logic works against it, if Bernie couldnt win Pennsylvania them against the worst candidate ever, why would you think he would beat the second worst ?????
You have every right to that belief, But your own logic works against it, if Bernie couldnt win Pennsylvania them against the worst candidate ever, why would you think he would beat the second worst ?????
States have the authority to pass all sorts of laws, and sometimes they get overturned by the Supreme Court. In the past State attempts to disenfranchise classes of voters have been ruled unconstitutional. That is what this compact is attempting to do. The authors of this legislation expect Democrats to win the national popular vote and are putting this compact in place as a safeguard in case the Republicans carry the popular vote in their State. They are attempting to disenfranchise Republicans, and let's not pretend otherwise. It will not stand a Supreme Court challenge. If by some strange chance it did and States that voted Republican have their electoral votes stolen, you will see a true constitutional crisis and perhaps Civil War II. The majority voters of States are not going to quietly accept being disenfranchised. The Dems are fools if they think so.
Than many of them are fools. Some Democrats truly believe this push to o popular vote won't be met with challenges and pushback. Harry Reid can probably now offer some insight on how his stunt came back to bite them Democrats right in the tail. Just because you have the opportunity or the desire to do something does not necessarily mean it is a good idea. And, in a lot of cases, when you do something to give yourself an advantage, it will come back and tilt the table against you.
If this compact ever does take hold, I see a Supreme Court challenge given it effectively disenfranchises the voters of any given State where the majority voted for the other candidate.
In essence I think it exploits a loophole unforeseen by the founders, namely that the process for deciding electoral votes is left to the states. But the founders agreed to the EC system in 1787 in order to get ratification from small states, who feared being over-run by large population states. This then is an end-run around the amendment process.
The NPVIC exploits a loophole to alter the constitution without going through the arduous amendment process. The most 'slam dunk' argument against it appears to be the 'compact clause' from Article I:
Quote:
The first clue is in its title. Any interstate compact must raise the issue of the Compact Clause in Article I of the Constitution, which holds in relevant part that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
That’s a pretty strong statement. No penumbras and emanations here, only the unequivocal language of the Constitution that says any compact among the states must be approved by Congress.
I will be surprised with a conservative majority SCOTUS that this NPVIC will pass muster and be held constitutional. Especially if a state like Colorado votes republican and the EC votes are handed to a democratic national vote winner.
I will be surprised with a conservative majority SCOTUS that this NPVIC will pass muster and be held constitutional. Especially if a state like Colorado votes republican and the EC votes are handed to a democratic national vote winner.
But people can continue to dream on.
The court has no choice. States can do their delegates any way they want. States already do it different from each other.
If this compact ever does take hold, I see a Supreme Court challenge given it effectively disenfranchises the voters of any given State where the majority voted for the other candidate.
On the contrary, the bolded is the system we have now.
National popular vote ENFRANCHISES EVERY voter.
One person, one vote.
Why is that concept so hard for Reps/cons to get?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
