SCOTUS Win for NVPIC

a reply to: Trueman

Not with all those mail in votes.

Unless of course, he wins. But it won't be by enough, in any case. Anything less than unanimity proves it's rigged.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

State's popular vote, not national.

Yes, if that's what the state's law requires. That is not what VPIC states require.

Perhaps you should read the decision.

States are still required to abide by federal laws? Right? That's why Pot farms are still busted in California by federal agents. Right?
I have read the decision, and come to a very different conclusion than you have.
That may also be due to many conversations with Lawyers, Clerks, ADA's and other Law enforcement personal, that I have had the pleasure to grow up with, marry into the family, or otherwise have opportunity to know.

Perhaps, I am incorrect.

Can you produce an "argumentum ab auctoritate" to support your views?

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

States are still required to abide by federal laws?

Yes.

What federal laws are there regarding how electors are selected or vote?

Don't bother to look. There are none. The Constitution leaves it up to the states and what they say is the law. That's the heart of the decision today.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

States are still required to abide by federal laws?

Yes.

What federal laws are there regarding how electors are selected or vote?

Don't bother to look. There are none. The Constitution leaves it up to the states and what they say is the law. That's the heart of the decision today.

Once again:
From CNN:

The Supreme Court said Monday that states can punish members of the Electoral College who break a pledge to vote for a state's popular vote winner in presidential elections.

You have shot yourself in the foot on this one.
The Feds have just given a "federal laws[sic] are there regarding how electors are selected or vote."

a reply to: Phage

The over-ruling was constitutionally required, just the same as states rights to elect and/or punish punish the electorate.

Despite ANY laws a state may try to pass, such compacts are not allowed.

In fact they should be discouraged by intellectual's as yourself, I know you are smart enough to see the long-term ramifications that such a rash decisions could entail.

We should just do it though, right? Maybe NIKE is finally getting their money's worth for the slogan.

Just abolish that whole principle of the states determining the federal representative of the USA, because we don't like the results of losing.

You are already losing 2020, and the sweaty asshole in office will get a 2nd term.

Maybe re-think your approach in general, if you can.

originally posted by: Trueman
Does it mean that Trump is convinced he will be reelected by popular vote ?

What Phage is missing here is that the EC votes have always been determined by each individual states Popular vote,that is then converted to EC votes. This is regardless of that compact. Pop vote has to be for who the majority vote for and makes it illegal for them to force EC votes for anyone not getting the majority of voter if its contrary to the compacts choice.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

You rely on CNN for you legal advice? Bad idea.

Here. The source. Read it, then show me where is says a state's popular vote must determine the vote of electors.

This is as close as you might get, but it's not really what you want. So please, show me something to prove your point that electors must vote according to the popular vote of their state.

Article II and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens.

www.supremecourt.gov...

You will note that I did say that if the Compact ever comes into effect there will be another Court battle over it.

a reply to: Vector99

Despite ANY laws a state may try to pass, such compacts are not allowed.

By what authority?

a reply to: Phage

Federal law. Interstate compacts are extremely limited in their granting, and for a purpose.

You realize there are 50 states right?

Just to be clear, are you for or against this idea?

a reply to: Vector99

Federal law.

Show me.

Just to be clear, are you for or against this idea?

RTFT

a reply to: Phage

Show me.

You dont even try anymore

An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States that is approved by those states’ respective legislatures, and, if required based on the subject matter of the compact, consented to by the US Congress. Compacts that receive congressional consent become federal law. As contracts between states, compacts affect the rights and responsibilities of states party to them (and their citizens); the US Supreme Court has indicated that the interests of non-party states could be a factor when determining whether congressional consent is required. A compact typically includes provisions regarding its purpose; specific terms with respect to the subject of the compact; in some cases, establishment of an interstate agency to administer the compact or some other method of administration; sources of funding; and other contract terms like dispute resolution, enforcement, termination of the compact, or withdrawal of a member. Numerous examples of compacts and the interstate agencies formed to administer them are available online.

It will have to go through congress to have any legs.
source

a reply to: Vector99

Your source (on another page):

Citing Drake,[60] the CRS report concludes that if the NPVIC were to be enacted by the necessary number of states, it would likely become the source of considerable litigation, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will be involved in any resolution of the constitutional issues surrounding it.[49]

en.wikipedia.org...

I said that.

But you can be assured that if the Compact ever does take effect it will make it to the SCOTUS posthaste.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

You rely on CNN for you legal advice? Bad idea.

Here. The source. Read it, then show me where is says a state's popular vote must determine the vote of electors.

This is as close as you might get, but it's not really what you want. But please, show me something to prove your point that electors must vote according to the popular vote of their state.

Article II and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens.

www.supremecourt.gov...

You will note that I did say that if the Compact ever comes into effect there will be another Court battle over it.

No I do not rely on CNN. I just like using your sources against you.

Once again:
CNN:

The Supreme Court said Monday that states can punish members of the Electoral College who break a pledge to vote for a state's popular vote winner in presidential elections.

I was looking to quote things as you provided the decision. But I will let your quoted decision stand as it as a whole favors my stance and not your own.

I will point out I suggested this ruling will open up a court battle about 'winner take all' states.' Sounds like you agree there.

I'm sorry. You are attributing words to me I never said.
I understand you are upset.

a reply to: Phage

Nice question dodging.

Do you agree or disagree?

You are the OP.

and really? you countered my .gov source with wiki?

I only hope you sip the finest brandy.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

But I will let your quoted decision stand as it as a whole favors my stance and not your own.

How so?

I'm sorry. You are attributing words to me I never said.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

a reply to: Vector99

I think it will be up to the SCOTUS to decide. Again.

I said that. RTFT.

a reply to: Phage

Well, if we want fact based opinions we probably shouldn't discuss them on a DISCUSSION board huh?

You made the op, live up to it.

No clue what RTFT or w/e is, maybe speak in english instead of code.

a reply to: Vector99

How often do you want me to repeat myself?

No clue what RTFT is

It's like RTFM, but with a "T" for "thread."

a reply to: Phage

RTFT?

I'll let you tel me what that stands for, i honestly don't know

a reply to: Phage

So, still no personal opinion on your OP?