It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCOTUS Win for NVPIC

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2020 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




I'm not sure if anything is equal 100%, and we can both assume our founding fathers wanted to capture that equality while not ignoring the popular vote in the process.


All they said about it was that the states elect the president (and vice president) though their electors. There is no mention of the popular vote. They left it to the states to sort out and this decision does the same, while validating laws which include recourse against electors who do not follow the rules of the state.


edit on 7/7/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2020 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny




The Constitution delegates how the elections are to be run in each state.

Incorrect. The Constitution states how the president and vice president are elected. Beyond that there is no mention of how the states decide upon who the electors are or who they should vote for.

As Kagan wrote:

"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."



"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."


Currently all but two states appoint electors according to the popular vote in that state. There is no Constitutional requirement that they do so.


edit on 7/7/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2020 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Phage

Isn't the compact seeking to remove the way the EC works?
If a state is required to cast votes based on the state's popular vote.....how would the compact--which sounds illegal----going to change that?
Seems like the rest of the country gets screwed.
And NYC and LA pick the POTUS.

Where is that constitutional lawyer when you need him......


It's an end run around the EC, yes. Because it would require an Amendment to get rid of it entirely and that's not going to happen. It is a move to elect the president by popular vote. The way all other elected officials are elected.

But forget the Compact for a moment. States are not compelled by the Constitution to appoint electors by any particular process. Correct?

The Compact itself may be unconstitutional, it's arguable. But what happens if, after enough states were to join to trigger it, the "Compact" just goes away? The states have already changed their laws to appoint their electors according to the national popular vote. States are not compelled by the Constitution to appoint electors by any particular process. It is state legislatures which determine how electors are appointed, not the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. Problem is, there would not be enough states who were not part of the (former) Compact to pass such an amendment even if some were willing to surrender their (absolute) power in the matter.


And NYC and LA pick the POTUS.
Not necessarily.

The misplaced concern about California dominating a national popular vote arises from an exaggerated view of how many people live in California,how many people vote in California, and how heavily Democratic California is. One out of eight U.S. voters live in California, but four out of 10 of them vote Republican. Meanwhile, one out of eight U.S. voters live in Appalachafornia, and four out of 10 of them vote Democratic. Clinton received 8.8 million votes in California, and Trump received 9.8 million votes from Appalachafornia.To put these numbers in perspective, note that over 137 million votes were cast in the 2016 presidential election.

www.nationalpopularvote.com...

74 more electoral votes and we'll find out.

edit on 7/7/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Too bad the SCOTUS wont outlaw illegal aliens, fraudulent mail in ballots and undo baby murder that was based on false pretenses and lies told by the American association for eugenics.

Then again it is filled with creatures from the bar scene in star wars.

We'll find out the day we learn there is habitats on mars, it will be the last official address of the president before we are nuked from space.
edit on 8-7-2020 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanstaafl
Why not actually quote what Kagan actually wrote?

Ok, see below, but I'll also point out what you seem to be missing in the very text you yourself just quoted:


And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens. Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen. She is talking about Washington and the other states which have laws to require electors to follow the popular vote of the state.

By all means, show me the States that have these laws - and the laws - that allow their State Electors to vote for someone other than who won the Popular Vote Nationally, that was different from who won the popular vote in their State.

That idea is 100% in contradisticntion from the intent and meaning of the Electoral College, and that is what Kagan is referring to when discussing how the system evolved. She is absolutely [n]not limiting her discussion to one or a few states, but the Electoral College system in general as applied to all of the States.

Again, you are wrong, but I don't expect the great and powerful Phage to ever admit it.

“Held: A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President. Pp. 8-18. ” Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465, (U.S. Jul. 6, 2020)

“Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so. ” Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465, 4-5 (U.S. Jul. 6, 2020)

“The Constitution's text and the Nation's history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President.” Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465, 12 (U.S. Jul. 6, 2020)

Again, as I said, this isn't a slam dunk for killing NVPIC, but it is a huge win and argument in favor of it when the lawsuit happens, because of their discussion regaridng the history and evolution of the Electoral College system as an expression of the will of the people of the State, not the national vote.
edit on 8-7-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2020 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

See what?
After 74 more votes, the whole mess goes to court, again?
And, right now, the states in the compact are all dems anyway, right? So how does it stop Trump from getting a second ter

Should a swing state get railroaded into the compact...how long before swing states sue to get the wishes of their citizens honored?

Seriously, do you have a problem with so much our lives being run by the courts?
What happened to the law branch of the U.S......the legislature?????!!!!?!?!!



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

All they said about it was that the states elect the president (and vice president) though their electors. There is no mention of the popular vote. They left it to the states to sort out and this decision does the same, while validating laws which include recourse against electors who do not follow the rules of the state.



Many of our founding fathers didn't want much of anything at the federal level. Even the Constitutions was seen by some as too over reaching. When I say population I'm talking about the the 438 votes and when I say state equality I'm talking about the other 100 votes as each state gets two.

To me it seems like their own form of partisan gerrymandering from some heavy populated liberal states. In the end it might not work out well for them as they will gain nothing from big blue states, and so they would need to get a good number of smaller states with a low number of electoral votes to join to actually make a difference, and that difference is to reduce the effectiveness of their 2 votes per state.

What they really want is that extra 5 million votes from CA and NY to make more of a difference than what their electoral votes give them for their population level. Can't increase the 438 or lets do this...lol

There are many ways to make the 2 votes per state moot. They could say lets throw out the 538 votes and give each state their two votes, but give each state a popular vote to play with for each 500,000 people in the state. So when we talk about a state like CA that is at 40 million they would go from 55 to 82 and that would greatly reduce the power that smaller populated states have in electing the President as they get 3 votes as a minimum and those three votes add up, but not so much if one state had an extra 27 votes.

This pack effectively accomplishes the same thing for the states that join.


edit on 8-7-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Phage

See what?
After 74 more votes, the whole mess goes to court, again?
And, right now, the states in the compact are all dems anyway, right? So how does it stop Trump from getting a second ter

Should a swing state get railroaded into the compact...how long before swing states sue to get the wishes of their citizens honored?

Seriously, do you have a problem with so much our lives being run by the courts?
What happened to the law branch of the U.S......the legislature?????!!!!?!?!!


So lets say a swing state that typically votes Liberal at the state level and Conservative at the federal level could have the state level liberal Government join this pack to eliminate the possible for a Presidential election swing from their side.

Its a way to put power behind CA/NY 5 million extra votes that can swing the popular vote and that would overwhelm smaller states as part of the pack since 5 million typically exceeds any differences between the winner and loser.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe




Seriously, do you have a problem with so much our lives being run by the courts? What happened to the law branch of the U.S......the legislature?????!!!!?!?!!


The writers of the Constitution specifically gave power to the states in this matter. Do you want the federal government to take that very specific power away?



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If it takes away the Electoral college, yes!!!!!!!
Because the state's are trying to dismantle the EC.

States banding together that happened before, let's see .....ummmm...mid nineteenth century ring a bell?
That didn't end well.....

edit on Wed Jul 8 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The Confederacy declared itself a separate country. Not exactly the same thing.


The Constitution gives the power to elect the president to the states, through the electors. There is nothing which says how electors are to be selected or how they are to vote. The Constitution does not give the power to form a separate country.

In any case, even if Congress passed such a law it would still end up in the courts.

edit on 7/8/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I cannot see in any way, shape or form how this compact could ever be legal.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

72 more electoral votes and we'll start the process of finding out.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Could be the end of our country if they are allowed.

I mentioned the confederacy before....and this is not the same issue...but the South does call it the Car of Northern Aggression....it was about more than slavery.

We don't know what this compact has in mind.
But, it cannot be good for the republic, as it seems to allow one one side, the Democrats, a voice.
You've seen the blue/red map...and how much of the country will be disenfranchised.
edit on Wed Jul 8 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: clarity



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe



But, it cannot be good for the republic, as it seems to allow one one side, the Democrats, a voice.
Are you claiming that Republican presidents have never had the popular vote majority?



You've seen the blue/red map...and how much of the country will be disenfranchised.


Please don't misuse the word. No one will lose their ability to vote. Actually, it may encourage more people to do so. And that's a good thing.


edit on 7/8/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, not at all.
I don't care which side gets the majority of votes, as long as they also get the number of Electoral Votes needed to win.
But in this climate, it favors the Dems.
It could bite them in their asses some day.


If the compact gets together to nullify the EC, it WILL disenfranchise votes in several states, with smaller populations.
As was the fear of the Founding Fathers.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe




It could bite them in their asses some day.
I think that's obvious to everyone. But there is not a small proportion of people who think that the president should be elected in the same manner as all other elected officials.


If the compact gets together to nullify the EC, it WILL disenfranchise votes in several states, with smaller populations.
Votes cannot be disenfranchised. Voters can be, by having their right to vote limited or removed. That is what the word means.

I often vote for Republican candidates for various positions in my state. I have also voted for Republican candidates for president. My state is heavily Democratic so I know those votes are futile. I am not disenfranchised. Disenchanted, perhaps. But not disenfranchised.

edit on 7/8/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The Confederacy declared itself a separate country. Not exactly the same thing.


The Constitution gives the power to elect the president to the states, through the electors. There is nothing which says how electors are to be selected or how they are to vote. The Constitution does not give the power to form a separate country.

In any case, even if Congress passed such a law it would still end up in the courts.

If that's the absolute truth, then perhaps states can auction off their Electoral votes. Highest bidder takes all
After all, the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Yup.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I say that in jest
But you get the crux of my argument.
There have been SCOTUS decisions that have voided States appointment of electors in our lifetime, so it would seem that these decisions are a case by case basis


edit on 8-7-2020 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)







 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join