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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

This case establishes that laws involving faithless electors are valid and states will have recourse henceforth. There may be more cases made (you can sue for anything you wish) but it's doubtful that any lower court would consider it seeing as how this was a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS.

I'm interested in those cases you mention.




posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We're talking about whole states votes discounted if a compact takes over.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

The electors votes will be counted. That's how the electoral system works.

And the peoples votes will also be counted.

No one is disenfranchised.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 09:11 PM
link   
From the link in the OP


(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.


How does that have bearing on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? ... which seeks to award a states Electoral College votes to a candidate that does not win a state's popular vote but does win the country's popular vote.

This article makes the ruling out to be an attempt to precluded what happened in 2016; where there was an attempt to bypass the popular vote winner of several states in order to elect the national popular vote winner through the use of "faithless electors".

The ruling sounds like it is at odds with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

What am I missing?



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Oregon V. Mitchell
Williams V. Rhode
Both cases showed that a State's right to empower electors as they see fit is not absolute
There can be limits placed upon them



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

This post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If the states conspire to workaround the EC by joining together, other states will lose out on the correct apportionment of the EC votes. It is not the way the FF intended. It grans unfair advantage to highly populated states.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Oregon V. Mitchell: Nothing to do with electors.

Williams V. Rhode: Banned discrimination in the selection of electors, just like anything else. Good call.

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



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe




If the states conspire to workaround the EC by joining together, other states will lose out on the correct apportionment of the EC votes.
What is the "correct apportionment" of the EC votes?



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Each state has so many EC votes.
And each state awards those votes based on the popular vote in that state.



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe


And each state awards those votes based on the popular vote in that state.


Nebraska and Maine do not appoint electors based on the popular vote of the state. There is no requirement that states appoint electors by any particular method. The Constitution makes no mention of "the people" even being involved in the process at all.

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



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I'd have to disagree
Presidential elections are all about electors
Article 2 states that States shall appoint electors as they see fit
The 26th Amendment appears to
be limiting that power without amending the article 2 process

Whether or not discrimination occured in the other vase, it doesn't change the fact that the Federal Government has some oversight in how a state chooses it's electors
Showing that the power is not absolute



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Oregon V. Mitchell concerned voters, not the appointment of electors. It was also made moot by the 26th Amendment. I'm sure you read that about it too.



Showing that the power is not absolute
True. They cannot violate federal laws. Does appointing electors based on the national popular vote violate any federal laws?

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



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Federal laws cannot usurp the rights of the States except by Amendment.
Both of these cases' decisions are born from the relevant Amendments
Not from a mere law passed by Congress.

Wait...
You're right
Everybody else is wrong
All the law professors etc saying that the NPVIC is not Constitutional are wrong


Nothing in this decision is a victory for the proponents of NPVIC
Except in their back patting little circle jerks they like to hold



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy




All the law professors etc saying that the NPVIC is not Constitutional are wrong
How about all the ones who say it is?

We won't know unless 74 more votes join the group and the case goes to the SCOTUS.

 


Nothing in this decision is a victory for the proponents of NPVIC
I disagree. And so do some opponents of the NPVIC.

Federal Appeals Court Torpedoes the National Popular Vote Movement Thanks to a Hillary Clinton Elector

www.redstate.com...


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



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And if you think SCOTUS decisions are based on merely law, then I can't help you
The Obamacare decision created a tax out of thin air
Helvering V Davis created a welfare state out of the preamble, not in any of the enumerated powers of Congress
Dozens of examples
Law
Hahahaha



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy




And if you think SCOTUS decisions are based on merely law,

No. I don't think that, exactly.
What gave you the impression that I do?
edit on 7/8/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually nothing
I just wanted to use that phrase
Problem?



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Nope.

Have you noted that I'm in favor of the status quo?



posted on Jul, 8 2020 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I found your position ambiguous to be honest
I've seen both sides



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join