- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Michigan Democrats approve National Popular Vote scheme
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:12 am to Jjdoc
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:12 am to Jjdoc
quote:
They aren't trying to make a constitutional amendment.
This is their way of by passing it. So real application is this:
- Trump wins Michigan by 100K. He would get all of the delegates as it stands.
- However, because by won got the most votes nationally, they award those votes to Biden... Even though the people did not vote that way
Pretty sure a state cannot single handedly change how federal elections work but maybe that's just me
2
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Constitution clearly states that each State can determine how to allocate the EC votes however it desires. The only way federal laws would come into play is if they argued that EC distribution determination was designed to disenfranchise black people, basically.
That's BS. The argument is the constitution itself. We do not have a popular vote. We are a republic.
I get you are drooling over this, but it won't stand in court.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:14 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Pretty sure a state cannot single handedly change how federal elections work but maybe that's just me
They can not change the EC. This would go straight to the SCOTUS.
Like fast tracked.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:16 am to cajunangelle
Strange. Michigan used to have a Republican majority in their state house and senate.
I wonder what happened? First, they eliminate right to work laws and now this? Just seems strange as to how this happened, as it seems elections have consequences.
Can’t seem to put my finger on it.
I wonder what happened? First, they eliminate right to work laws and now this? Just seems strange as to how this happened, as it seems elections have consequences.
Can’t seem to put my finger on it.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:20 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Pretty sure a state cannot single handedly change how federal elections work but maybe that's just me
The Constitution literally gives states the sole discretion in how they choose to award EC votes.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:21 am to Jjdoc
quote:
They can not change the EC.
They're not changing the Electoral College.
They are determining how their electors are allocated:
quote:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:22 am to Jjdoc
quote:
That's BS. The argument is the constitution itself
You're right about this.
Here is the wording in the Constitution:
quote:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
quote:
We do not have a popular vote. We are a republic.
Irrelevant. States have the power to do what they want with their electors.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Constitution literally gives states the sole discretion in how they choose to award EC votes.
It will be struck down by the SCOTUS should it actually pass
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:26 am to cajunangelle
Democrats are power mad and completely loathsome.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:27 am to cajunangelle
Why would anyone in Michigan bother to vote?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:27 am to Jjdoc
quote:
It will be struck down by the SCOTUS should it actually pass
Cite me the precedents you're relying on
I'm sure I'll get it as soon as I get your legal justifications for the Tim Pool thread arguments
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 8:28 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're not changing the Electoral College.
They are determining how their electors are allocated:
No no.. It's changing the EC at a state level. It's circumventing the EC and moving to a national popular vote.
Again, we have a EC by design, with purpose. We declined a national popular vote by constitution ratified by all states.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is what this is.
It will be struck down
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Irrelevant. States have the power to do what they want with their electors.
Do they have the right to pass on their obligations under the Constitution?
How can they pass on their right to vote by letting the other states’ voters choose for them?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:33 am to Jjdoc
quote:
No no.. It's changing the EC at a state level.
You mean, what the Constitution mandates?
quote:
It's circumventing the EC
How so?
Do you understand what the EC is and how it works?
quote:
Again, we have a EC by design, with purpose
Yes, and I don't think you understand how it works, the federalism involved, and state's rights.
quote:
We declined a national popular vote by constitution ratified by all states.
And gave the power of determining how each state allocates its electors to that state.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:34 am to doubleb
quote:
Do they have the right to pass on their obligations under the Constitution?
You would have to give me an example of what you're talking about to analyze.
This situation is not doing that. Their obligation is to determine how their state's electors are allocated. This would accomplish that.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:38 am to cajunangelle
Supreme Court would slap that back to 1775
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
This is another example where you’re being contrarian on here just to get your jollies arguing with people.
You live for this.
You live for this.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:40 am to SirWinston
quote:
This is another example where you’re being contrarian on here just to get your jollies arguing with people.
Naw. This is me educating people on Constitutional Law. "Constitutional Law" doesn't mean "whatever helps my team". Lots of people are ignorant and listen to grifters and think they're scholars on the subject. Some people are like JJ and don't even understand the words they type, but they are repeating what they've been told.
It's rare that we have Leftists promoting sophistry in this area, but I treat them the same. It's just rare.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're right about this.
Here is the wording in the Constitution:
The 14th sir
Posted on 7/13/23 at 8:42 am to Jjdoc
quote:
The 14th sir
OK explain which clause you believe applies and how it applies to this argument, with case cites.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News