- 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 9:07 am to Warboo
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:07 am to Warboo
quote:
Their "right" will infringe on voters rights in Michigan and in other states
Then Michigan voters should elect better state representatives who will vote on policies they prefer.
This is a govern me harder moment.
0
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The current USSC has stripped federal oversight/review of state election laws (while this term strengthening state overview of its own election laws via judicial review).
The NC case demonstrated there is a limit, as did the Alabama redistricting case.
Also, compacts such as this require congressional approval if they "impact the federal structure" (U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 US 452 (1978)).
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:14 am to udtiger
quote:
The NC case demonstrated there is a limit,
The NC case did nothing but permit the NC Supreme Court power to review its state laws.
The question about the MI legislature changing its EC allocation format would be explicitly based on Michigan state law and its state Constitution, and how its Supreme Court would interpret those things.
quote:
"impact the federal structure"
quote:
1. The Multistate Tax Compact is not invalid under the rule of Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503, 148 U. S. 519, that the application of the Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States."
quote:
(a) The Compact's multilateral nature and its establishment of an ongoing administrative body do not, standing alone, present significant potential for conflict with the principles underlying the Compact Clause. The number of parties to an agreement is irrelevant if it does not impermissibly enhance state power at the expense of federal supremacy, and the powers delegated to the administrative body must also be judged in terms of such enhancement. P. 434 U. S. 472.
(b) Under the test of whether the particular compact enhances state power quoad the Federal Government, this Compact does not purport to authorize member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence, nor is there any delegation of sovereign power to the Commission, each State being free to adopt or reject the Commission's rules and regulations and to withdraw from the Compact at any time. Pp. 434 U. S. 472-473.
(c) Appellants' various contentions that certain procedures and requirements of the Commission encroach upon federal supremacy with respect to interstate commerce and foreign relations and impair the sovereign rights of nonmember States, are without merit, primarily because each member State could adopt similar procedures and requirements individually without regard to the Compact. Even if state power is enhanced to some degree, it is not at the expense of federal supremacy. Pp. 434 U. S. 473-478.
Justia link
I don't think that case is what you want to cite here
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:20 am to udtiger
That case focused on a compact that had a much stronger backing (The Commerce Clause) and it's all about state's usurping federal authority.
States exercising their Constitutionally-mandated authority is expanding state power...how?
quote:
Agreements effected through reciprocal legislation [Footnote 22] may present opportunities for enhancement of state power at the expense of the federal supremacy similar to the threats inherent in a more formalized "compact."
quote:
This was the status of the Virginia v. Tennessee test until two Terms ago, when we decided New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U. S. 363 (1976). In that case, we specifically applied the test and held that an interstate agreement locating an ancient boundary did not require congressional consent. We reaffirmed Mr. Justice Field's view that the
"application of the Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are 'directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.'"
Id. at 426 U. S. 369, quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. at 148 U. S. 519. This rule states the proper balance between federal and state power with respect to compacts and agreements among States.
quote:
Appellants further urge that the pertinent inquiry is one of potential, rather than actual, impact upon federal supremacy. We agree. But the multilateral nature of the agreement and its establishment of an ongoing administrative body do not, standing alone, present significant potential for conflict with the principles underlying the Compact Clause. The number of parties to an agreement is irrelevant if it does not impermissibly enhance state power at the expense of federal supremacy. As to the powers delegated to the administrative body, we think these also must be judged in terms of enhancement of state power in relation to the Federal Government. See Virginia v. Tennessee, supra at 148 U. S. 520 (establishment of commission to run boundary not a "compact"). We turn, therefore, to the application of the Virginia v. Tennessee rule to the Compact before us.
quote:
But the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quoad the National Government.
States exercising their Constitutionally-mandated authority is expanding state power...how?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:24 am to cajunangelle
quote:
The House Elections Committee in Lansing recently approved House Bill 156, legislation which would enroll Michigan in the so-called “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,”
Jesus, a direct violation of the commerce clause, and basically using the commerce clauses language verbatim.
Article 1, section 10 of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
quote:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
This is what happens when you let a state get Democrat control.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 9:25 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:24 am to BugAC
quote:
Jesus, a direct violation of the commerce clause,
You may need to wait to see the current discussion before making this argument
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
Could Massachusetts pass a law dictating how Louisiana's elector votes are cast?
No. However, it is a power that exists because of the compact.
Could the State of Louisiana remove the ability of its eligible voters to vote for their electors in a presidential election?
No, but they can apparently do this via the compact.
Could the State of Louisiana permit non-citizens to cast votes in a federal election?
No, but under this compact, they can (because it will be the voters of the other 49 states that will dictate how their presidential electors are chosen).
With all that said, I hope it happens because it will hasten the schism of this country. There are a lot of people that have zero interest in being vassals to the East and West coast.
No. However, it is a power that exists because of the compact.
Could the State of Louisiana remove the ability of its eligible voters to vote for their electors in a presidential election?
No, but they can apparently do this via the compact.
Could the State of Louisiana permit non-citizens to cast votes in a federal election?
No, but under this compact, they can (because it will be the voters of the other 49 states that will dictate how their presidential electors are chosen).
With all that said, I hope it happens because it will hasten the schism of this country. There are a lot of people that have zero interest in being vassals to the East and West coast.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:28 am to udtiger
quote:
Could Massachusetts pass a law dictating how Louisiana's elector votes are cast?
No, but Michigan is only dictating how Michigan electors are assigned.
quote:
Could the State of Louisiana remove the ability of its eligible voters to vote for their electors in a presidential election?
No, but they can apparently do this via the compact.
Link me the language for this.
quote:
I hope it happens because it will hasten the schism of this country. There are a lot of people that have zero interest in being vassals to the East and West coast.
But, as I stated earlier, people want jobs and more mating options than people who have multiple kids and STDS by 20. You won't win the population migration war, either.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Constitution literally gives states the sole discretion in how they choose to award EC votes.
Where does it allow the state to award EC votes to the national popular winner?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Could the State of Louisiana remove the ability of its eligible voters to vote for their electors in a presidential election?
No, but they can apparently do this via the compact.
Link me the language for this.
This is the outcome of this. Louisiana presidential votes would be meaningless. Candidate a could get 99% in Louisiana, but not a single electoral vote, because Massachusetts (or NT, or CA, etc.) have more popular votes to Candidate B.
A right to a meaningless vote is no right at all.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 9:34 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:33 am to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Where does it allow the state to award EC votes to the national popular winner?
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 9:33 am to cajunangelle
This seems unconstitutional
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 9:34 am
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:34 am to udtiger
quote:
Louisiana presidential votes would be meaningless. Candidate a could get 99% in Louisiana, but not a single electoral vote, because Massachusetts (or NT, or CA, etc.) have more popilar votes to Candidate B.
Then that seems like a bad choice for Louisiana legislators. I doubt they'd survive another term if it was that strong in LA.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:45 am to udtiger
Again. He's a leftist and approves of this and nothing is going g to change his mind on it.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:47 am to udtiger
quote:
Could the State of Louisiana remove the ability of its eligible voters to vote for their electors in a presidential election?
No, but they can apparently do this via the compact.
You sure about that?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:48 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Look at Maine and Nebraska. Electoral votes are allocated basically by congressional district.
So if a district is red, that goes to the Republican. The same if it were blue.
California for example has about 12 red districts. Under winner take all laws (states started installing these in the 1800s) the electoral votes of those districts get switched to the democrat.
Without winner take all a Republican would get some electoral votes from California and New York, but on the flip side a Democrat would get some from Texas and Florida.
The majority vote crowd says they want to make the presidential election more granular. This is a way to do that without changing the Constitution.
I agree with that. Would be much better if all 50 states did that -- 2 EV's for each statewide winner, with the remaining EV's being determined by congressional district.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:51 am to cajunangelle
This is why Soros money needs to be investigated as that sob is the engine on the fundamental transformation of America anti-American movement. Activists pushing this and the rank choice garbage.
So I guess a state supreme court could overturn this kind of thing if not to leftie court, as SCOTUS said that the legislature is the end all be all on election rules anymore. Unless it's race related only intent by SCOTUS.
This nation is no doubt on the path to breaking up. Congrats lefties.
So I guess a state supreme court could overturn this kind of thing if not to leftie court, as SCOTUS said that the legislature is the end all be all on election rules anymore. Unless it's race related only intent by SCOTUS.
This nation is no doubt on the path to breaking up. Congrats lefties.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 9:54 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Again. He's a leftist and approves of this and nothing is going g to change his mind on it.
JJ
I know this may seem crazy to you, but not all arguments have to be made under a partisan lens to promote a partisan point.
Sometimes analysis is objective and has no relationship to the personal desires of the analyzer.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
State's rights
Yep. The constitution leaves it up to the states, so my understanding is that the states have the ability to do this.
So Republicans need to get the vote out and win the popular vote. And when that happens, like the poster above said, these states will reverse this policy toot-suite.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News