DUmmies Begin to Hunker Down (Full Panic Mode)

Self | Vanity

[arrogantsob]

Electors have yet to be elected even in New Jersey. I am not assuming that Obama will win the popular vote. New Jersey and even Illinois have no electors until after the election.

[arrogantsob]

States can assign their electors according to the national popular vote without a constitutional amendment. They can do it with a coin flip or examining the entrails of sheep if that is what the legislature decides. Except for Maine and Nebraska they are assigned by popular vote within the state. The exceptions assign by congressional district totals.

[Calpernia]

That was a lot clearer than your previous comments. If that is true, than thank you. But, I’m confused by the urgency seen to over turn the Hawaii veto and the exploration to over turn California’s.

[Calpernia]

I understand that; but the legislation being written and already written tells the electors how they have to vote.

[arrogantsob]

It only prescribes that they vote for the popular vote winner not a specific person. Even though it is a bad idea and further undermines the federal structure it is legal.

[Calpernia]

Correct. I am the one that presumed Obama. I derrived that from the mass voter registrations in the HUD areas.

[MissouriConservative]

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress enterCompact 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."

How can you say that a "compact" is not forbidden? The word "compact" is explicitly stated. Unless the states have the permission of Congress....it is unconstitutional. The Constitution cannot get any clearer.

[arrogantsob]

You are correct. Thanks for pointing it out I did not go far enough in Article I, Section 10 and overlooked “compact” in paragraph 3. My eyes, not too good at any time, sometimes require huge print at night.

I not know if all the existent compacts and agreements between the states have been approved by Congress. In fact, I have no recollection of ANY being approved in the forty years I have been closely following politics. Do you?

Maybe the standard is “if Congress does not object, it approves.”

[MissouriConservative]

It's quite alright. As I get older, my eyes and I don't always agree on what we see either...lol.

I have not heard of any compacts coming before congress nor have I heard a lot about them myself. So I did a cursory search since I'm at work and this is a site I found.

"Most courts followed the lead of Justice JOSEPH STORY (1779–1845), of the Supreme Court, an influential legal commentator of the nineteenth century. According to Story, the clause was meant to protect the supremacy of the federal government. With this general principle as guidance, courts interpreted the clause to give Congress the power to nullify an interstate compact if it frustrated federal aims.

Over the years, four steps have evolved to guide courts in their review of interstate compact cases. First, there must be an agreement between two or more states. If no concerted effort is actually undertaken by two or more states, Congress has no power to review the state actions under the Interstate Compact Clause. In determining whether there is an agreement, the court may ask whether the states have officially formed a joint organization, whether a state's action is conditioned on action by another state, and whether any state is free to modify its position without consulting other states.

If the court finds that there is an agreement, the court will examine the agreement to determine whether it infringes on federal sovereignty. Not all interstate compacts infringe on federal supremacy. The question the court asks is whether the agreement between the states interferes with federal statutes or initiatives. For example, consider the federal legislation that outlaws certain automatic and semiautomatic assault weapons: title XI of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1807 [codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.A.]). The purpose of the legislation is to limit firearm ownership. An interstate compact that legalized the banned assault weapons, and thus expanded firearm ownership, would infringe on the federal statute, whereas an interstate compact that outlawed additional assault weapons, and thus further limited firearm ownership, would not infringe on the federal statute.

If an interstate compact is found to infringe on federal initiatives, the court will then determine whether Congress has given its approval for the compact. Congress may grant approval before or after a compact is formed. Congress may also give indirect approval to a compact. For example, Congress may give its tacit approval to a compact on state boundaries if it subsequently approves the federal elections, appointments, and tax schemes of the states.

Finally, Congress may seek to amend or change an interstate compact after it has been approved. Congress may amend a compact or completely revoke its approval of a compact. Congress may also grant its approval with conditions attached.

The most common interstate compacts concern agreements to share natural resources, such as water; build regional electric power sources; share parks and parkways; conserve fish and wildlife; protect air quality; manage radioactive and other hazardous wastes; control natural disasters, such as floods; share educational resources and facilities; share police and fire departments; and grant reciprocity for driver's licenses. Congress has passed statutes that require prior congressional approval for many such compacts.

If Congress has not asserted its authority over an interstate compact prior to its formation, the compact probably does not violate the Interstate Compact Clause."

LINK

A little further diggin shows that the "National Popular Vote" movement uses Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 - "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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

LINK

So it's anyone's guess how this will turn out. Their website states that they have enough states signed on to have 19% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the agreement. So they have a ways to go but it seems more states are getting ready to sign on. I don't think that this will affect this coming election but watch out for 2012.

[arrogantsob]

That description of Congress and compacts sounds like what I thought. It is clear to me that the paragraph mentioning compacts is in a section of the Constitution dealing with military and national security issues.

As I said earlier there is no doubt for me that the States can allocate their Electoral votes in this manner. I do have doubt that the small states will surrender this power though even blue ones.