Posted on 02/25/2019 12:23:22 PM PST by SMGFan
‘the Supreme Court has determined that the domestic Compact Clause applies only to a narrow class of state agreements (those that establish binding obligations and, typically, multistate administrative agencies). Moreover, in United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), the Supreme Court declared that state compacts require congressional approval only if they “encroach upon the supremacy of the United States.” Because states may not encroach upon federal supremacy in any event, a broad reading of United States Steel effectively deprives the Compact Clause of any independent constitutional force.
‘While the Supreme Court has never found a state compact void for want of congressional approval, some contemporary unapproved interstate agreements (such as the 1998 tobacco settlement between attorneys general and manufacturers) establish tax and regulatory regimes of unprecedented complexity and consequence. It remains to be seen whether this emerging trend could prompt a reexamination and rediscovery of the forgotten Compact Clause.’
- https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/75/compact-clause
A fool but no idiot. And in today's political climate, probably not a waste of time.
Today, the inmates are truly running the asylum. As each new group of educated idiots graduates from the institutions of higher learning they try to out do each other in terms of inane and insane.
Back when the standard of Governance was the Constitution, such an endeavor would be a waste of time. But when the Constitution is no longer our guide and we have no other guideline, anything goes. No matter how insane. The old Biblical ".....Professing to be wise, they became fools". applies. It is a very short leap from Democracy [mob rule] to Anarchy.
Only if the Democrat wins the popular vote. In the event of a Republican winning the popular vote but losing in Colorado, this law will be conveniently set aside.
Alas, a state may decide how its electoral votes are decided. Normal variance is whether “winner takes all” or “proportional electors”.
Careful how this is attacked in court, SCOTUS may decide it’s ok.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... 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.”
California is already flaunting this by having entered into illegel “treaties” with Red China on Climate Change. Of course, no one talks about collusion with Communist China against the national interest.
Unconstitutional disenfranchisement of Colorado voters.
Legal argument I would make is that there is no such thing as a certified “national or nation wide” vote.
Each State has different methodologies regarding voting laws and lack a uniformed Federal standard. Mention sanctuary States/cities/I.D. disparities/ballot harvesting etc... and claim unequal protection under the law when States do get the amount of EC votes to trigger their "law".
Each individual would need to comb their State Constitutions to find further discrepancies as well.
There are about six weeks between Election Day and the Electoral College vote in a presidential election year. During that time, any state that has signed this silly agreement can have its legislature cancel its involvement in this charade.
I know states have rights, but in a federal election, i dont see how that would stand.. its overruling a U.S. law. Gop has to stop acquiescence, and let states know its FEDERAL and they cant just, with a signature, do this.
Sen. Cory Gardner: Colorado Democrats are attempting to subvert the Electoral College
Current legal theory taught in every law school is the problem.
Yes the Electoral Collge is not “democratic” because it is repiblican; that is it is about maintaining the nature of the nation al government as that of a federal constitutional republic, not a centralized unitary “democracy”.
It is about the STATES role in electing a federal executive that represnts a government no merely beholden to “the people”, but the states as well, as entities to who the federal government is responsible. The peopls role in that is how their POPULAR VOTE IN THEIR STATE ALONE is what is to determine how their state votes for president.
The state legislative action to be signed by the governor of Colorado represents a disenfranchisement of the voters of Colorado, that would substitute the possible votes of the majority of voters in Colorado for a majority of other folks votes.
it encourages Democrat states to allow noncitizens to vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are already doing that.
The way electors are distributed is completely up to the states, there is nothing unconstitutional about this...
However, lets see how the people of Colorado like it the first time their electors go for a person that lost their state.
Stupid move by stupid people.
Shouldn’t that be on a Colorado ballot for the “American People of Colorado” to decide?
That's a different case. That would fall under the Article IV "full faith and credit" clause.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
-PJ
Lol, that was funny
Agreeing that "I'll vote for the national popular vote winner if you vote for the national popular vote winner" is not a binding agreement between states?
-PJ
Tell that to Obama.....
Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states that: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.