Posted on 05/07/2018 8:29:42 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Thanks. That only took 53 posts. I didn’t read the article, but I know enough about the Compact to know that either the article is pathetic and most people here don’t know about the Compact, OR the article is ok, most people didn’t read it and don’t know about the Compact.
That might actually be the goal...
You are referring to the “full faith and credit” clause that has been litigated many times over the years as to the extent of it’s meaning. Currently, concealed carry licenses is not part of the full faith and credit clause, so individual states must enter into agreements to recognize each others’ licenses.
And Article 1 Section 10 still applies to States and foreign governments, not among the various states.
Huh? That’ makes no sense, its a state law, has nothing to do with federal laws... This isn’t a constitutional amendment. States are free to apportion their EC votes however they see fit. If this laws is now the law in CT, then it will be in effect for their EC voters in 2020.
‘but that does not mean they can tell the electors how to VOTE.’
currently 29 states have legal control over how their electors vote, including CT...
To my thinking, it's totally constitutional IF the state chooses to allocate its EV unilaterally. If it makes it contingent on a bloc of other states totaling 270 EV before this takes effect, then it becomes an interstate compact requiring Congressional approval.
I've repeatedly called for willing states to step up and be leaders for the popular vote movement to just do it... that is, pass a law making their allocation based on the popular vote winner effective immediately and call for other states to do the same. I don't expect other states to follow suit once the blowback of the first state occurs.
It's easy for any single legislature to pass a vote that has no impact NOW, and then claim it wasn't them if this should ever come to pass.
It's better to call them out as hypocrites now but not having the courage to act alone.
-PJ
Probably not. The Constitution says state legislatures can apportion their EC votes however they want.
‘As far as I know, they can direct their votes to the popular vote in THEIR state....not the national total.’
in 29 states and DC, that is correct..
“This has only to do with the manner in which the electors are selected; it does not give the states the authority to tell the electors how to vote, or to allow the votes of the state electors to be overruled by the national popular vote. “
Dude, presently the states select the electors that will vote the way their legislatures want them to.
For example, even if a candidate wins by one vote, the state will SELECT electors such that they ALL vote for that candidate as directed by the legislatures.
True, but in 2004, Connecticut voted for Kerry, while Bush won the "popular vote" nationally.
Had this law been in effect at the time, the state would have been forced to award all its electoral votes to Bush, regardless of what "the people" of Connecticut wanted. It would have made the votes of their citizens meaningless.
Any chance we can retroactively apply this law? haha.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws". - from Wikipedia.
This law just denied its citizens their voting rights.
The state legislature, which is voted in by its citizens, can select their own electors, as they did in the old days.
“Explanation It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).”
Well I’ll truly enjoy it the first time CA and NY go D, but the national majority goes R - and I hope it’ll be 2020.
President Trump might win the biggest electoral landslide in history! Imagine the screams and sobs of frustration from the lefties... lol
‘its a state law, has nothing to do with federal laws,
it’s not currently a law of any type; it is a participation in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is currently a nullity without the participation of states totaling 270 EV’s...this won’t happen by 2020, and likely, it won’t ever happen...
This will wind up in Supreme Court.
I think PA fabricates more votes in total than all of CT’s voter base.
Because it is unConstitutional and they ARE disenfranchising their own voters. No way this stands up in court, at least at the USSC. All bets are off at the local, appellate, Federal and District courts.
This “compact” is establishing a parasitic federal government inside the federal government designed to override the Constitution without overtaking it.
Please read the article I posted. Those 11 states are stuck with the present system and what they’re proposing is not in effect.
Article I, Section 10:
1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation...
3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...
Well then its meaningless.... If they were serious about it they could declare they are allocating their electors that way next election cycle... talk about meaningless nonsense.
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.