[jwalsh07]

Basically, the proposed "compact" amounts to an informal gentlemen's agreement that provides political cover to state legislatures because any state that goes it alone will be at a political disadvantage relative to others.

Not at all, a compact is a constitutional instrument that contractually obligates the parties. But Congress as constituted will never approve such a contract and the SCOTUS as currently constituted will agree with their power to do just that.

[ReignOfError]

Not at all, a compact is a constitutional instrument that contractually obligates the parties. But Congress as constituted will never approve such a contract and the SCOTUS as currently constituted will agree with their power to do just that.

A compact is not synonymous with a contract. There was a little dust-up over the difference in the terms from 1861 to 1865 (actually, from about 1820 to 1865, but there was only blood shed in the last part). You might have heard of it; it made all the papers.

But even if your definitions are unchallenged, the most that means is that this so-called compact isn't one. That doesn't change the fact that neither Congress nor SCOTUS has any power to void any individual state action in the matter. They can declare it non-binding, but they can't strike it down.