Replies

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.

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.

You have heard of Bush v. Gore haven't you?

A compact is not synonymous with a contract.

Never said it was. What I said was clear, the question is why did you have trouble understanding it.

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.

Wonderful, you've heard of the Civil War. Impressive.

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.

Think again. If Congress doesn't sign off on the compact, the compact is unlawful.

Interstate Compacts vs Universal Laws

An excerpt:

"Therefore, compacts have standing as both binding state law and a contract between the member states such that no one state can unilaterally act in conflict with the terms of the compact. Any state law in contradiction or conflict with the compact is unconstitutional, absent the reserve of power to the party states. The terms of the compact take precedence over state law even to the extent that a compact can trump a state constitutional provision. In effect, by entering a compact, the party states have contractually agreed that the terms and conditions of the compact supercede state considerations to the extent authorized by the compact relative to any conflicting laws or principles."

Sound familiar?