Exactly! And this is why republicans and many conservatives miss the boat.
The left pays attention to the minutia of matters.
Right now today...a big argument on the court is happening. It holds the possibility to change our entire electoral and election system.
HELLO! I sure pray we have the best making arguments that can shut down the liberal supremes.
Today’s arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-518_5h25.pdf
JUSTICE GORSUCH: — just to interrupt
you, I’m sorry, counsel, but you’ve — you’ve
indicated it would be fine for people to have an
advisory vote to 12 wise people who would then
make the final decision.
Why — why couldn’t you also have a
system in which the people provide advice within
certain parameters set by the legislature?
MR. WEISER: Your Honor, I think
that’s the same context I had in mind, which is
you would basically give people an advisory vote
and then, after the fact, you’d have to ask
whether the —
JUSTICE GORSUCH: No, not after the
fact. They’ve been alerted prior to the fact,
counsel. That’s my hypothetical. I — I — I
understand your point about after the fact.
In advance, they’ve been notified that
there are — they are free to provide advice to
— to — to — to 12 electors, whatever the
number may be, and their advice, though, is
going to be bounded and there are certain things
that the electors have to — have to, because
the legislature says, abide by or else they’ll
Heritage Reporting Corporation
And those are, again, you know, has
the presidential candidate visited the state,
has he taken this or that position, has he or
she, you know, turned over her tax returns?
Whatever — whatever the conditions may be.
It’s a bounded choice.
You’ve been arguing that choice can be
bounded. And this is just another bounds. What
prohibits the State from doing that?
MR. WEISER: In this situation, the
State can add limitations as long as they comply
with other constitutional provisions.
JUSTICE GORSUCH: And do those?
MR. WEISER: The requirement to visit
a state I don’t believe clearly violates any
constitutional provision. The tax return issue,
we’ve noted, raises a Qualification Clause
question that could be a real concern. And the
JUSTICE GORSUCH: So the presidential
candidate is on the ballot. It’s who the
electors can vote for. Is that a qualifications
problem in the State’s view?
MR. WEISER: Yes, it would be because,
if you tell electors they can only vote for —
pick whatever the concern would be — tax
returns, people over 50, the concern is you
could be adding a new qualification to be
President and thereby disqualify, in effect,
someone from being President who the
Constitution would qualify to be President.
I have been following this movement for years. Slowly, one by one, they have knocked off one state after another. The state legislatures and governors have signed off on these intrastate compacts. It is important that SCOTUS rule on the constitutionality of the compacts now.
The objective is to circumvent the Electoral College knowing they couldn’t pass an amendment to eliminate it and elect the President by popular vote.