Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Republican Wildcat

It’s not a compact, it’s a conditional law. They aren’t meeting and agreeing on anything. They’re declaring that if enough other do X then this clause is triggered.

And there doesn’t need to be a certification of the national election. It IS just math. And legislatures can appoint electors HOWEVER THEY WANT. That’s the Constitution. Including the national vote numbers.

This would be 100% constitutional. It would also be 100% stupid. But there are ZERO valid constitutional arguments against it.


153 posted on 01/02/2017 6:32:51 AM PST by discostu (Alright you primative screwheads, listen up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: discostu
It’s not a compact, it’s a conditional law. They aren’t meeting and agreeing on anything. They’re declaring that if enough other do X then this clause is triggered.

Your point is well taken, but that is dancing around on the head of the pin...but probably enough for a court to declare it a "political question" and not rule on it.

And there doesn’t need to be a certification of the national election. It IS just math. And legislatures can appoint electors HOWEVER THEY WANT. That’s the Constitution. Including the national vote numbers.

One again, there is no national popular vote - it would not just be "math" - there would have to be some sort of verification for the state to use it under a law allocating Electors to certify it. There is no official tabulation. I suppose they could say "as tabulated by the AP in their final count" or something but that would be rather awkward. It would also be 100% stupid.

Yes.

154 posted on 01/02/2017 8:09:09 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson