4 ms·

The National Popular Vote Compact still needs the approval of Congress. > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops

by wl 6y ago

The National Popular Vote Compact still needs the approval of Congress. > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. US Constitution, Art. I §10 Cl. 3

perardi 6y ago
Yes, but that is a “simple”* majority vote, and not the 2/3 majority needed in the House, Senate, and the states. *not that any majority is simple these days, but you get what I mean.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.16#myth_9.16.5 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.16#myth_9.16.5 says that the Supreme Court has on several occasions interpreted that clause differently. The rule so far appears to be that it only applies if the states try to oppose the power of the federal government, but that doesn't apply to voting because control of vote apportionment is given to the states.
- jack_h 6y ago
  This source is particularly biased for obvious reasons. Legally speaking there are a lot of open questions surrounding NPVIC and anyone claiming anything at this point should be looked at with a heavy dose of skepticism. There are good arguments on both sides but they're not dispositive.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    What if the SCOTUS rules that the Compact isn't legally binding, but the states all act as if it were binding nevertheless? Certainly it would mean that a state could unilaterally break the Compact with impunity, but that would only make a difference to the election if the size of their defection was bigger than the amount of "excess" electoral votes the popular vote winner had, including from states that weren't part of the Compact. Also, you might find some electors from states outside the Compact acting "faithlessly" in order to counteract the "faithlessness" of the electors who betrayed it.
    - delecti 6y ago
      Even if some states break from the compact too late for the other states to back out in an election, the end result would still be fine. I'll use the 2000 election as a concrete example to avoid a more charged recent one. Presuming that 270 electoral votes worth of states had signed up for the compact before the election, and then a couple of them had defected "too late" for the other states to react, the end result would still be in keeping with the goal of the compact. At worst, a "partial compact" has no effect, and at best it still accomplishes the goal of the "full" compact.
geofft 6y ago
There is quite some debate about whether - despite its name - the NPVIC counts as an "Agreement or Compact" in the sense that constitutional law has interpreted that phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Constitutionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
Ericson2314 6y ago
Eh, I think this is more clearly about diplomacy than, say, the "well regulated militia" stuff. And still, i the compact is repealed, the states are free to apportion their electors however they like. States could also independently match the popular vote when it wouldn't make a difference. Even such a "dry run" would shake things up. Bottom line, unless there is a different law to require the states to apportion electors a cetain way, I don't really know how to stop it.

by wl 6y ago

perardi 6y ago

Yes, but that is a “simple”* majority vote, and not the 2/3 majority needed in the House, Senate, and the states. *not that any majority is simple these days, but you get what I mean.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

BugsJustFindMe 6y ago

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.16#myth_9.16.5 https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.16#myth_9.16.5 says that the Supreme Court has on several occasions interpreted that clause differently. The rule so far appears to be that it only applies if the states try to oppose the power of the federal government, but that doesn't apply to voting because control of vote apportionment is given to the states.

jack_h 6y ago
This source is particularly biased for obvious reasons. Legally speaking there are a lot of open questions surrounding NPVIC and anyone claiming anything at this point should be looked at with a heavy dose of skepticism. There are good arguments on both sides but they're not dispositive.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  What if the SCOTUS rules that the Compact isn't legally binding, but the states all act as if it were binding nevertheless? Certainly it would mean that a state could unilaterally break the Compact with impunity, but that would only make a difference to the election if the size of their defection was bigger than the amount of "excess" electoral votes the popular vote winner had, including from states that weren't part of the Compact. Also, you might find some electors from states outside the Compact acting "faithlessly" in order to counteract the "faithlessness" of the electors who betrayed it.
  - delecti 6y ago
    Even if some states break from the compact too late for the other states to back out in an election, the end result would still be fine. I'll use the 2000 election as a concrete example to avoid a more charged recent one. Presuming that 270 electoral votes worth of states had signed up for the compact before the election, and then a couple of them had defected "too late" for the other states to react, the end result would still be in keeping with the goal of the compact. At worst, a "partial compact" has no effect, and at best it still accomplishes the goal of the "full" compact.

geofft 6y ago

There is quite some debate about whether - despite its name - the NPVIC counts as an "Agreement or Compact" in the sense that constitutional law has interpreted that phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Constitutionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

Ericson2314 6y ago

Eh, I think this is more clearly about diplomacy than, say, the "well regulated militia" stuff. And still, i the compact is repealed, the states are free to apportion their electors however they like. States could also independently match the popular vote when it wouldn't make a difference. Even such a "dry run" would shake things up. Bottom line, unless there is a different law to require the states to apportion electors a cetain way, I don't really know how to stop it.