Schwarzenegger vetoes National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
By redlightgrnlight Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The only report I'm getting is here, but if it's true, this is great news and a huge sigh of relief. I'll update if there's more. See the original post for more details.
Update: Citing States' rights and tradition, the Governor has indeed vetoed the bill. He states that it ignores the will of the majority of Californians by allocating electoral votes regardless of the majority will of California voters.
Pardon my ignorance, but from my reading of Article II and Amendment 12, I don't see where the grounds would be to declare this unconstitutional or illegal.
Article II, Clause 2 simply says electors are chosen "in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."
Neither Clause 3 nor Amendment 12 make any mention of how those electors must vote.
What am I missing?
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3:
"No state shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...."
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...is that the Supreme Court has gutted this provision to mean that as long as a compact isn't encroaching on federal power, it's permissible without the consent of Congress. It's definitely litigation waiting to happen, though.
this provision kill the idea that the states rightly assumed they could secede? I have never noticed this provision. This seems to undermine the argument that Jefferson and others assumed, and kills my recent defense of the state's technical argument for the right to secede.
Am I off base on this?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Clearly this provision would prohibit the states from getting together in advance to plan a group secession, or from making a secession contingent on other states seceding.
But would it prevent a state from seceding on its own? I'm not sure. Would one expect the document to provide for its own dissolution? The Articles of Confederation didn't, nor did the (unwritten) English Constitution, and yet we managed to break out of both.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
forwards. Conspracies harder to consummate by horseback.
good work neil
i'm going to look and see if Lincoln cited this and some other things unless achance chimes in and knows...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I look forward to seeing what you find!
thanks,
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I'm getting quite an education under you this evening. :)
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
it isn't actually an interstate compact. As I understand it, none of the players plan to have a formal agreement (compact) among the states considering this bit of trickery, just a sort of "ungentleman's" agreement that they will each pass some law along these lines. This way they apparently think they can sidestep the Electoral College and avoid the Constitutional "compact" provision.
Of course they all think this is slick now because they think the Electoral College "cost them" their rightful wins in 2000 and 2004. But being Dems they are incapable of looking out into the future to the day when this bit of frippery works against them; they won't be so enamored of it then.
------------
* rigged is applicable here since that's the way the Dems have taken to "winning" elections lately
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
I never understood why the libs started this lab experiment in states like CA. I almost wanted this to pass just so the GOP could get CA's EV's in 2008 when we win the popular vote.
The good thing about this being vetoed, of course, is it stops this nonsense from gaining momentum in other states.
Any word on whether or not this veto could be overturned?
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
The Democrats have solid majorities, but they don't even have enough of a supermajority to pass a tax hike without Republican votes, let alone override a veto.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Thanks for the info.
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
He vetoed 73 bills but signed over 100. That can't be good.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
As Neil said, the states left individually, not as a body. If memory serves, Bragg was commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the sovereign state of Louisiana, Lee of Virginia, and so forth, before the CSA was ever formed, and their leaving wasn't coordinated (although many of them traced it to the same cause, Lincoln's call for troops to suppress secession).
The first time this law took effect, someone who voted for the slate that won the state's popular vote but didn't win the national popular vote would sue and win because the compact is illegal without Congressional approval.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.