Is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact a Constitutional Measure?

Started by JRP1990, February 09, 2014, 12:51:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JRP1990

A lot of people are talking about what is known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The NPVIC is a proposed state-driven method of rendering the electoral college obsolete. In a nutshell, this is how it works: when a state adopts the NPVIC, it agrees to award its electoral votes to the winner of the overall national popular vote. Once the total number of states having adopted the NPVIC equals or surpasses 270 Electoral Votes, the Compact would go into effect, thereby awarding 270+EVs  to the winner of the national popular vote. As it currently stands, 9 states + DC (136 electoral votes) have adopted the compact.

My question is this: is such a compact Constitutional?

1) Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". The pro-argument is that states are given the explicit right to determine how to choose electors, so long as other Constitutional clauses/amendments are not violated, and because the compact does not discriminate/infringe on voting rights, and because each state adopts it individually, it is Constitutional. 

2) Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "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." The counterargument is that the NPVIC is, inherently, an agreement/compact, and unless it is approved by Congress, it is unconstitutional.

So, without rendering a judgement on the merits of the IDEA itself, my question is -- from a Constitutional standpoint -- the NPVIC constitutional?

Solar

No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

JRP1990

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.

I totally agree with you about the EC - I firmly believe in maintaining the EC.

But from the legal side, how do you see it as unconstitutional if each state is exercising their right to choose how to appoint their electors?

Solar

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
No, it's not Constitutional, the EC was designed to avoid the consequence of a popular vote, or rather mob rule.
It's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.

I totally agree with you about the EC - I firmly believe in maintaining the EC.

But from the legal side, how do you see it as unconstitutional if each state is exercising their right to choose how to appoint their electors?
Just because it passed in 9 lib states and DC, still doesn't make it Constitutional.
Do you really expect the RINO to challenge it?
     Illinois (20)
    Maryland
    California
    Hawaii
    Massachusetts
    New Jersey
    Vermont
    Washington
    District of Columbia
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

JRP1990

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 01:04:45 PM
Just because it passed in 9 lib states and DC, still doesn't make it Constitutional.
Do you really expect the RINO to challenge it?
     Illinois (20)
    Maryland
    California
    Hawaii
    Massachusetts
    New Jersey
    Vermont
    Washington
    District of Columbia

Quote feature fail.

The political alignment of the states that passed it has no relevance on whether or not it is Constitutional. And to be clear, I am NOT disagreeing with you that it's a bad idea. But I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not Constitutional if Congress approves it.

supsalemgr

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
I totally agree with you about the EC - I firmly believe in maintaining the EC.

But from the legal side, how do you see it as unconstitutional if each state is exercising their right to choose how to appoint their electors?

First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

JRP1990

Quote from: supsalemgr on February 09, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
First, I think we must acknowledge this would end up in the SCOTUS. Secondly, I think even a number of blue states would not desire to give up their citizens rights to be a part of electing a president. I can see the leftists all in on this idea.

Oh, absolutely. I think it would go to the SCOTUS

And you're right - it's already been rejected in several blue states.

redbeard

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:07:05 PM
Quote feature fail.

The political alignment of the states that passed it has no relevance on whether or not it is Constitutional. And to be clear, I am NOT disagreeing with you that it's a bad idea. But I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not Constitutional if Congress approves it.
Seems that your OP has the answer in Article 1, Section 10

Solar

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:07:05 PM
Quote feature fail.

The political alignment of the states that passed it has no relevance on whether or not it is Constitutional. And to be clear, I am NOT disagreeing with you that it's a bad idea. But I'm having a hard time seeing how it's not Constitutional if Congress approves it.
So, just because Congress signs off on it, it's suddenly Constitutional? Are you kidding me?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

JRP1990

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 01:26:36 PM
So, just because Congress signs off on it, it's suddenly Constitutional? Are you kidding me?

That's the question at hand. I refer you to Article 1, Section 10.

Solar

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 01:34:56 PM
That's the question at hand. I refer you to Article 1, Section 10.
Did I not already answer it clear enough for you??
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

JRP1990

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
Did I not already answer it clear enough for you??

You answered it, but you didn't address the legal language of said article/section.

Solar

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 02:18:42 PM
You answered it, but you didn't address the legal language of said article/section.
Neither have you.
I see no reason to debate an issue close to libs hearts, considering this was only given birth after Gore got his ass handed to him by SCOTUS.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

JRP1990

Quote from: Solar on February 09, 2014, 03:24:12 PM
Neither have you.
I see no reason to debate an issue close to libs hearts, considering this was only given birth after Gore got his ass handed to him by SCOTUS.

You do realize that a 4% shift of the national vote towards Romney would have made him the winner of the popular vote, but the loser of the electoral college, right?

redbeard

Quote from: JRP1990 on February 09, 2014, 03:36:58 PM
You do realize that a 4% shift of the national vote towards Romney would have made him the winner of the popular vote, but the loser of the electoral college, right?
Even if he did and he lost, I would be against changing a fundamental structure put in place by our founders!