Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: SCOTUS says Popular Vote Compact is Constitutional

  1. #1

    SCOTUS says Popular Vote Compact is Constitutional

    This means our votes don't count if you're in a state that signed the popular vote compact.

    It also means Biden is President soon.

    The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner.
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...l-15388514.php



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    This means our votes don't count if you're in a state that signed the popular vote compact.
    Not sure what you mean there. The popular vote within each state will be represented by folks chosen by the political parties as electors to the national convention. It's just a formality for these states now. Folks wanting to go the convention are largely well connected party actors. The odd Ron Paul peeps that made it (as electors to the national conventions) in 2008 and 2012 aren't going to swing any elections by themselves.
    I compiled a "brief" history of events since October 2008 that are defining the global currency war and the role that gold is playing:

    Tin Foil Hats, Economic Reality and the Total Perspective Vortex

    Also, have you contacted your Congressional Rep and asked them co-sponsor Ron Paul's Rep. Paul Broun Jr.'s HR 1098 77: Free Competition in Currencies Act?

  4. #3
    SCOTUS: "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does."

    Well, nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits a State from seceding, banning abortion or banning gay marriage, but whatever.

  5. #4
    It also means Biden is President soon.
    No it doesn't. Not sure why you want Biden to be president so badly if he does America is done.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Bern View Post
    Not sure what you mean there. The popular vote within each state will be represented by folks chosen by the political parties as electors to the national convention. It's just a formality for these states now. Folks wanting to go the convention are largely well connected party actors. The odd Ron Paul peeps that made it (as electors to the national conventions) in 2008 and 2012 aren't going to swing any elections by themselves.
    It means SCOTUS has ruled that States can overturn their election results if the state winner did not get the nationwide popular vote.
    I guess you're not familiar with it.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    SCOTUS: "Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does."

    Well, nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits a State from seceding, banning abortion or banning gay marriage, but whatever.
    well, yeah, and the activists in the SCOTUS have ruled for ALL 3 of those, in a manner I disagree with in ALL 3.
    1) Secession ? No Right.
    2) Abortion? Right.
    3) Gay Marriage? Right.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    It means SCOTUS has ruled that States can overturn their election results if the state winner did not get the nationwide popular vote.
    I guess you're not familiar with it.
    It literally means the exact opposite, SCOTUS says that state electors are supposed to reflect the will of the people in their state and state laws intended to keep electors in line with how the state votes are legal. The popular vote compact would force state electors to represent the national vote instead of the state vote.
    I just want objectivity on this forum and will point out flawed sources or points of view at my leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 04/20/16
    There won't be a contested convention
    Quote Originally Posted by spudea on 05/30/17
    The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was blamed on putting a crosshair on a political map. I wonder what event we'll see justified with pictures like this.

  9. #8
    If I was an elector I would refuse to vote for Biden.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

    May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-19-2020 at 03:06 PM.
    It happened sometime after they Made America Great Again. You see, I grew a bit weary from all the winning.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    If I was an elector I would refuse to vote for Biden.
    Not to mention Biden's recent calls to trasnform America is not always a good one. That line "Transform" is a popuarl word for communists.

  13. #11
    This would assume I care if Trump or Biden wins. I don't. The country is going to burn after the election no matter who wins. A peaceful transfer of power seems impossible anymore.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    It means SCOTUS has ruled that States can overturn their election results if the state winner did not get the nationwide popular vote.
    I guess you're not familiar with it.
    That's not what it said, that would be an unconstitutional treaty between states.
    @Brian4Liberty, This thread is fake news.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    This means our votes don't count if you're in a state that signed the popular vote compact.

    It also means Biden is President soon.

    The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner.
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...l-15388514.php
    The second paragraph in that article is misleading:

    The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway.
    That would be clearer if it said “bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner in that state”.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    From the article you posted:


    This was only about "Faithless Electors" and restrictions imposed by the several States to penalize Electors who are faithless.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by spudea View Post
    It literally means the exact opposite, SCOTUS says that state electors are supposed to reflect the will of the people in their state and state laws intended to keep electors in line with how the state votes are legal. The popular vote compact would force state electors to represent the national vote instead of the state vote.
    Yep.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The second paragraph in that article is misleading:



    That would be clearer if it said “bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner in that state”.



    Yep.



    Yep.
    Hello, Brian. I agree much of the knee-jerk reaction articles on that day were confusing. Still, consider this article and its quotes.

    "More practically speaking, if the court had ruled the other way, it might have made the National Popular Vote Compact unenforceable. After all, if the justices had found that states cannot force electors to vote a certain way, then states presumably couldn’t have forced electors to abide by the national popular vote."

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. brought that up in oral arguments in May, asking Lawrence Lessig, who was arguing in favor of faithless electors, “Under your view, there would be no way to enforce the popular vote referendum?

    Mr. Lessig said that assessment was correct: The compact would require participating states to choose a set of electors “that fits with the winner of the national popular vote, and that slate of electors then would have the same discretion, legal discretion, that we believe any elector has.”

    The justices’ rejection of Mr. Lessig’s arguments, then, at least leaves open the possibility that the compact could be enforced."

    Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?

    The justices’ ruling on faithless electors could indirectly help those who want to circumvent the Electoral College entirely.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/u...ular-vote.html

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Hello, Brian. I agree much of the knee-jerk reaction articles on that day were confusing. Still, consider this article and its quotes.

    "More practically speaking, if the court had ruled the other way, it might have made the National Popular Vote Compact unenforceable. After all, if the justices had found that states cannot force electors to vote a certain way, then states presumably couldn’t have forced electors to abide by the national popular vote."

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. brought that up in oral arguments in May, asking Lawrence Lessig, who was arguing in favor of faithless electors, “Under your view, there would be no way to enforce the popular vote referendum?

    Mr. Lessig said that assessment was correct: The compact would require participating states to choose a set of electors “that fits with the winner of the national popular vote, and that slate of electors then would have the same discretion, legal discretion, that we believe any elector has.”

    The justices’ rejection of Mr. Lessig’s arguments, then, at least leaves open the possibility that the compact could be enforced."

    Did the Popular Vote Just Get a Win at the Supreme Court?

    The justices’ ruling on faithless electors could indirectly help those who want to circumvent the Electoral College entirely.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/u...ular-vote.html
    The important thing is the selection of electors, the campaigns are very careful and there are almost never any who don't vote the way they are pledged, under the NPVC the states would still select electors from the campaign that won the national popular vote even if they couldn't actually force them to vote as they were pledged.

    This ruling has no significant impact on the NPVC.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The important thing is the selection of electors, the campaigns are very careful and there are almost never any who don't vote the way they are pledged, under the NPVC the states would still select electors from the campaign that won the national popular vote even if they couldn't actually force them to vote as they were pledged.

    This ruling has no significant impact on the NPVC.
    I agree, they twisted it to mean something it doesn't. Which is to be expected.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    don't be so dramatic good grief



Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS Halts LA Abortion Law: Roberts Is The Swing Vote
    By angelatc in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-08-2019, 08:04 AM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 12:54 AM
  3. New Popular Vote ?
    By Miss Annie in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2011, 02:50 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 08:21 AM
  5. Clinton's nomination "popular", but is it constitutional?
    By DXDoug in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 05:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •