[EM] Electoral College

[Steve Eppley]

Ralph Suter wrote:
> On May 4, Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Could Article I. Section 10 of the US Constitution interfere with that
>> scheme?
>>
>>   "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."
>>
>> I'm referring to the ban against entering into any agreement or
>> compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
> 
> This issue is discussed in exhaustive detail in chapter 5 of a book
> published by the group behind the new proposal to elect the president
> by national popular vote by means of an interstate compact regarding
> the electoral college.
> 
> The entire book is available online in PDF format. The table of contents
> with links to each chapter is at:
> 
> http://www.every-vote-equal.com/tableofcontents.htm

Exhaustive detail, yes. <sigh>  I skimmed chapter 5.

I will venture two predictions, given the Supreme Court's emphasis, in 
prior rulings on this clause, that the Congressional calendar should 
not be unnecessarily cluttered with hearings on every piddling little 
compact that states might want to enter into.

First prediction: The Supreme Court will side with Congress whenever 
Congress objects to a compact within a reasonable period of time.  The 
practical effect is that by taking no action, Congress would 
implicitly give consent without having to clutter their calendar.  By 
objecting, Congress would be asserting that the compact runs afoul of 
the national interest, and the Court will defer to Congress' judgment.

I'm less confident about what the Supreme Court would do if Congress 
chooses to hold hearings on some compact but hasn't yet reached a 
decision to consent or object when the issue reaches the Court.  But 
here's my second prediction anyway: The Supreme Court will consider 
the mere act of Congress holding lengthy hearings sufficient to rule 
the compact unconstitutional until it has the consent of Congress.