[EM] Electoral College

[Bob Richard [electorama]]

I will go one step further than Steve Eppley does below, and predict
that the Supreme Court would rule this particular compact
unconsititutional in spite of the very learned arguments presented at
www.every-vote-equal.com.  I think the current court would rule that,
although interstate compacts can be used for many things, they cannot be
used to alter the structure of government as established in the
Constitution.  I'm not sure I believe this argument myself.  I'm also
not sure that a more liberal court would rule the same way.  But I think
that's what would happen given the court we have.

Having said that, the interstate compact campaign might still be a good
idea, to the extent that its real purpose is to embarass the Congress
into (finally) sending a constitutional amendment to the states for
ratification.  The idea is certainly a clever one.

My two cents,
Bob Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at electorama.com
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at electorama.com]On Behalf Of Steve
> Eppley
> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 12:26 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Electoral College
>
>
> 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.