National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an Unconstitutional

[The2ndAmendment]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

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 Constitution can only be changed in accordance with Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article II is what the Democrats are trying to illegally override with their seditious compact:

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.

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview

the states lack the power to appoint their presidential electors on the basis of votes of citizens outside the state’s jurisdiction and, therefore, states are without authority to adopt the NPVC. Although Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution entrusts to the state legislatures the power to determine the manner in which presidential electors are selected, that power is not plenary in the customary sense. Rather, that power is limited, and the extent of that limitation is borne out by the historical understanding of the scope of state authority under Article II. At the time of the Framing of the U.S. Constitution, the framers envisioned a system in which states would select electors in accordance with the sentiments of state citizens, not the nation generally. Moreover, in the years following the Framing, every single state, both original and newly admitted, established a system of selecting presidential electors based either directly or indirectly on the sentiments of state voters. At no point in our nation’s history has any state sought to appoint its electors on the basis of voter sentiment outside the state, let alone the national popular vote. The Constitution’s delegation of power to the state legislature must therefore be read in light of this uniform, uncontested understanding that states are required to select electors in accordance with popular sentiment of voters in the state or the districts within it. While this conclusion may strike many as counterintuitive, a detailed examination of American constitutional history as it relates to presidential elections demonstrates its veracity. Part I briefly describes the presidential election process, the criticism of it, and how the NPVC seeks to transform the process. Part II then explores the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, revealing that the framers expressly rejected the direct popular election of the President and instead settled on the Electoral College as a way to preserve the influence of the states, particularly smaller states, in the selection of the President. Significantly, this Part establishes that the framers expected state legislatures to select electors in accordance with state sentiment, not a national popular vote

 

[Wyatt earp]

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS Understanding Interstate Compacts Interstate compacts represent an opportunity for multistate cooperation, reinforcing state sovereignty and avoiding federal intervention. The emergence of broad public policy issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries present new governing challenges to state authorities. Compacts enable the states – in their sovereign capacity – to act jointly and collectively, generally outside the confines of the federal legislative or regulatory process while respecting the view of Congress on the appropriateness of joint action. Unlike federal actions that impose unilateral, rigid mandates, compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self regulatory systems over which the party states can maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process. Compacts enable the states to develop adaptive structures that can evolve to meet new and increased challenges that naturally arise over time. What is an Interstate Compact? Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states creating an agreement on a particular policy issue, adopting a certain standard or cooperating on regional or national matters. Interstate compacts are the most powerful, durable, and adaptive tools for ensuring cooperative action among the states. Unlike federally imposed mandates that often dictate unfunded and rigid requirements, interstate compacts provide a statedeveloped structure for collaborative and dynamic action, while building consensus among the states and evolving to meet new and increased demands over time. General purposes for creating an interstate compact include: • Establish a formal, legal relationship among states to address common problems or promote a common agenda. • Create independent, multistate governmental authorities (e.g., commissions) that can address issues more effectively than a state agency acting independently, or when no state has the authority to act unilaterally. • Establish uniform guidelines, standards, or procedures for agencies in the compact’s member states. • Create economies of scale to reduce administrative and other costs. • Respond to national priorities in consultation or in partnership with the federal government. • Retain state sovereignty in matters traditionally reserved for the states. • Settle interstate disputes. It should be noted that an interstate compact is not a uniform state law. In fact, an interstate compact differs from a uniform state law in several ways, most notably that a uniform law does not depend on contractual obligations and a state can therefore change any portion of the law, thus losing any degree of uniformity initially intended.

Second, courts of different states may interpret the provisions of a uniform state law differently


COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS and since the highest court in a state is the final arbiter on legal issues within that state, there is no satisfactory way to achieve a reconciliation of divergent interpretations. Compacts are created when an offer is made by one state, usually by statute that adopts the terms of a compact requiring approval by one or more other states to become effective. Other states accept the offer by adopting identical compact language. Once the required number of states has adopted the pact, the “contract” among them is valid and becomes effective as provided.

How prevalent are Interstate Compacts? Compacts were seldom used until the 20th century. Between 1783 and 1920, states approved just 36 compacts, most of which were used to settle boundary disputes. But in the last 75 years, more than 150 compacts have been created, most since the end of World War II. On average, a state today belongs to 25 interstate compacts.



Although there are many types of interstate compacts, they can generally be divided into three camps: • Border Compacts: agreements between two or more states that establish or alter the boundaries of a state. • Advisory Compacts: agreements between two or more states that create study commissions. The purpose of the commission is to examine a problem and report to the respective states on their findings. • Regulatory Compacts: broadest and largest category of interstate compacts may be called “regulatory” or “administrative” compacts. Regulatory compacts create ongoing administrative agencies whose rules and regulations may be binding on the states to the extent authorized by the compact.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS Understanding Interstate Compacts Interstate compacts represent an opportunity for multistate cooperation, reinforcing state sovereignty and avoiding federal intervention. The emergence of broad public policy issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries present new governing challenges to state authorities. Compacts enable the states – in their sovereign capacity – to act jointly and collectively, generally outside the confines of the federal legislative or regulatory process while respecting the view of Congress on the appropriateness of joint action. Unlike federal actions that impose unilateral, rigid mandates, compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self regulatory systems over which the party states can maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process. Compacts enable the states to develop adaptive structures that can evolve to meet new and increased challenges that naturally arise over time. What is an Interstate Compact? Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states creating an agreement on a particular policy issue, adopting a certain standard or cooperating on regional or national matters. Interstate compacts are the most powerful, durable, and adaptive tools for ensuring cooperative action among the states. Unlike federally imposed mandates that often dictate unfunded and rigid requirements, interstate compacts provide a statedeveloped structure for collaborative and dynamic action, while building consensus among the states and evolving to meet new and increased demands over time. General purposes for creating an interstate compact include: • Establish a formal, legal relationship among states to address common problems or promote a common agenda. • Create independent, multistate governmental authorities (e.g., commissions) that can address issues more effectively than a state agency acting independently, or when no state has the authority to act unilaterally. • Establish uniform guidelines, standards, or procedures for agencies in the compact’s member states. • Create economies of scale to reduce administrative and other costs. • Respond to national priorities in consultation or in partnership with the federal government. • Retain state sovereignty in matters traditionally reserved for the states. • Settle interstate disputes. It should be noted that an interstate compact is not a uniform state law. In fact, an interstate compact differs from a uniform state law in several ways, most notably that a uniform law does not depend on contractual obligations and a state can therefore change any portion of the law, thus losing any degree of uniformity initially intended.

Second, courts of different states may interpret the provisions of a uniform state law differently


COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS and since the highest court in a state is the final arbiter on legal issues within that state, there is no satisfactory way to achieve a reconciliation of divergent interpretations. Compacts are created when an offer is made by one state, usually by statute that adopts the terms of a compact requiring approval by one or more other states to become effective. Other states accept the offer by adopting identical compact language. Once the required number of states has adopted the pact, the “contract” among them is valid and becomes effective as provided.

How prevalent are Interstate Compacts? Compacts were seldom used until the 20th century. Between 1783 and 1920, states approved just 36 compacts, most of which were used to settle boundary disputes. But in the last 75 years, more than 150 compacts have been created, most since the end of World War II. On average, a state today belongs to 25 interstate compacts.



Although there are many types of interstate compacts, they can generally be divided into three camps: • Border Compacts: agreements between two or more states that establish or alter the boundaries of a state. • Advisory Compacts: agreements between two or more states that create study commissions. The purpose of the commission is to examine a problem and report to the respective states on their findings. • Regulatory Compacts: broadest and largest category of interstate compacts may be called “regulatory” or “administrative” compacts. Regulatory compacts create ongoing administrative agencies whose rules and regulations may be binding on the states to the extent authorized by the compact.

None of those categories fit the definition of this Compact: This is a political compact, akin to a treaty or an alliance.

This is not a clause that Democrats even want to try to test. It will result in Civil War, secession and very little of the original Union will remain when the dust clears.

You liberals really don't think shit through, do you? Why do you think the Electoral College, the Amendment Process and the Compact Clauses all exist in the manner in which they are written?

 

[Wyatt earp]

COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS Understanding Interstate Compacts Interstate compacts represent an opportunity for multistate cooperation, reinforcing state sovereignty and avoiding federal intervention. The emergence of broad public policy issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries present new governing challenges to state authorities. Compacts enable the states – in their sovereign capacity – to act jointly and collectively, generally outside the confines of the federal legislative or regulatory process while respecting the view of Congress on the appropriateness of joint action. Unlike federal actions that impose unilateral, rigid mandates, compacts afford states the opportunity to develop dynamic, self regulatory systems over which the party states can maintain control through a coordinated legislative and administrative process. Compacts enable the states to develop adaptive structures that can evolve to meet new and increased challenges that naturally arise over time. What is an Interstate Compact? Interstate compacts are contracts between two or more states creating an agreement on a particular policy issue, adopting a certain standard or cooperating on regional or national matters. Interstate compacts are the most powerful, durable, and adaptive tools for ensuring cooperative action among the states. Unlike federally imposed mandates that often dictate unfunded and rigid requirements, interstate compacts provide a statedeveloped structure for collaborative and dynamic action, while building consensus among the states and evolving to meet new and increased demands over time. General purposes for creating an interstate compact include: • Establish a formal, legal relationship among states to address common problems or promote a common agenda. • Create independent, multistate governmental authorities (e.g., commissions) that can address issues more effectively than a state agency acting independently, or when no state has the authority to act unilaterally. • Establish uniform guidelines, standards, or procedures for agencies in the compact’s member states. • Create economies of scale to reduce administrative and other costs. • Respond to national priorities in consultation or in partnership with the federal government. • Retain state sovereignty in matters traditionally reserved for the states. • Settle interstate disputes. It should be noted that an interstate compact is not a uniform state law. In fact, an interstate compact differs from a uniform state law in several ways, most notably that a uniform law does not depend on contractual obligations and a state can therefore change any portion of the law, thus losing any degree of uniformity initially intended.

Second, courts of different states may interpret the provisions of a uniform state law differently


COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS—NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERSTATE COMPACTS and since the highest court in a state is the final arbiter on legal issues within that state, there is no satisfactory way to achieve a reconciliation of divergent interpretations. Compacts are created when an offer is made by one state, usually by statute that adopts the terms of a compact requiring approval by one or more other states to become effective. Other states accept the offer by adopting identical compact language. Once the required number of states has adopted the pact, the “contract” among them is valid and becomes effective as provided.

How prevalent are Interstate Compacts? Compacts were seldom used until the 20th century. Between 1783 and 1920, states approved just 36 compacts, most of which were used to settle boundary disputes. But in the last 75 years, more than 150 compacts have been created, most since the end of World War II. On average, a state today belongs to 25 interstate compacts.



Although there are many types of interstate compacts, they can generally be divided into three camps: • Border Compacts: agreements between two or more states that establish or alter the boundaries of a state. • Advisory Compacts: agreements between two or more states that create study commissions. The purpose of the commission is to examine a problem and report to the respective states on their findings. • Regulatory Compacts: broadest and largest category of interstate compacts may be called “regulatory” or “administrative” compacts. Regulatory compacts create ongoing administrative agencies whose rules and regulations may be binding on the states to the extent authorized by the compact.

None of those categories fit the definition of this Compact: This is a political compact, akin to a treaty or an alliance.

Interstate Compacts in the United States



C. Consented to by Congress, if Required
Although the US Constitution contains an express requirement for approval by Congress of compacts between states, the US Supreme Court has held that some agreements between states do not require such congressional consent. Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”[14] The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]

The Constitution does not specify the timing or form of congressional consent to interstate compacts. [16] Although Congress typically consents to compacts before they are executed by the states party to them, Congress may also consent after the fact, when the subject of the agreement could not be fully considered until then.[17] In addition, while congressional consent is usually express, it may also be inferred based on the circumstances.[18] Congress may condition its consent subject to the compact containing suitable terms that do not violate limitations set forth in the Constitution.[19] Further, when Congress does consent to a compact, Congress does not thereby give up or reduce any of its constitutional powers.[20]

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can argue this does not increase the Political power, the states traditionally vote democrat anyways

 

[whitehall]

Does it matter? States and jurisdictions are declaring themselves to be "sanctuary areas" for people who have broken the law by entering the country illegally. The congressional majority seems to be going along with it and the A.G. seems powerless to stop it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

“directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]

The United States is made of 50 States. This compact violates the Supremacy of the Union as a whole, and makes the New York/California/Texas triumvirate supreme (the former two are blue and latter is red, thus blue will win every election til the end of time, which will trigger a civil war and secession and not much of the Union will remain, and Texas certainly will not remain with the New York/California duopoly).

The situation is made even more volatile by the fact that Texas is the only State in the Union which has the legal right to secede due to it's induction process and assurances when joining the Union.

For More Than 150 Years, Texas Has Had the Power to Secede…From Itself | History | Smithsonian

 

[candycorn]

Two states already have a system that is different than the other 48.

There is valid precedent for a state to do whatever it likes in awarding electors.

However, in those two states, the winner in the State's congressional district(s) is awarded an electoral vote. Some of the proposals being bandied about would award a state's elector's based on how other state's voted. Is it unconstitutional? We shall see I suppose--if it ever comes to pass.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You can argue this does not increase the Political power, the states traditionally vote democrat anyways

You can also argue that the sky is green and the ocean is UFO coolant station. Doesn't mean the argument is correct.

 

[Penelope]

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Does it matter? States and jurisdictions are declaring themselves to be "sanctuary areas" for people who have broken the law by entering the country illegally. The congressional majority seems to be going along with it and the A.G. seems powerless to stop it.

It's not exactly the same thing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

Actually we should change the Constitution back so that the state legislatures vote for their U.S Senators and return back to a Republican form of government.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

One State One Vote Chamber: The Consulate.

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

Actually we should change the Constitution back so that the state legislatures vote for their U.S Senators and return back to a Republican form of government.

Since that amendment would be impossible to ratify (due to liberal communist pukes), I would rather amend the Constitution to add Third Chamber of Congress.

Article 1, Section 1 Amendment:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives and Consulate.

The rest:

The Consulate of the United States shall be composed of one Ambassdor from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for Eleven Years; and each Ambassdor shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into Six Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the First Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the Third Year, the third Class at the Expiration of the Fifth Year, the fourth Class at the Expiration of the Seventh Year, the fifth Class at the Expiration of the Ninth Years, and the sixth Class at the Expiration of the Eleventh Year, that one six may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be an Ambassdor who shall not have attained to the Age of Fifty Years, and been Born a Citizen of the United States.

If the vote of the Consulate is equally divided, any proposed measure shall fail.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments, but Consulate may reverse their decision is the Senate convicts. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: Any Impeachment may be reversed with the Concurrence of only one third of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Normal Vote Procedure:
Any bill that tries to pass through the Consulate, must contain a preamble stating from which enumerated power or powers of the Federal Government, as expressly stated in the United States Constitution, and not by any Case Law of the Judiciary, the authority of the bill derives.

Any bill that does not contain such a Preamble requires a 2/3 consensus of the Consulate to pass into law, and if enacted by the Federal Government, all States have the right to claim their Sovereign Powers and nullify that law within their own borders.

 

[caddo kid]

One State One Vote Chamber: The Consulate.

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

Actually we should change the Constitution back so that the state legislatures vote for their U.S Senators and return back to a Republican form of government.

Since that amendment would be impossible to ratify (due to liberal communist pukes), I would rather amend the Constitution to add Third Chamber of Congress.

Article 1, Section 1 Amendment:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives and Consulate.

The rest:

The Consulate of the United States shall be composed of one Ambassdor from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for Eleven Years; and each Ambassdor shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into Six Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the First Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the Third Year, the third Class at the Expiration of the Fifth Year, the fourth Class at the Expiration of the Seventh Year, the fifth Class at the Expiration of the Ninth Years, and the sixth Class at the Expiration of the Eleventh Year, that one six may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of Fifty Years, and been Born a Citizen of the United States.

If the vote of the Consulate is equally divided, any proposed measure shall fail.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments, but Consulate may reverse their decision is the Senate convicts. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: Any Impeachment may be reversed with the Concurrence of only one third of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

No one here cares about your opinion; go buy some votes for TrumPutin 2020

 

[Natural Citizen]

Congress has the say so here. I posted a thread in the Congress section intended to discuss this, but it got moved some place. All the better, though, there were a couple of procks in the thread with bigger mouths than knowledge of the terms controversy. Think I bailed on it anyway.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

One State One Vote Chamber: The Consulate.

Most states are all or nothing anyway, so changing the constitution won't be an issue.

Mayors, Governors, Senators, Representatives, School Board members, Attorney Generals, etc. , everyone is voted in by popular vote. This way the votes for the Potus will be equal.

Actually we should change the Constitution back so that the state legislatures vote for their U.S Senators and return back to a Republican form of government.

Since that amendment would be impossible to ratify (due to liberal communist pukes), I would rather amend the Constitution to add Third Chamber of Congress.

Article 1, Section 1 Amendment:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives and Consulate.

The rest:

The Consulate of the United States shall be composed of one Ambassdor from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for Eleven Years; and each Ambassdor shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into Six Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the First Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the Third Year, the third Class at the Expiration of the Fifth Year, the fourth Class at the Expiration of the Seventh Year, the fifth Class at the Expiration of the Ninth Years, and the sixth Class at the Expiration of the Eleventh Year, that one six may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be an Ambassdor who shall not have attained to the Age of Fifty Years, and been Born a Citizen of the United States.

If the vote of the Consulate is equally divided, any proposed measure shall fail.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments, but Consulate may reverse their decision is the Senate convicts. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: Any Impeachment may be reversed with the Concurrence of only one third of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Normal Vote Procedure:
Any bill that tries to pass through the Consulate, must contain a preamble stating from which enumerated power or powers of the Federal Government, as expressly stated in the United States Constitution, and not by any Case Law of the Judiciary, the authority of the bill derives.

Any bill that does not contain such a Preamble requires a 2/3 consensus of the Consulate to pass into law, and if enacted by the Federal Government, all States have the right to claim their Sovereign Powers and nullify that law within their own borders.

As the left just proved over the last decade and a half or so, NOTHING is impossible.

 

[Penelope]

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american...eferer=&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=lpb

Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause Michael Brody George Mason University School of Law

 

[Porter Rockwell]

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american...eferer=&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=lpb

Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause Michael Brody George Mason University School of Law

Democracy - Two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner

Republic - A well armed lamb contesting the results

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Court in 1893, however, stated in Virginia v. Tennessee that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]

Seems like that applies here, eh?

 

[bendog]

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

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 Constitution can only be changed in accordance with Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article II is what the Democrats are trying to illegally override with their seditious compact:

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.

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=lawreview

the states lack the power to appoint their presidential electors on the basis of votes of citizens outside the state’s jurisdiction and, therefore, states are without authority to adopt the NPVC. Although Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution entrusts to the state legislatures the power to determine the manner in which presidential electors are selected, that power is not plenary in the customary sense. Rather, that power is limited, and the extent of that limitation is borne out by the historical understanding of the scope of state authority under Article II. At the time of the Framing of the U.S. Constitution, the framers envisioned a system in which states would select electors in accordance with the sentiments of state citizens, not the nation generally. Moreover, in the years following the Framing, every single state, both original and newly admitted, established a system of selecting presidential electors based either directly or indirectly on the sentiments of state voters. At no point in our nation’s history has any state sought to appoint its electors on the basis of voter sentiment outside the state, let alone the national popular vote. The Constitution’s delegation of power to the state legislature must therefore be read in light of this uniform, uncontested understanding that states are required to select electors in accordance with popular sentiment of voters in the state or the districts within it. While this conclusion may strike many as counterintuitive, a detailed examination of American constitutional history as it relates to presidential elections demonstrates its veracity. Part I briefly describes the presidential election process, the criticism of it, and how the NPVC seeks to transform the process. Part II then explores the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, revealing that the framers expressly rejected the direct popular election of the President and instead settled on the Electoral College as a way to preserve the influence of the states, particularly smaller states, in the selection of the President. Significantly, this Part establishes that the framers expected state legislatures to select electors in accordance with state sentiment, not a national popular vote

You have link so I give you that.