An Agreement Among The States

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives states exclusive control over the allocation of their votes: “Each state designates a certain number of voters in such a way that legislation can direct a number of them… ». The method of allocating votes is the right of the state. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. The win-take-all rule was applied in 1789 only by three states, and all three picked it up around 1800. It was only in the 11th presidential election (1828) that half of the states used laws that overwhelming all the winners. The treaties between states that were ratified after American independence in 1776, until the ratification of the present U.S. Constitution in 1789, according to the articles of confederation, are treated as intergovernmental pacts. These include agreements such as the Beaufort Treaty, which established the georgia-South Carolina border in 1787 and is still in force. In addition, Ian J. Drake, an associate professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, argues that Cuyler v. Adams held that congressional approval results in intergovernmental pacts on federal laws[61] Congress cannot approve the NPVIC without violating the supremacy clause of Article VI, since Congress has no listed or implied powers to amend the presidential process, in accordance with Article I, Section VIII, and does so only as part of the Constitutional Review Process.

I can`t. [60] [62] Lawyer Bradley T. Turflinger and the organizers of NPV Inc. dispute Drake`s conclusion, and the organizers of NPV Inc. have stated that they plan to obtain congressional approval if the pact is approved by a sufficient number of states. [63] [64] Referring to Drake, the IRS report concludes that if the NPVIC were adopted by the required number of states, it would likely become the source of significant litigation, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will participate in any resolution of the constitutional issues related to it. [65] Intergovernmental pacts differ from “uniform acts,” which are standard statutes established by bodies of non-governmental legal experts, which must be adopted independently by state legislators, rather than an agreement between several states. The CRS report, however, cites the Supreme Court`s opinion in McPherson v. Black as the assertion that state legislators “the power of the plenary …

on the issue of voter designation,” and referring to the opinions of the Williams Court v. Rhodes (1968) and Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), which cracked down on state laws on the appointment of voters who violated the 14th Amendment`s equality protection clause, the CRS report concluded that a state`s power to choose the method by which its voters are appointed is not absolute. [72] Robert Natelson, a senior advisor to the libertarian Independence Institute of Constitutional Justice and a member of the Scientific Council of the Conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, also argued that the power of a state legislator to appoint its electors cannot be absolute, otherwise states would be allowed to nominate their constituents in a way that would undermine public trust (z.B. to sell their votes). [53] There is some debate as to whether the Electoral College favours small or large states.