Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop saying Republican electoral-vote rigging is constitutional. It's not. Here's why. (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Scalia is just one Justice and I don't (0+ / 0-)

    know where the others stand.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:21:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nor do I (0+ / 0-)

      But aren't we one Repub presidency from getting a couple clones for him on board?

      The scary thing is that Scalia might indeed have a Constitutional case for his POV.

      The point mentioned above that if these schemes are illegal, so is the Maine and Nebraska CD allocation - which to my knowledge haven't been challenged.

      I'd like to think courts might rule against blatant gamemanship like this, but unfortunately this diary doesn't convince me.

      •  What effect does A14, Sec. 2 have on this? (0+ / 0-)

        "... the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and" VP...

        Personally, I believe this, and the clear intent of the 14th's Framers that newly enfranchised black had the right to elect Republicans President, means Scalia is full of it.  Imagine if a Confederacy state simply eliminated popular vote of Electors knowing the white majoirty would elect enough white State legislators to ensure all EVs went to the white voter's candidate.  Is there a doubt the Radical Republican courts would have struck that as unconstitutional in violation of A14, Sec.2?  So why not also now?  

        You could also make an argument under a 'living' Art. 4, Sec.4 (Republican form of government clause) but that'd likely be a stretch for this SCOTUS.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site