As the presidential election nears, attention has once again focused not so much on the number of votes each candidate might receive, but rather on where those votes will be cast, and, most significantly, how few of them will actually matter. For the vast majority of Americans, the coming contest has been reduced to political theater. In addition, if the candidate who receives the most votes nationally is a victim of skewed distribution, as has become distressingly frequent, the majority of the electorate will have no voice at all.
For national elections? Totally. In essence the Voting Rights Act was such a law. The Constitution doesn't forbid national voting standards, it merely does not establish any. Article I, Section 8, "necessary and proper" clearly gives Congress the right to act further.
Would this SC uphold such an act? Isn't there a good argument that it is a de facto amendment to the prescribed way in the Constitution of electing a president?
It's hard to say what this Supreme Court would do, given their propensity to rewrite the Constitution to suit their politics, but their is absolutely nothing that prohibits Congress from passing a law further defining the Electoral College, just as their was no prohibition from setting the number of SC justices at nine.
Haha. There are a lot of options out there, but, alas, none of them are easy. Not to plug my book, but one of the main points of Imperfect Union was to identify the gaps left by what the delegates left out, so the options on how to fill them would become clearer.
Would a National Voting Law be Constitutional?
For national elections? Totally. In essence the Voting Rights Act was such a law. The Constitution doesn't forbid national voting standards, it merely does not establish any. Article I, Section 8, "necessary and proper" clearly gives Congress the right to act further.
Would this SC uphold such an act? Isn't there a good argument that it is a de facto amendment to the prescribed way in the Constitution of electing a president?
It's hard to say what this Supreme Court would do, given their propensity to rewrite the Constitution to suit their politics, but their is absolutely nothing that prohibits Congress from passing a law further defining the Electoral College, just as their was no prohibition from setting the number of SC justices at nine.
I did not know that was an option. I had not previously heard of this idea.
Haha. There are a lot of options out there, but, alas, none of them are easy. Not to plug my book, but one of the main points of Imperfect Union was to identify the gaps left by what the delegates left out, so the options on how to fill them would become clearer.