dayman

Care to elaborate on how that post makes you think I hate state cultures?

lol B-Man producing a stupid article on cue. If you think the citizens of Virginia would honestly think it would comply with basic fairness principles that in their state last year if Obama could win the majority of votes and come away a big electoral loser to Romney as a result of a structure put in place by a Republican legislature, then you can't imagine a Virginian thinking in nonpartisan terms. Whatever party you are, there has to be at least some legitimacy to our elections (something the Governor probably thought about before publicly saying he doesn't support this)...and it's already somewhat low for a variety of reasons to people on either side of the political spectrum. Certainly a national popular vote intuitive carries more legitimacy than that plan....and some would argue even more so than the current system although we need not discuss that as I'm not entirely convinced I've heard some good arguments for both...

Sounds like something that would violate most state constitutions and something SCOTUS would probably find a way to overrule on a federal level if it was argued right. In any event, I know the difference between not hating the federal government and loving it is hard to see for some, but I assure you I do not love the federal government. In any event, am I to assume you would favor this legislation? Sort of seems like admitting the GOP can't win the popular vote ... ever again. I agree that it works well enough as is....but to suggest a national popular vote is a worse idea than just splitting the electoral vote in states where GOP controls the legislature and Dems can win, while not doing it in places like Texas...well...clearly this is a worse idea.

Seems some in Virginia want to push for this...although it appears the governor and others are against it. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/politics/electoral-college/?hpt=po_c1 Washington (CNN) -- If at first you don't succeed, try to change the rules. A proposal under consideration in Virginia's Republican-led state Legislature would change how the commonwealth allocates its 13 electoral votes in the wake of Democratic President Barack Obama's re-election last November. Obama won the popular vote in the crucial battleground state to claim all 13 electoral votes, even though GOP challenger Mitt Romney beat him in seven of the 11 congressional districts. Under the proposed alternative system, electoral votes would get divvied up by congressional districts won. In addition, Virginia's two other electoral votes -- one for each U.S. Senate seat -- would go to the candidate who won the most congressional districts. If the district-based system had been in effect in Virginia last year, Romney would have gotten nine electoral votes to four for Obama. .... Overall in Virginia, Obama got 51% of the total vote -- more than 1.97 million -- compared to Romney's 1.82 million for 47% of the total. .... "It seems to me we ought to be focused on connecting with voters and bringing them into our party versus trying to change the game," Curry said. .... "I think it is a state issue, but personally I'm pretty intrigued by it," [Priebus] told reporters Friday. ..... Other GOP-controlled state legislatures reportedly contemplating changes to their electoral vote allocation include Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

I'm well aware of what you were referring to I just chose not to answer your obvious question directly. If you read my post, you will see that the logic I identified as a possible maneuver is that which has been used in that instance

I figured you had a guard cow

At the very least you can't really openly say you will not enforce a law unless you have or plan to in the near future have a public policy position against it. So while you can, in practice, not do anything about something and take the position that it's in your discretion to allocate limited resources...it would be tough to publicly guarantee a state you will NEVER enforce a law that you have no official policy position against. **although...if the polls are to be believed and there is in fact GOP support for not doing anything...then in reality you could just tell them you aren't going to do anything...but it would be a little crazy

Well if they go after it, supremacy trumps santa. I doubt they will though...but that is far from clear...hard line legal guys in the DOJ probably say they aught to b/c it really is kind of crazy to not enforce schedule 1 drug prohibition when violation is happening on a large commercial scale in a state that is collecting taxes and sanctioning it. But at the same time, there likely are some voices that understand the way things are going, the mood of the country, and feel "resources could be better spent elsewhere." In all likelihood they probably just hope they can avoid publicly saying they won't do anything, while at the same time not doing anything, and then soon Congress acts so they don't have to deal with it. But we'll see...

hehe, a very Sarah Palinish way to cap off that conversation

Still...if you can avoid it by not telling someone to come meet your for a fight...probably worth it

Hence you have the choice of understanding how important cooperation is and at some times restraint when things don't go well...behaving as a statesman or even just an adult...or you have the choice of being Mississippi

Well Jeb may not see it exactly that way...Bob Dole may have a thing or two to say as well...

Well he made a thread a while back that told everybody who he is and where he lives so ... you don't want some crazy showing up at the door

Well...they are appointed by the one person who the entire nation votes on and while not likely to happen you can impeach them. I wouldn't be initially opposed to giving them terms of say...15 years and with lifetime pay though...but that's a whole different debate. The bottom line though is there is no getting around the fact that everybody can't just interpret the law as they see it...if we are a nation of law there most be one body that ultimately says what it is not many bodies saying what it is...

I would say there is validity to this point and it was well stated. For the most part there is an understanding here, and part of that includes that the intensity/rivalry that inherently develops be considered in context outside of this terrible place..while within the walls it's another story

The most famous line in American judicial history is from that case where he says it is their role to "say what the law is" b/c if you are to apply it to a set of facts, you must be able to The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they say what it is. Perhaps you do not like the court doing this and would prefer Jefferson's argument? That he should say? Which would of course give Obama the power to say...and the NLRB issues would be long over...

Ya they look like their regular chums

If I recall correctly you are/were recently in law school ... so believe you know well and how SCOTUS came about having that power ... a power they've had for ages

just thought I would point this out in case someone didn't remember/know and feels the need to flip over or avoid the channel...

Na, my opinion is that whatever the wisdom of the decision, it means what it means. The administrations position seems to be, we'll claim it only applies to this case to keep running the board until another decision comes. When that happens, they won't have a position to take other than the decision. 3rd brought it up in comparison to Mississippi just deciding not to adhere to federal law. It be similar if they ignored federal law they didn't like while/before it was being litigated/appealed...but once it reaches SCOTUS or is denied further review to continue ignoring it would be different than that example.

While an interesting post, it's hard to look at the last GOP primary and be convinced. I mean you can say that a theoretical party has always been against X so they haven't moved on that issue, but if they were against X expanding and trying to shrink it a bit before and now they're making X their number 1 issue and trying to completely destroy it...then they moved on X. BTW X here wasn't meant to represent any real issue so don't read into it...

lol that's not going to work out if they get another unfavorable ruling en banc and certainly not a SCOTUS order...and either way as per this moment they're done with authority over the Noel issue

In a few cases SCOTUS disagrees with itself..but this wouldn't be one of them. Mississippi is part of the republic and represented, then can participate as other states do by voting and debating and furthering their point of view and casting their states electoral votes for executive branch candidates etc etc....in the end if they lose the argument/election/debate and something is passed that negatively effects them that they think is not constitutional they can take it to the courts and ultimately as high as SCOTUS where it will be decided one way or the other and then that is the end of it. There is no next step in our Republic where they grant themselves the power to interpret the constitution as they see fit and go rouge picking and choosing federal law they like and dislike.

Well, SCOTUS would disagree.

They don't need a law to state the obvious though. This law does not state the obvious, it declares that they will decide what federal actions are within the constitution themselves and act accordingly. That's the issue...