The Independent State Legislature Theory

[Tiberius]

The US Sup Court will rule on a case where they can just allow state legislatures ultimate power over who wins elections. Insanity. It's basically what Trump wanted done so he could stay in power 

 

"A U.S. Supreme Court that embraces this doctrine might open the door to state legislatures changing Electoral College votes during a presidential election without judicial review, Goldstein said. State boards of election or independent redistricting commissions, she said, might be disbanded since they, instead of legislatures, perform election duties.

Efforts such as the North Carolina and Pennsylvania suits are all part of a multifaceted effort to limit voting rights, said Douglas, at the University of Kentucky." 

 

 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/03/18/contentious-fringe-legal-theory-could-reshape-state-election-laws

[ChiGoose]

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. 
 

Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. 
 

Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

“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...

 

 

Doesn't say anything about the people here 

[BillStime]

Funny that the cult won’t touch this thread - as they *know* this is the only way they can “win”

 

Ginni and Clarence gotta go…

[Orlando Buffalo]

On 7/2/2022 at 1:23 PM, ChiGoose said:

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. 
 

Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

Do you literally look for ways to look ignorant? The original constitution was written so that states did not have to allow the average man the right to select the president, only that the state has electoral votes based on size. Until about 1920 the Senate was selected by the State government, not the people at all. I would support an amendment to push that into law but it is definitely not one now.

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Do you literally look for ways to look ignorant? The original constitution was written so that states did not have to allow the average man the right to select the president, only that the state has electoral votes based on size. Until about 1920 the Senate was selected by the State government, not the people at all. I would support an amendment to push that into law but it is definitely not one now.

…That’s not what the independent state legislature doctrine is about.

 

The Constitution states that the states can set the time, place, and manner of federal elections but that the Congress may change the rules through law.

 

So to your point, states could pass laws saying that senators were selected by state legislatures, not through a direct vote of the people. That could be changed through Congressional action or a constitutional amendment (or the state legislature could change it themselves).
 

The US Congress can also set laws that create guardrails for elections and courts could review state laws to ensure they are constitutional. 
 

Under the Independent State Legislature (ISL) Doctrine, states get to set the rules and those rules are not reviewable by the courts. Also, when state law and federal law conflict, it should always be resolved in favor of the state (essentially endorsing nullification).

 

This would allow states to do everything within their power to rig elections in favor of a particular party. The gerrymandered map that the Dems in NY tried to pass was thrown out by the courts. That can’t happen under ISL. In fact, the Dems would be incentivized to see if they could eliminate every GOP district. With no way for courts to challenge redistricting maps for things like compactness, they could draw a map that grabs a heavily blue area in NYC and connects that population to the Southern Tier.

 

The natural endgame for ISL is to create single party states where only the most extreme candidates can win. It would further fracture the country and erode the voice of the people. 

It also has little to no basis in our history and is antithetical to the ideals of our Founding. Any jurist who actually believes in Originalism would reject ISL out of hand. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

…That’s not what the independent state legislature doctrine is about.

 

The Constitution states that the states can set the time, place, and manner of federal elections but that the Congress may change the rules through law.

 

So to your point, states could pass laws saying that senators were selected by state legislatures, not through a direct vote of the people. That could be changed through Congressional action or a constitutional amendment (or the state legislature could change it themselves).
 

The US Congress can also set laws that create guardrails for elections and courts could review state laws to ensure they are constitutional. 
 

Under the Independent State Legislature (ISL) Doctrine, states get to set the rules and those rules are not reviewable by the courts. Also, when state law and federal law conflict, it should always be resolved in favor of the state (essentially endorsing nullification).

 

This would allow states to do everything within their power to rig elections in favor of a particular party. The gerrymandered map that the Dems in NY tried to pass was thrown out by the courts. That can’t happen under ISL. In fact, the Dems would be incentivized to see if they could eliminate every GOP district. With no way for courts to challenge redistricting maps for things like compactness, they could draw a map that grabs a heavily blue area in NYC and connects that population to the Southern Tier.

 

The natural endgame for ISL is to create single party states where only the most extreme candidates can win. It would further fracture the country and erode the voice of the people. 

It also has little to no basis in our history and is antithetical to the ideals of our Founding. Any jurist who actually believes in Originalism would reject ISL out of hand. 

First thing first- 17th amendment states that Senators are direct elected by the voters, States can't change that now. Secondly NY had the map thrown out because it was against their state constitution. Third the state legislature must still follow federal law, so they can do whatever they want within the law. Lastly Pennsylvania last year broke their own constitution to sent out ballots, so unfortunately the SC might have to rule on how these things get resolved.

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

First thing first- 17th amendment states that Senators are direct elected by the voters, States can't change that now. Secondly NY had the map thrown out because it was against their state constitution. Third the state legislature must still follow federal law, so they can do whatever they want within the law. Lastly Pennsylvania last year broke their own constitution to sent out ballots, so unfortunately the SC might have to rule on how these things get resolved.

Right, because we currently don’t live under the Independent State Legislature doctrine. So we have these checks available. 
 

If SCOTUS changes that by adopting the ISL, then that will dramatically change the landscape. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Right, because we currently don’t live under the Independent State Legislature doctrine. So we have these checks available. 
 

If SCOTUS changes that by adopting the ISL, then that will dramatically change the landscape. 

So the independent state legislature means the states supercede the authority of the federal government? If you actually believe the SC as currently built will rule that way you have ZERO understanding of what they think or what they believe. If you are simply arguing that they might rule that individual judges can not overturn entire legislatures without a clear backing in law, than you are correct. These are not similar things though and you seem to be confusing them 

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So the independent state legislature means the states supercede the authority of the federal government? If you actually believe the SC as currently built will rule that way you have ZERO understanding of what they think or what they believe. If you are simply arguing that they might rule that individual judges can not overturn entire legislatures without a clear backing in law, than you are correct. These are not similar things though and you seem to be confusing them 

Yes, under ISL, the states would supersede the federal government and their actions could not be ruled on by state courts. 
 

I am not predicting that SCOTUS will rule in favor of ISL, but I am concerned they might. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have indicated they might support some parts of ISL. The fact that this iteration of the Court granted cert to this case does not give me optimism that they will end up rejecting ISL. 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Yes, under ISL, the states would supersede the federal government and their actions could not be ruled on by state courts. 
 

I am not predicting that SCOTUS will rule in favor of ISL, but I am concerned they might. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have indicated they might support some parts of ISL. The fact that this iteration of the Court granted cert to this case does not give me optimism that they will end up rejecting ISL. 

 

You know we had a war to decide the whole whose laws take precedence? This court is simple to determine what direction they will take, does the constitution actually say anything about it? If yes we will stand by it. Your conflating state courts vs the legislators is a completely different discussion and one that is not clearly spell out in the US constitution since it is a state level concern. 

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[SectionC3]

On 7/2/2022 at 1:23 PM, ChiGoose said:

But there’s no way this Originalist SCOTUS would go for this since it has no basis on the history of the US, has only existed for like 20 years, and is antithetical to the vision of the founders. 
 

Unless, of course, Originalism is just bunk and a way of picking the conclusion you want and making up a reason after…

I wonder how the originalists like their muskets. 

[Roundybout]

Big win for democracy today! 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I wonder how the originalists like their muskets. 

Wonder how originalist like quill pens, cursive and delivery by horse..

 

 

[SectionC3]

48 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Wonder how originalist like quill pens, cursive and delivery by horse..

 

 

None of those things is covered by the second amendment.  If you’d like to play the originalist game, and you support the second amendment, then maybe you better get ready to give up your semi-automatic pistols and AR-15s.  Those devices, under an extreme originalist theory, can’t be protected by the 2A because they didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was ratified. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

dagger to the heart of MAGA...which three justices dissented?  Alito and Thomas the grifters, I'll bet were among them.

[Roundybout]

10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

dagger to the heart of MAGA...which three justices dissented?  Alito and Thomas the grifters, I'll bet were among them.

Gorsuch dissented too. 
 

It should be distinctly understood that NONE of the dissenters enforced the ISL theory. 
 

Thomas and Gorsuch think the case is moot and disagree with the majority opinion’s logic. They believe there is some possible limiting principle but are very vague on this. 
 

Alito simply thinks the case is moot. 
 

All of them reject ISL. 

[Tiberius]

Do districts have to be redrawn now in NC or other states? 

 

Gerrymandering is the ONLY thing allowing the GOP the ability to control the House. This is a left leaning country

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Get ready for more culture war bs as the losers lick their wounds...

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Do districts have to be redrawn now in NC or other states? 

 

Gerrymandering is the ONLY thing allowing the GOP the ability to control the House. This is a left leaning country

I'm confident this is the next attempted step.