Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (18) |
Author: Steve203 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84346 
Subject: Re: What impact would the so called SAVE act have?
Date: 08/01/26 9:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 8
The key question is whether the Supreme Court will somehow find a way to twist itself into a pretzel, allowing the federal government to dictate to the states the manner in which elections are conducted, in direct contradiction with the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 4:

Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators"

There it is. Federal supremacy wrt the running of elections. If Congress requires proof of citizenship, or only voting in person, on election day, that is the law of the land.

Chew on this one. Electors for POTUS are to be selected by state legislatures, not "we the people".

From the net sifter:

No law requires a public vote to choose presidential electors. Under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have the exclusive power to decide how to appoint their state's electors. A state legislature could theoretically choose electors itself without holding a popular vote.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So, if a state legislature decides to cut "we the people" out of voting for POTUS, it can. Say the POTUS is staggeringly unpopular: his policies zuk, he is epically corrupt, a state can change it's procedure so that the electors are selected by the bought weasels of the legislature, rather than "we the people". And, with literally, Billions in bribe money floating around, combined with party control of it's members,it would be a slam dunk. Currently, states with GOP control of both houses of it's legislator, control 295 electoral votes.

As has been observed before, we are seeing, for ourselves, how much the US system of governance has depended on the willing good behavior of the participants.

Steve

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Steve203 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (18) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community