2. Legally, the decision is...debatable, but an ordinary reading of the plain language of Article II & the Court's prior precedents all pointed in the direction of giving the state legislatures control over the electors.
-
-
Certainly not unchecked. As the opinion's footnotes stated, the states may not place restrictions on how the electors vote that would violate other provisions of the Constitution; eg. adding requirements for Presidential candidates. Like revealing their tax returns.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Doesn't Kagan's footnote 4 silently cite Bush v. Gore?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This passage, referencing the Eq Prot Clause, arguably echoes the majority holding in Bush v. Gore. Most of the opinion, relying on Art 2, echoes (as you point out), the “conservative concurrence” in Bush, which was the better argument.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.