5. The 1790 Residence Act drives home two critical points about the constitutional debate: First, the *location* of the "seat of government" was entirely at Congress's discretion. Second, as long as the seat of government was no *larger* than 10 square miles, its size was, too.
It specifically says that "the District" shall appoint them (in such manner as the Congress may direct). The plain language, as understood in 1960 (when all states had chosen electors by popular vote for a century), would seem rather clearly to mean the voters of the District.
-
-
But if there are no voters *left* in the "District constituting the seat of Government," it's hard to think Congress would lack the power under Section 2 to otherwise provide for the appointment of electors (subject to other constitutional constraints).
-
Exactly.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So if the country were to return to 1789 standards of how electors were appointed, it would be unconstitutional for DC’s appointment process to follow suit? That seems wrong to me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t think, and more importantly the Supreme Court doesn’t think, that states are restricted that way here. This language simply parallels the broad const’l language about states allocating electoral votes. Put another way, if there is a limit here, it’s not from the text.
-
I'd be interested in seeing your long-form argument, but I remain skeptical that there is any way to get to having the District's electors chosen by people entirely outside the District without violence to the language and the history of the 23A.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.