Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes: > At 10:13 PM 5/15/2006, Bob Richard wrote: > >I will go one step further than Steve Eppley does below, and predict > >that the Supreme Court would rule this particular compact > >unconsititutional in spite of the very learned arguments presented at > >www.every-vote-equal.com. I think the current court would rule that, > >although interstate compacts can be used for many things, they cannot be > >used to alter the structure of government as established in the > >Constitution. I'm not sure I believe this argument myself. > > Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, I would have thought that > the Court was above making blatant result-oriented decisions about > political process. > > But I learned, in late 2000, that it could. So I can't say that Mr. > Richard is wrong. > > However, it would be even more blatant, and "more blatant" could end > up getting some Justices impeached.
Rational arguments over the merits of any particular reform are a lot easier to analyze when divorced from political rants and other "religious" topics. Would it be unreasonable for posters to do that rather than expecting readers to do it -- or, more likely, understand that readers might ignore the politically ranty post wholesale? Michael Poole ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
