The argument from the constitutional text of the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1) that the North Carolina Supreme Court properly interpreted the United States Constitution
in its decision in Moore v. Harper rejecting the state General Assembly’s congressional map is as follows
-- whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately embraces the “independent state legislature” theory of constitutional interpretation.
The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides that, “[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections . . . shall be prescribed in each State . . . by the Legislature thereof.”
Where, as in North Carolina, the legislature has “prescribed” the “Manner” in which the federal congressional “Elections” shall be “held” to include judicial review of the legislature’s own elections and congressional districting decisions,
“the Legislature [has] prescribed the Manner of holding Elections” to incorporate judicial review of the legislature’s elections and congressional districting decisions -- within both the letter and intendment of the Constitution.
Any eventual conclusion by the Supreme Court of the United States otherwise
would entail an unconstitutional commandeering of the powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Interpreting either the Elections Clause of Article I or the Electors Clause of Article 2 to authorize such commandeering
would offend not only the fundamental structural command of the Tenth Amendment, but also the essential design of the Constitution of the United States.
@adamliptak @NYTnickc @scotusreporter @ruthmarcus @JessBravin @Arianedevogue @jamiegangel @richny @neal_katyal @RosenJeffrey @Prof_Amar @BillKristol @gtconway3d @benjaminwittes @rickhasen @beckerdavid @benberwick @hebwhite @HC_Richardson @SSpeakman @vanessaofica
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
