Read on Twitter
Allowing a coalition of other states to govern you in direct contravention of the constitution, their own laws, and the metapolitical arrangements that underlie the entire American system, is the opposite of federalism. (Contd) https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1337161099104423937
If Joe Biden is installed as president, what it means is that any urban machine that can brrrrrr ballots fast enough has the ability to rule their state, and by extrapolation the country, by fiat.
Federalism requires a genuine consensus for national governing arrangements, not some asshole with a kinkos. If there was a national understanding that corrupt urban areas would print infinity D ballots, we would have made other arrangements.
But most of those "other arrangements" are, surprise, forbidden by the supreme court! Reynolds v Simms usurped the power of the states to configure their *own legislatures*, which is a far more plenipotentiary power than the right of states to choose a president to govern others.
If we allow milwaukee, fulton county, etc to decide they can print infinite ballots on election day, I guess we have to allow Bowman ND to say it has a population of 100M at census time - or come up with more robust political arrangements.
I would say that the Guarantee Clause is a more robust basis to argue against these states' actions - they have unconditionally transitioned from a "republican form of government" to illegal urban machine governance. But that ship sailed (also thanks to existing SC precedent)
