@jerrylevine This was one of the more ridiculous arguments to ever survive 5 seconds of litigation. "This case concerns the claim that the [federal Elections] Clause vests state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal elections free from restrictions imposed under state law." I mean, really? People with actual legal experience, like actual *legal professionals*, seriously argued this utter bollocks and got enough traction to get it up to #SCOTUS?
Well, yes, really. It did happen. You seem surprised by that, which really should be a sign that you don't really understand the argument and why it was so concrete.
In the end it had the support of both the plain text and history of law. That's the reason it was not laughed right out of court, because there was something to it.
