moore v harper is the hello, thank you for taking my call i will be quick. your guest failed to mention the north carolina the supreme court changed hands a republican got in and that is why it was reversed. on the electoral college she mentioned no republican would ascend to office as president since 1988 only because they have the electoral college. that makes them dictators or strongmen not a president. bush got in losing the popular vote, trump got in by losing 2.8 one million votes and he claimed close to getting it by losing 7 million votes.

moore v harper is the hello, thank you for taking my call i will be quick. your guest failed to mention the north carolina the supreme court changed hands a republican got in and that is why it was reversed. on the electoral college she mentioned no republican would ascend to office as president since 1988 only because they have the electoral college. that makes them dictators or strongmen not a president. bush got in losing the popular vote, trump got in by losing 2.8 one million votes and he claimed close to getting it by losing 7 million votes. host: he did mention that the court changed after that decision. any further thoughts? guest: george bush won the popular vote but the electoral college and popular vote have been mismatched and recent election that has caused debate whether or not we want that kind of system and there is no question, it continues to resonate as a topic of conversation among your viewers. host: this is a law perverted announcer: is ahead tonight on c-span. next a book tv's "after words" and appeals court judge discusses the judicia

moore v harper is the hello, thank you for taking my call i will be quick. your guest failed to mention the north carolina the supreme court changed hands a republican got in and that is why it was reversed. on the electoral college she mentioned no republican would ascend to office as president since 1988 only because they have the electoral college. that makes them dictators or strongmen not a president. bush got in losing the popular vote, trump got in by losing 2.8 one million votes and he claimed close to getting it by losing 7 million votes. host: he did mention that the court changed after that decision. any further thoughts? guest: george bush won the popular vote but the electoral college and popular vote have been mismatched and recent election that has caused debate whether or not we want that kind of system and there is no question, it continues to resonate as a topic of conversation among your viewers. host: this is a law perverted announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are joined by co-authors ja'ron smith, former deputy assistant to

moore v harper is the hello, thank you for taking my call i will be quick.t failed to mention the north carolina the supreme court changed hands a republican got in and that is why it was reversed. on the electoral college she mentioned no republican would ascend to office as president since 1988 only because they have the electoral college. that makes them dictators or strongmen not a president. bush got in losing the popular vote, trump got in by losing 2.8 one million votes and he claimed close to getting it by losing 7 million votes. host: he did mention that the court changed after that decision. any further thoughts? guest: george bush won the popular vote but the electoral college and popular vote have been mismatched and recent election that has caused debate whether or not we want that kind of system and there is no question, it continues to resonate as a topic of conversation among your viewers. host: this is a law perverted server -- law professors sorry, that will do it for this washington journal. stay tuned shortly we will hear from the federal

the university of notre dame law professor talks about the supreme court decision in moore v. harperhere the state ruled -- this is part of a weeklong series examining key 2022-2023 supreme court cases. c-span's "washington journal," joining the conversation live at 7:30 eastern friday morning on c-span, c-span journal," now, ot c-span.org. announcer: a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly informed, our public drives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from the nation's capital, because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: john yoo and john malcolm, vice president for the heritage foundation institute for constitutional government discuss former president donald trump's virtual indictment during a virtual conversation. topics addressed include the strength of the indictment against a former president and whether or not he will prevail. this event was noticed

is he that they write, in moore v. harper two 023 the supreme court recognize a parallel constitutional provision, the elections clause which devise authority for setting the rules of congressional elections between the state legislature and congress was sufficiently federal in nature to justify the high court's review of state court decisions involving these roles, even though it ordinarily has no authority to scrutinize the states court's interpretation of state laws. they write it was trumps constitutional duty to quote take care that the laws be fully -- faithfully executed. he had no power to direct state officials actions but urging them to ensure the integrity of federal elections could fall within the outer bounds of his responsibility. he had no authority to direct the vice presidents discharge of his constitutional duties as senate president, but pleading with the advice president to take certain actions as are complete within the bounds of his authority. presidents do it routinely when the vice president is called

>> you know, nicolle, i would have been more worried if moore v harper, which was the case that cames kind of trying to bolster some of john eastman's walk wackadoo laws. but the court batted it away. the court had no patience for what was a completely fanciful argument about how elections come down based on the constitution. that gives me some sense. and, you know, you mentioned judge luttig. you mentioned larry tribe. will bode and michael stokes paulson are two incredibly prominent conservative law professors who have just come out with this amazing article saying this is a no-brainer. this is the plain text of the 14th amendment provides for this. provides for everything that ron is saying, and that it's self-executing, and there is an amazing line in it that says "this section 3 is enacted by the enactment of the 14th amendment. it's disqualified wherever it is triggered." "just is." that's the language it has. this isn't a crazy idea that john east cooked up that the court batted away. this is a very, very serious bunch of legal scholars using originalism to say this is as oper

is he that they write, in moore v. harper supreme court recognize a parallel constitutional provision, the elections clause which devise authority for setting the rules of congressional elections between the state legislature and congress was sufficiently federal in nature to justify the high court's review of state court decisions involving these roles, even though it ordinarily has no authority to scrutinize the states court's interpretation of state laws. they write it was trumps constitutional duty to quote take care that the laws be fully -- faithfully executed. he had no power to direct state officials actions but urging them to ensure the integrity of federal elections could fall within the outer bounds of his responsibility. he had no authority to direct the vice presidents discharge of his constitutional duties as senate president, but pleading with the advice president to take certain actions as are complete within the bounds of his authority. presidents do it routinely when the vice president is called on to cast a

. >> wwi hear an argument this morning moore v. harper.lections clause requires state legislatures scally to perform the federal function of esibing regulations for federal elections. states lack the authority to restrict the legislators' ntive discretion when performing the federal function. as ale hamilton wrote in federalist 78, the scope of legislative authority is goveedy the commission under which it is exercised. here, that commissiois contained in the united states cotitution, and it is federal law alone that places substantive restrictions on ate's legislatures performing the task assigned them by e federal constitution. the most prominent discussion of the elections clause in the rly republic occurred during massachusetts 1820 constitutional convention. joseph story, en sitting justice on this court explained a oposed constitutional amendment requiring representaveto be elected in districts would violate the elections clause because that clause vested state leures, quote, "with an unlimited discretion in the subject." justice sto