Wow, lots of great feedback and perspectives. I only have a few minutes before getting on a plane, but I’ll try to get back later to respond to as many as I can.

Ignominious @ 38,
What prevents the courts from mucking up the “interstate compact” process through their usual ultra-elastic “living document” methods of interpreting the Constitution? Just look at what they’ve done with the Commerce Clause.

So, in the extreme, the SCOTUS could strike down a compact as unconstitutional. However, let’s assume for a minute that the IC gets ratified by Congress. A SCOTUS ruling would be a frontal assault on Congress. It is very clear that Congress has the authority to approve ICs, and when they do they become federal law. To strike them down would require a clear constitutional violation to support it. Penumbras will not suffice. Keep in mind that much of Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been built upon a foundation of deference to Congress and its supremacy. The SCOTUS would have to do a complete about-face to overturn a ratified IC.

But, look, at the end of the day we’re talking about a political initiative. If there is sufficient political stroke, the courts will not stand in the way forever. For a while, maybe. But ultimately, as the saying goes, Supreme Court justices do read election returns.

This strategy hinges upon the people working to compel behavior from their state government, and then organizing state governments to collaborate in the form of an IC. The reason I find it intriguing is that state politics is a much lighter lift than fighting in multi-gazillion dollar federal races. The missing link for me has always been how to get states to force Congress to act. ICs represent such a path. Maybe not the only one, but a real opportunity.

Cheers,
L3