States have a long upheld history of suing other States.
In general, in taking jurisdiction of these suits, along with those involving boundaries and the diversion or pollution of water resources, the Supreme Court proceeded upon the liberal construction of the term “controversies between two or more States” enunciated in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,1060 and fortified by Chief Justice Marshall’s dictum in Cohens v. Virginia,1061 concerning jurisdiction because of the parties to a case, that “it is entirely unimportant, what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the Courts of the Union.”1062 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/suits-between-two-or-more-states
States have a long upheld history of suing other States.
In general, in taking jurisdiction of these suits, along with those involving boundaries and the diversion or pollution of water resources, the Supreme Court proceeded upon the liberal construction of the term “controversies between two or more States” enunciated in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,1060 and fortified by Chief Justice Marshall’s dictum in Cohens v. Virginia,1061 concerning jurisdiction because of the parties to a case, that “it is entirely unimportant, what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the Courts of the Union.”1062 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/suits-between-two-or-more-states
Right. Except this is re Elector clause, and State elections.
I got you fren, here you go; figured it was a lot easier to read this way, than squished to the rightside of the screen indented.
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlTmdUij/breakdown-of-breitbart-article-o/