Posted on 12/11/2016 11:34:54 AM PST by ColdOne
A Democratic presidential elector from California has filed suit in support of an effort to block Donald Trump’s path to the presidency, the second such lawsuit filed in recent days.
Vinz Koller, chairman of the Monterey County Democratic Party, has become the 10th presidential elector – joining eight other Democrats and one Republican – to lend support to the anti-Trump effort. His lawsuit, filed Friday, seeks to overturn a California statute that requires him and the state’s 54 other members of the Electoral College to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton when they vote on Dec. 19. A similar lawsuit was filed earlier this week in Colorado by two Democratic electors, Robert Nemanich and Polly Baca.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
They are trying to break states’ legal control over their electors. If they prevail then Trump electors in other states could be freed up (potentially).
- 2012 electors are sitting around muttering, “Well hell, if I had known then that it was this easy to overthrow an election!”
Okay so he won’t vote for Trump.
The bulk of Hillary’s biggest margins in California are in Los Angeles county. I think we all know what that means.
Maybe we need to do some recounting there.
They tend to forget this is the United States of America.
The founding fathers wanted to ensure the States retained some control over their destiny, as a counter-balance to the feds overreach. Break state's legal control over their electors, and you break the United States into something else, and that something will be ugly. Little by little, the state's power over their own control is whittled away, further lessening the freedoms that Americans enjoy (or used to enjoy).
Symbolism over substance. Whatever.
If they win, it frees up electors from Trump states to break state laws and vote for someone else.
Pssst. The Dem electors don’t count.
So you have one retarded a-hole Republucan who should never work again in the party. Big deal. Trump wins by 35 instead of 36.
Sure, they'd like to embolden enough Republican electors to desert Trump, but I don't think anyone seriously expects 38 or so GOP electors to jump ship.
and they would be correct.
Pick your electors at your peril.
Any laws seeking to mandate who they vote for would not be Constitutional.
It is, after all, an electoral body.
I’m not sure why they are going to court. I’m sure Soros would pay each elector’s fines and give them each a million dollars for their traitor vote.
Then the thought came out in class which reflects what is happening right now in society. Evil people reject God's Word and the principles found there. So, when events, leadership and decisions don't go their way, evil people panic, have intense anxiety and react in violent, destructive ways. Instead of waiting patiently on people to see the need for God and for Him to act, they have emotional breakdowns requiring "safe places", telephone hotlines and counseling to try and cope.
Some don't adjust and are escalating events to the point of conflict because with no higher power in whom to trust, their world has fallen apart. They are ready to resort to violence. They also accuse the God-fearing people falsely of wanting to do to them what they want to do to us. God help us all.
Aren’t these ‘RAT electors required to vote for the Beast from Planet Clintoonie anyway? What’s this snowflake’s gripe?
I’m going to laugh my ass off if they get their way and Hillary winds up in 3rd in the EV to Trump’s win.
Ray v. Blair (1952) allows the states to present voters with ballots that list only the presidential candidates (even though the votes for a candidate are really for his party’s slate of electors), and also permits the states to pass laws requiring electors to pledge that, if chosen, they will vote for their party’s candidate. Electors rarely do otherwise, though the enforceability of those pledges against a wayward elector remains unsettled.
Because the above ballot and pledge requirements were directed by state legislatures, they came within those legislatures’ federal constitutional power to direct the manner of selecting presidential electors. Although the Framers appear not to have considered whether this state legislative power could be constricted by state constitutions, subsequent cases adjudicating the question held that it could not because the federal Constitution’s text vests this authority directly in the state legislatures rather than in the states. Indeed, notwithstanding the fact that what a state legislature “is” might reasonably be thought to be determined by state constitutional procedures, McPherson v. Blacker (1892) stated that state legislatures need not (though they usually did) even follow normal state constitutional procedural requirements that legislatures vote bicamerally or present their decisions to the executive for possible veto.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/79/presidential-electors
No. The winning candidate has to have a majority of the electoral votes certified in the election. Assuming all 538 EVs are certified, this means the winner has to get 270 or else it goes to the House ... and the House can select any of the top three candidates who got at least 1 electoral vote.
The Constitution plainly says that the States select (and therefore control) the electors.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time a federal court (or SCOTUS) has ruled that what's actually in the Constitution, isn't.
Mark
He’s already voting for Hillary since CA went to her.
And his issue is? (Beyond looking for attention)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.