Posted on 05/22/2019 10:20:46 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
This won’t hold up in the courts.
This is outrageous usurpation of my vote.
So if 100% of Nevadans vote for Trump it doesn’t matter if 60% of Californians for vote for the Democrats. It’s Bernie /Hillary redux. People wanted Bernie but the electors wanted Hillary.
I don’t think you can rule on it until it takes effect which would be after the 2020 election.
“this is constitutional” rationale is spelled out
**************
I guess the opposite is “show where it is banned”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The U.S. Constitution defines the criteria for federal offices. States cannot add to, or subtract from these criteria.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The Constitution does not establish how Electors may vote as a criteria. Rather, parties nominate persons whom they trust. Of course, from time to time, we wind up with “faithless electors,” but no contest has ever been affected by them.
Obviously, if Nevada appoints Republican electors subsequent to the Republicans winning the popular vote of that state, those electors could vote their conscious and undermine the unconstitutional state law.
Alternately, the legislature of Nevada could appoint electors based on the party that wins the nationwide popular vote. To me, this means that if the nationwide popular vote isn’t certified - and who does that? - the state of Nevada cannot appoint any electors. Does the Nevada Secretary of State certify the nationwide popular vote? I doubt it. Furthermore, such an appointment, contrary to the in-state vote, would seem to be a violation of the right to vote. That is, the majority within the state would be disenfranchised by voters outside the state.
In any judicial determination of an election the outcome of which hinged on the difference between the national popular vote, and the electoral college, it would seem to me that the possibility of amending the Constitution would be informative. Why didn’t those seeking to shift to the nationwide popular vote change the Constitution? The obvious reason is that they couldn’t.
Therefore, an end run around the Constitution would seem unfair to the states that joined into the Constitution based on their powers, and the checks and balances within the Constitution. A mere majority of the voters should not be enough to upset the Constitutional order.
Finally, I will note that until 10 PM on election night, 2016, Democrats loved the electoral college. They thought they had an impregnable “blue wall.” Then, the irresistible force met the immovable object, and we know what happened.
Thank you for posting that link to the legal opinion.
This must be how the USA of ‘Idiocracy’ elected the gangster president.
All the progs know is how to subvert and destroy.
Democrat Thug Party invalidating the vote.
Vile scum.
It is a very bad idea but I doubt it is unconstitutional.
**************
You maybe correct. People need to read the 12th Amendment.
The states receive votes based upon US Congressional members
but I don’t see anywhere that it specifies how each state shall vote.
I believe that is left up to each state.
It will be an interesting discussion and legal process if it
gets that far along.
Lets say Trump wins Nevada and yet if he loses the popular vote those Electoral College votes are awarded to whoever.
Now the Electors regardless could still vote for Trump and I guess that will set up a huge Legal Challenge. Precedent though would be on the side of the Electoral College and the Electors I would think. Probably would set up a huge USSC case and ruling.
This certainly is not in the spirit of the Constitution and what the founders intention was.
I’m going to laugh my ass off when Trump wins the pop vote.
The Constitution only specifies how many electors a state is allocated, it does not say how the states are supposed to select them. States can select their electors any way they choose.
The states receive votes based upon US Congressional members
______________________
This why there is such a fierce fight over the 2020 Census. From what I can tell, it is entirely possible several currently Blue states will lose Congressional seats, while a few Red States will gain, thus changing the balance of power.
We are witnessing the end of the Republic, folks.
I can’t help wondering if:
THE VOTERS OF THESE MISGUIDED STATES ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEIR LEADERS ARE DOING.
Their votes will all be added to Los Angeles and New York City, regardless of how they vote.
Strange, considering how much value they place on their precious votes.
Bookmark
Could the Supreme Court rule on a case forthcoming from this, that by forcing electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, it violates the intent of the Constitution??
I think electors do vote the way of the popular vote of their State.
But the national popular vote, I don’t think SCOTUS will buy it.
Trump won’t win the blue states because they will have the illegals voting twice and even three times. At least the EC helps prevent some fraud.
This certainly is not in the spirit of the Constitution and what the
founders intention was.
*********
Things change for sure. Back in the day Women and other ethnic
groups couldn’t vote. Things change and that will continue whether
for good or bad.
Speaking of Ginsberg, anyone seen or heard a peep out of her coffin?
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.