Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-Trump Forces Planning 'All Out' Legal Assault on Electoral College (lawsuits in 29 states)
Law News.com ^ | | 8:38 am, November 30th, 2016 | Rachel Stockman

Posted on 11/30/2016 9:50:35 AM PST by drewh

Anti-Trump forces are apparently planning an all out legal assault on the Electoral College in a last ditch effort to keep Donald Trump from taking office in the White House. The plan? To file legal action in all 29 states which have laws that prohibit electors from “voting their conscience.” In other words, laws that prevent electors from going against the state’s popular vote.

The inside scoop on what is being planned:

Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.

They’d still have to get 37 Republican electors to turn against Trump to have an impact on the election outcome. That’s going to be a tough task especially because there have been few reports that Republican electors are willing to abandon their party to vote against Trump. Sources said they will also have a coalition of lawyers that will be ready to defend (for free) anyone who votes in opposition to their party’s candidate when then the Electoral College meets on December 19.

Last week, Lawrence Lessig, a well-known professor of law at Harvard University and a political activist, penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post encouraging electors to cast their votes for Clinton despite Trump winning more votes in the Electoral College. His theory is that, while it has never been tested like this, the Electoral College is a “safety valve” that is intended “to confirm — or not — the people’s choice.

Other legal scholars believe that if the Electoral College abandons Trump, it may go against the rule of law. “Turning the electors into mighty platonic guardians doesn’t seem to be the right way to go,” UC Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen wrote in a Friday blog post.

“So yes, I’d love to get rid of the Electoral College,” he wrote. “But not ignore it in an election where everyone agreed it was the set of rules to use.” LawNewz.com will follow this legal effort closely, and update you on this website.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016electoralcollege; 2016electors; antitrump; democrats; election; electoralcollege; lawsuits; moonbats; sorelosers; trump; trumptransition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-223 next last
To: HarleyLady27

ISAIAH 41:11-13
11”Behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonored; Those who contend with you will be as nothing and will perish.

12”You will seek those who quarrel with you, but will not find them, Those who war with you will be as nothing and non-existent.

13”For I am the LORD your God, who upholds your right hand, Who says to you, ‘Do not fear, I will help you.’…


41 posted on 11/30/2016 10:04:30 AM PST by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I’m going to have to stop looking at FR until after the Inauguration.

Every day there are stories posted like this one that make me more and more nervous.


42 posted on 11/30/2016 10:04:50 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia (Democrats: The perfect party for the helpless and stupid, and those who would rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

uhh.....it’s in the CONSTITUTION!!

What exactly is their basis for filing suit?
That the Constitution is Unconstituional?


43 posted on 11/30/2016 10:04:56 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

“Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.”

So, when did liberals become enamored of the concept of “original intent”. I thought liberals believed in the “living constitution”.


44 posted on 11/30/2016 10:05:36 AM PST by DugwayDuke ("A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyLady27

Amen!


45 posted on 11/30/2016 10:05:36 AM PST by Biggirl ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Ephesians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stars & stripes forever

Thank You....


46 posted on 11/30/2016 10:06:16 AM PST by HarleyLady27 ('THE FORCE AWAKENS!!!' Trump/Pence: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
It’s time to water the damn tree....

I hear ya! I used to laugh at their stupidity, and pray for their salvation, but now they are interfering in mine and our kids future of Freedom!

47 posted on 11/30/2016 10:06:27 AM PST by wright2bear (#NeverTrump is a mental disorder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drewh

The question here is not to what extent will the left go to undermine the Constitution, but how far can those who still believe in the Constitution and the rule of law be pushed?


48 posted on 11/30/2016 10:06:31 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s ("If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh
Are we about to learn the real reason for Scalia's death?

Was Hillary wins the Presidency Plan A?

Was it just an insurance policy that would only be needed if it became necessary to execute Plan B?


49 posted on 11/30/2016 10:06:47 AM PST by InterceptPoint (Ted, you finally endorsed. About time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Congress and the states simply will not amend the Electoral College out of existence. It’s a complete non-starter. And I would say the same about any attempt to modify how it works. It would have to be a constitutional amendment. No way it would make it through the process. The state governments are 3 out of 5 Republican-controlled. And most states realize they have a vested interest in the status quo.


50 posted on 11/30/2016 10:06:51 AM PST by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh
Even if they succeed, it won't have any effect on the current results. I'm pretty certain the Constitution prohibits anything like a Bill of Attainder or laws with a retroactive application. Moreover, it's pretty obvious than none of these idiots has ever really passed a basic American History course. Certainly, they'd flunk in my class. All my 8th graders understood the necessity for the college on November 9th. That's because I carefully took the extra time to re-explain the concepts.
51 posted on 11/30/2016 10:07:01 AM PST by ExSoldier ("Terrorists: They hate you yesterday, today, and tomorrow. End it, no more tomorrows for them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

These thugs want to remove the law which in reality protects both the voters and the electors from criminal intimidation. So then why should these thugs be protected by law?


52 posted on 11/30/2016 10:07:11 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
When this country was founded there was no consistent method for choosing electors. Some of them were elected, some were appointed by state legislatures, etc. Also, let's remember that the Constitution seems to be written in a way that suggests the founders expected most presidents to be elected in the special election in Congress, not in the initial Electoral College vote.

With all this in mind, it's hard to tell what the founders would think of what we have today.

At least now, if the candidate decides to murder his entire family on live TV after being elected, we have a way for to get avoid putting him in office.

This has nothing to do with the electoral vote. He would be subject to criminal prosecution under the laws of the state where this occurred.

53 posted on 11/30/2016 10:07:18 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: drewh

You really can not fix stupid.


54 posted on 11/30/2016 10:07:36 AM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveA37
Anyone have any .280 Remington cases they want to part with?

The Apache gunships won't have any problem chewing you up with their M230 regardless of caliber you're firing. Especially since you won't even see them.
55 posted on 11/30/2016 10:07:41 AM PST by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: drewh

The issue is never the issue. The issue is the Revolution.


56 posted on 11/30/2016 10:07:56 AM PST by PLMerite (Lord, let me die fighting lions. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

The feds have no legal authority over the states’ management of their own electors.

At least that’s the way I see it.


57 posted on 11/30/2016 10:08:35 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s ("If you can remember the 60s........you weren't really there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

>>SCOTUS already upheld laws that bind electors.

Laws?

It is for our benefit that the brainworks of the farm eat all the apples, drink all the milk/whiskey, and sleep in beds, WIF SHEETS!

{ que progressive national anthem }

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-O_(The_Banana_Boat_Song)


58 posted on 11/30/2016 10:09:04 AM PST by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: drewh

THey really want a Revolution II don’t they! Amazing how far they’ll go to destroy America!


59 posted on 11/30/2016 10:09:05 AM PST by Harpotoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republic_Of_Maine
It takes at the very least three amendments to the Constitution. Cannot be done by legislation.

Shhh...don't tell them, it'll keep them out of trouble.

60 posted on 11/30/2016 10:09:05 AM PST by Night Hides Not (Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! Remember Gonzales! Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-223 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson