As I set out in a mail to you, the Constitution empowers state legislatures to prescribe the manner in which electors are chosen so that a state legislature can prescribe that electors must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution including assuring that candidates meet constitutional requirements and the manner in which they can obtain the assurances that the candidate does in fact meet the qualifications.
Do you think that the requirements at the state level have to involve the electors personally in order to be Constitutional, or do you think the state can also determine which names can be on the ballot for prospective electors to vote for in the electoral vote?
Are you suggesting that dealing with the electors themselves is the best way to deal with this Constitutionally, or the only way, or something else?
I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
I’m looking at the Constitution and seeing that the only thing in there about the states’ role in the Presidential/VP election is this, in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature therof 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 of Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Would it be necessary, then, to Constitutionally justify any legislation regarding Presidential/VP elections by clearly saying how the law implements the “appointment” of electors?
And if so, the law would need to specifically say that the law requires electors to swear to uphold the Constitution by only voting for eligible candidates, as determined through a specific process.... (and then the law describes the process for determining eligibility)?
Am I understanding where you’re coming from on this? Are the electors the necessary connection between the state legislature and the Constitution?