Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

WASHINGTON — The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision in the "faithless elector" case was a defeat for advocates of changing the Electoral College, who hoped a win would force a shift in the method of electing presidents toward a nationwide popular vote. But it was a win for state election officials who feared that empowering rogue electors would cause chaos.

The November general election is not actually a direct vote for the presidential candidates. Voters instead choose a slate of electors appointed in their states by the political parties. Those electors meet in December to cast their ballots, which are counted during a joint session of Congress in January.

The Constitution is set in stone on this issue.

The Founding Fathers were very adamant that the Constitution is not set in stone but intentionally called it a “Living Document”. Meaning the Founding Fathers knew that there would be circumstances they could not foresee and therefore knew the Constitution must be allowed to be altered when necessary. Otherwise you wouldn’t have any Bill of Rights. It is something that came up during the ratification of the US Constitution by more than one founding state. At the time, Virginia was one state that even made recommendations on changes they would like to see in the Constitution before ratifying it.

The US Constitution is not “set law” nor is it “set in stone”. It lives and breathes freedom and justice. That being said even the US Constitution tells us that their are certain things beyond its very nature that are “set in stone” and can never be changed. These are the unalienable rights that God gave to man. The authors agreed these were not theirs to give but theirs to be protected in the US Constitution. In other words, the Constitution can and has been changed. Every single word in it can be abrogated except any right and duty that is deemed to be unalienable by the original authors.

“Settled law” is not law “set in stone” it just means that all agree on the interpretation of the law. And even today there is consternation on the interpretation of various parts of the Constitution which was documented and attempted to be explained in the Federalist Papers written by the authors of the Constitution. One could honestly say parts of the US Constitution is not “settled law”. But no where in the Constitution (except maybe unalienable rights, as these were cast in stone long before the Constitution was framed) is its words “set in stone” thus the reason it has become a “living” document. Civics 101 people!

Still, has such interstate compact been ratified by Congress? I think it is Article2 section 4, maybe 8 wherein State are prohibited from entering into compacts etc w/o congressional approval.

WTF? Want me to hold your weiner while you go to the bathroom? Find out yourself if the compact has been ratified by Congress. You can point all day long to the Constitution but until you verify this information yourself you will never be satisfied with any answer anyone gives. Plus you look ignorant by doing so without knowing the answer first. You have the internet because you found your way to FR. So find your way to see if this has been ratified by Congress or not. Yes I know the answer to this question. However, the fact the states have entered into this compact and it has yet to be challenged at the SCOTUS level should tell you something about the current ruling and where that Compact will end up. Put two and two together use your Critical Thinking skills. To quote Tom Hanks use that lump that is five feet above your arse.

Pose this question and then answer it:

Can a state pass a law that their House and Senate representatives may never vote for a tax increase?

If a Representative or Senator is not bound by such a law when they vote in the Article I Congress, then why should an Elector be bound by such a law when voting in the Article II Electoral College?

-PJ

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.