Posted on 12/05/2008 6:33:15 AM PST by maineman
I thought we should have a link to post any and all updates.
I am very worried that the SCOTUS will ignore the Constitution right now, and i needed some levity...hee hee
Also, the SCOTUS upheld the state laws. From the link in post 294.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.
Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.
WGN news at noon is running a story coming up toward the end of the hour
I really don’t care who is President at this point. I just want the truth and for our Constitution to be upheld so whomever is President they qualify to hold the office!
Because according to state laws, the party that wins the popular statewide vote gets to seat their electors in the Electoral college. Now it has happened where both parties attempted to seat their electors in the electoral college and states returned conflicting results. That led to the Compromise of 1877 (google it, interesting story).
**PHOTOS AT SCOTUS
###
Obama Birth Certificate Protest at SCOTUS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2143540/posts
Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State’s popular vote?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called “faithless electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.
Yes. Deport the illegal alien.
Joe Biden was nominated by the Democratic Party to be on the ticket, and this is the direction that the Electors will be certain to take in an event of Obambi’s ineligibility, deferring to the expressed intent of the popular vote.
There is zero chance for McCain to emerge as the President in any scenario here. I know pie-in-the-sky is awful tasty, but please, go on a diet.
Just how the MSM likes it. My only question is ...how are they going to pin this on Pubbies when it's their own party doing it?
If the SCOTUS fails to uphold the Rule of Law and the Constitution, then I guess we are lawlessness and anarchy rules, correct?
***Correct. But Trumandogz the troll doesn’t agree, so let’s find out why.
Can you explain how that would provide a basis to dismiss? Congress has not legislated anything that would help Obama.
Bless those Patriots demonstrating at The Supreme Court - they are standing up for ALL of US and The Constitution!
last nites show is on now. 6-8 cst Pastor Manning will be on, 8-10 Leo Donofrio is on with Ed Hale.
Well the legalese question is, is illegal to [i]run[/i] or is it illegal to [i]serve[/i]?
The Obama lawyers asked that the request be irrelevant based on the case being dismissed on grounds of standing issues ... as in ‘since Berg has no standing to demand the documents, the affirmative action candidate should not be required to produce the documents.’
Not necessarily. The electors have not yet voted, and they are electors for an ineligible candidate, put forth through a massive fraudulent facade perpetrated by the DNC and the left-wing media.
The Constitution places no favor on political parties, and the SCOTUS is not supposed to either.
The SCOTUS has a variety of options, if they choose to stop this fraud.
I do get the idea of the electors voting for who they pledge for, but there are 2 sets of electors in each state. 1 set (same amount of people) for democrat and 1 for republic. Now if the democrat wins the vote by fraudulent means, wouldn’t there have to be an exception to this rule of that ticket voting? I would think so!
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.