Posted on 11/27/2016 8:19:08 AM PST by DaveinOK54
`While we still believe it is unlikely that this issue will need to be resolved by Congress, and note that all the parties involved have expressed concern about meeting deadlines to prevent a default of Florida's electoral votes, we nevertheless believe that it is important-if only for the sake of argument-to clarify: it takes 270 electoral votes to be elected President by the electoral college. A simple majority of electoral votes from states other than Florida is not sufficient.'
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
`We find four arguments particularly persuasive:
•Textual Analysis and the Framers' Intent - The Constitutional Convention considered and rejected (on September 5, 1787) language that would have allowed a simple majority of those voting to elect the President. The Convention then chose to amend the language of Article II to use the words "a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed" to emphasize that an absolute majority of possible electors was necessary. In the same section of the Constitution, the appointment of electors by each state was made mandatory, whether or not the electors actually voted.
Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), which remains one of the foremost authorities on the Constitution, supports this conclusion: "The number of electors is equal to the number of senators and representatives of each state . . . . The person, having a majority of the whole number of votes, is to be president."
•Federal Statute Law - The provision of the United States Code (3 U.S.C. § 3) governing presidential selection makes the point clear, providing that "the number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled."
•Historical Practice - No president, even during the Civil War, has ever been elected by the Electoral College with less than an absolute majority of the whole number of possible electors.
•Common Sense - Mainstream popular and academic opinion outside of the Washington beltway, based on longstanding tradition and widespread acceptance, regards the correct number to be a majority of all the states' votes.
________________________________________
This is old, but I find this relevant to our current situation.
It appears to me that ONE of the efforts in this recount is to deny a sufficient number of Electors for a Trump outright win and throw it to Congress. I don't believe this will work as I believe both Houses and Governorships of the states now targeted, are in the hands of Republicans. If the recounts go past December 13th, the Legislators and or Governors can elect/certify the Electors of their choosing. One would hope they would follow the will of the voters.
The only OTHER way is to manufacture/flip enough actual votes to reverse the already certified results. That's a lot of votes, and it would have to happen in all three states. I don't think that is going to happen, but that said, who knows?
I always knew the reversal of our march to socialism was going to be tough, lets just hope and Pray we can do this peacefully.
Is there a ‘times up/ you lose’ provision in these state recounts? They have been certified already, for instance, in Michigan.
Hand counting millions of votes? Seems a backdoor way to deny the voters of that state the opportunity to vote.
Isn’t some showing of fraud necessary to even challenge the results?
Quite ironic Hillary and her MSM shills were lambasting Trump as a threat to the Republic when he wouldn’t admit he’d agree to the results. They didn’t bother to ask Hillary the same question.
It looks like WI, where Trump now leads by 27,000 votes, will be the first to finish the process. In addition to the governor and legislature being Republican, the state supreme court is also majority Republican, meaning there’s a strong chance WI will get its electoral votes in on time and for Trump. If so, he’ll have the 270 EVs he needs and win.
If no one candidate receives an absolute majority of the electoral votes because a state's electors were prevented from casting their votes (or for some other reason) then, under the process of contingent election set forth in the Constitution, the President would be elected by the House of Representatives and the Vice President would be elected by the Senate. Both chambers are ruled by the Republicans.
Either way, Trump wins. The ONLY way it won't happen is if a recount produces a truly massive number of new votes for Clinton or illegal(mistakes) votes for Trump. Although anything is possible I believe it is a bridge too far.
If a state fails to satisfy its own laws for appointing electors, then it fails to appoint any electors. And the Constitution only requires a majority of votes by appointed Electors, not a majority of votes from all Electors who could have been appointed, but weren't because one or more states failed to do so.
Article II, section 1: "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 Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President "
“The ONLY way it won’t happen is if a recount produces a truly massive number of new votes for Clinton or illegal(mistakes) votes for Trump. Although anything is possible I believe it is a bridge too far.”
I agree. The Good Lord has brought us this far, I don’t think He will allow it to be lost now.
So is the ne electoral college majority 270 for a dem and 300+? for everybody else?
“Certification” is not conclusive anywhere. It is an administrative finding, subject to being undone or reversed by a court.
So that means all the voting is ignored? No EC votes are used and the POTUS and VP are chosen by the senate and house?
“Complete and utter bullshit.
If a state fails to satisfy its own laws for appointing electors, then it fails to appoint any electors. And the Constitution only requires a majority of votes by appointed Electors, not a majority of votes from all Electors who could have been appointed, but weren’t because one or more states failed to do so.
Article II, section 1: “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.”
“Complete and utter bullshit.” Well that’s one way of putting it, but the OP seems to differ.
If it makes you feel any better, that’s what I thought as well. It seems the word `whole’ has a different meaning than we would put to it.
Correct, but is there a provision to hold up the Electoral College based on some state hand counting chads?
And shouldn’t ANY recount require some showing that it’s needed?
Could they also not target, say, five counties to see if there are problems and then shut down the recount if nothing is found?
This is all an attempt to continue the chaos and Dem destruction of America.
BUT this opens the door for Trump once in office.
He should form an Election Integrity Committee. Their suggestion should be to create a NATIONAL database of citizens legally entitled to vote in Federal elections.
Then PURGE the state rolls of anyone who isn’t a citizen of this country.
Trump can flip this recount nonsense and use it as a sledgehammer to stop the DemonRat fraud.
“If a state fails to satisfy its own laws for appointing electors, then it fails to appoint any electors.”
State laws are null and void on this matter.
A unanimous Supreme Court ruling affirmed the clear point that no state can change in any way the authority of the legislature under the Constitution to appoint electors.
Note that that power is given NOT to the state but specifically to the legislature.
Thank you for posting this. While “old”, the document’s well-considered conclusions are still valid IMHO since the Constitution has not changed in the last 16 years-—despite the apparent wishes & misconceptions of some FR posters.
So Hillary has had her lawyers working on this nonstop since before the actual election even. They likely did their best, but came up short—and the perpetual Leftist campaign decided to use what they had to just undermine Trump and the country as much as they could.
Pennsylvania is the firewall here. Stein has to show proof in court that fraud or miscounting occurred, and she has already admitted she has none, as has the Hillary campaign. Game over.
This is actually better then.
Th only reason then that the 3 states in question wouldn’t appoint electors is if their legislatures simply failed to do so. According to scotus the legislatures have this power, state laws be damned.
None of these three states with republican controlled legislatures will fail / forget to appoint electors.
Trump wins with 306 EVs.
Almost correct. Pennsylvania has a Democratic Governor. But the Constitution is clear that the legislature determines the rules for selecting electors.
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.
