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

To: sourcery

“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.


15 posted on 11/27/2016 9:09:55 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmith

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.


19 posted on 11/27/2016 9:47:09 AM PST by JamesP81 (The DNC poses a greater threat to my liberty than terrorists, China, and Russia. Combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: mrsmith

A state’s legislature appoints Electors by passing laws which control that process. It would be up to each state’s legislature and/or Supreme Court to decide whether the laws enacted by the legislature had in fact resulted in the appointment of any Electors, and who those Electors actually were, if any.

And then Congress would have the final say regarding whether or not to accept as valid any Electoral votes submitted by persons claiming to be Electors.


21 posted on 11/27/2016 10:00:23 AM PST by sourcery (Non Acquiescit: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: mrsmith
Nope, that's not what they said. The question of whether or not the state legislature can change the way electors are appointed was not settled in the decision.

What the Supreme Court specifically ruled in Bush v. Gore in regards to the question you're raising was that a state Constitution could not alter the plenary power granted to state legislatures in Article II and Amendment XII.

Why does this matter?

Because the Florida Supreme Court was attempting to arrogate this power to itself. The FL Supremes ruled in effect that since the FL Constitution had provisions, they were subject to judicial interpretation. That Judicial interpretation then fell to the judiciary. The US Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary had no such authority. Nor could a state place such wording in its Constitution to thwart the will of The People because the US Constitutional grant of authority was clearly intended to reserve the power of selecting electors to the People (through their representatives.)

Far from being null and void, state legislatures have plenary power to determine the statutory method for appointment. That is what the court ruled.

30 posted on 11/27/2016 10:57:38 AM PST by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

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