Posted on 12/12/2016 12:02:41 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
I am entirely accurate, and correct in my assessment.
The thing that really bugs me is they are saying the same exact thing about us. “The Commie Russians are working with the Republicans.. blah blah” Both sides think the other is trying to have a coup.
How does it feel to be correct? Join the many.
The Constitution leaves the manner of choosing the electors to the states. PERIOD. If the states manner of choosing the electors requires that the slate of electors chosen vote as they were chosen, then that is the requirement. In most states, there are different slates of electors (according to the number of electors apportioned to the state) that are committed to the respective candidates. The way each elector got on that particular slate was by a commitment to cast the electoral vote for that candidate. The Trump slate of electors would not be selected as the state's electors if Hillary won the election in that state, and the Hillary slate of electors would not be selected as the state's electors if Trump won the election in that state. The Gary Johnson slate of electors would only have been selected as the electors for the state in the event that Hell froze over and was turned into a ski resort. So the state did not choose some random group of electors and say "just vote your conscience"; the only way an individual is chosen as an elector is by a process as prescribed by the laws of the state, and in pretty much all cases that commits the elector to vote in accordance with the outcome of the election IN THAT STATE - not the elector's individual state of mind.
OOPS! You inserted a period that wasn't there and left out the most important qualifier in the phrase you cited. Here, let me fix it for you:
“...according to the POPULAR vote IN THEIR STATE.”
You are correct, but I thought that’d be obvious, since we are talking about state electors. :-)
You’ve stated text that shows how electors are chosen, and I agree. The state legislatures have the power to determine how the electors are chosen. Unanimously, the state legislatures have chosen to have electors chosen via popular election, and in all but two, the entire slate of electors is determined by the popular vote winner of the state.
What you have failed to do is show the text that gives the state legislature the right to compel an elector to vote for a particular person. I am quite sure that had the Founders intended states to have this power, they could have clearly stated it in the Constitution. They could have included language such as “Once chosen, the state legislature shall have the power to determine the candidates for whom electors shall vote.” See, I did it, and the Founders were much better writers than I am, so I strongly suspect they could have made known their intentions.
Common sense and history also back me up. Common sense: If the intent was for the state legislatures to determine the candidate for whom the state would vote, why bother appointing electors at all? Why not just have the President chosen via a population-weighted vote of state legislatures?
History: There have actually been 38 instances of electors voting for a candidate other than the winner of the state election. There is no Constitutional prohibition to stop this, and these faithless electors’ votes were counted in the official tallies. (Technically the nuumber is higher, but I didn’t include electors who changed theor vote due to the death of the winning candidate between the popular election and the EC vote). Also, the majority of electors in the first handful of elections were not chosen by popular vote. They were appointed directly by state legislatures. How were they supposed to vote for the winner of their state when there was no election?
It is clear that electors were intended to have the right to vote as they see fit. What is unclear is what would happen should an elector violate the laws in some states that compel them to vote for the electoral winner. Presumably such an elector would face whatever fines, imprisonment, or other penalties specified in the law. What happens to his electoral vote, though? Congress is given the responsibility of tallying electoral votes. Presumably (refer to the election of 1876 for precedent) this would mean Congress has the power to determine the validity of EV’s. Even in 1876, though, Congress chose between rival slates of electors from several states. It did not question the validity of individual elector’s votes. I am speculating, but I suspect that a rogue elector violating laws compelling him to vote for the winner would have his vote counted.
They did! Here is the Tenth Article ratified in the Bill of Rights:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The states are specifically delegated the power as to the manner of choosing the electors for that state - no specific instructions nor reservations of that power. With the Tenth Amendment unambiguously stating that the powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are in fact reserved to the states, your hypothetical authorizing language (“Once chosen, the state legislature shall have the power to determine the candidates for whom electors shall vote.”) is completely unnecessary.
You seem to be of the impression that the states have to get permission from the Constitution or the federal government to do anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution and that the Federal Government is authorized to assume any power not specifically prohibited by the Constitution (the exact opposite of the specifically stated intent of the Constitution).
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.