Posted on 02/21/2018 5:17:34 PM PST by tcrlaf
A coalition that includes a Latino membership organization and a former Massachusetts governor filed lawsuits on Wednesday challenging how four U.S. states allocate their Electoral College votes in presidential elections.
The lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Massachusetts and California, states that went for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016, and South Carolina and Texas, where a majority of votes went to Republican U.S. President Donald Trump.
The lawsuits challenge the winner-take-all system used in those states to select electors who cast votes for president and vice president in the Electoral College after a presidential election. Forty-four other states and the District of Columbia also use that system.
Under that system, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a given state gets all its electors. To win the presidency, a candidate must win at least 270 votes from the 538 electors in the Electoral College
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Stop trolling!
Cruz is by the definition of a SCOTUS that consisted entirely of founders, a natural born citizen.
He was born a citizen by the court’s definition.
Your definition is bovine excrement.
I’m not trolling.
And the Court has been in abeyance on many things since FDR’s time.
NBC required citizen parents, especially a citizen father.
RTFM.
Does Amendment XIV, Section 2 require popular vote for electors, at the risk of losing representation in Congress?
States with one representative clearly be unaffected.
He either is or he isn’t. Depends on what is is.
Why don’t we just skip having a National Election then, and let Nancy Pelosi pick our next President ?
Jousting at windmills.
They are working an easy work around. Several states have changed their laws to award EC votes not by who won the state but who won the poplular vote. They won’t activate until they have enough states on board....
The MA gov who filed was GOP turned Libertarian William (”Pink”-) Floyd Weld
I understand that the constitution grants wide latitude as to how states choose electors, but I would argue that scheme violates the guarantee of a republican form of government. In effect they would be representing the will of the people of the several states and not the state which they represent. At that point the electoral college becomes a vestigial body with no function.
You said it. Any attorney thinking this case has merit should be disbarred for being incompetent to practice law.
This is embarrassingly ridiculous. Presidential elections are not one national election - you are participating in an election created by your state legislature - that they did not have to grant you. They are completely separate elections - there is no “national popular vote” - does not exist in any official capacity. The quote from David Boies is totally idiotic in the article - there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution granting a right to vote for President - yet he says that there is. The President is elected by the States.
Any sane judge would immediately toss these lawsuits on summary judgment and refer the attorneys who filed it to the bar association for review for possible sanctions.
Cruz would be an interesting case since he was not actually born in the US with the other factors and having dual citizenship in Canada.
However, in general you are wrong. That is not what NBC meant at the time the term was written and it has been adjudicated several times which confirmed the same.
I would hope so, but we just had a judge claim for himself the full powers of the Presidency by ordering the President to reinstate an EXECUTIVE Order.
As a constitutional manner, the stated decide how to choose their electors. The Federal government does not get to dictate that.
Two states (Maine and Nebraska) use the district system, under which the statewide winner gets two electors and the rest are decided by Congressional district. Trump got one electoral vote from Maine.
Article II, Section 1 states that “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.”
IOW, states have complete authority to select their electors in any manner they choose.
.
If you’re seriously going to assert that there is a difference between citizen father and citizen mother, you can count on being laughede out of court.
You’re truly a head case.
.
I like the proposal of dividing electoral votes based on congressional districts with the majority winner in each state getting the two additional votes for the senators. It would give conservatives in Illinois, New York and California a valid say in presidential elections. It also allows liberals in Texas and other GOP strongholds an equal say.
.
What you suggest destroys the founders wall against democracy, placed in the constitution to prevent the tyranny of an agitated majority over the minority.
They saw the danger of an out of control press.
.
What I’m suggesting is what is already being done in Maine and Nebraska.
.
Its unlawful!
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.