Well, look at it this way.
If they get rid of it and turn us into The United States of California and New York, we won’t have to worry about any future second amendment Supreme Court cases.
The Supremes have a game changer on their hands.
There’s nothing complex about it. The SC shouldn’t even be hearing this case. The Constitution (not that it matters anymore) says the states decide how to award their EVs. A state could award its electors based on which league wins the World Series.
Whether they’re free to disregard laws?!
How is this even an issue?!
“The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.”
I’m confused. Don’t electors do that anyway? In 48 states already? Whoever wins the state popular vote has their slate of Electors sent to the EC, and they almost always vote for that person.
Once they get to the EC, they (I suppose) could turn faithless, but that rarely ever happens. is that what this is about? ???
At this point, what difference does it make. (I love to use that phrase:)
If they decide that this stuff is OK, then doesn’t that open the door to jury nullification? If I’m on the jury, I can decide whatever I want. I don’t like the particular law — the guy may have broken it, but in my opinion it’s a stupid law, so I say he’s innocent. Or, I guess, the guy may be quite innocent, but I don’t like the way he looks, so I say he’s guilty.
Is that the direction they want to go? You just decide this stuff as you please and don’t need to follow standards and rules?
this is one of the flaws in our Constitution. In a lot of cases, it is simply too vague.
In this example, it provides NO requirement for Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. What does that mean for elections? It could mean chaotic elections.
Let’s say all Electors are “free” to vote for who they want. What if the people vote overwhelmingly for one candidate nationwide, but many Electors don’t like this candidate and vote for someone else? We would then have a dictatorship of 538 people! It would effectively cut the President off from the people by allowing him to only pander to those 538 people to win!
Is that what the people would want? I doubt it. They want to believe their votes count in some way. How long would a “free” Electoral College stand before people want more decisive decisions?
I can’t imagine the Founders intended for the Electoral College to attain dictatorial power over the President.
The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states. … But in 2016, 10 of the 538 electors voted for someone else.
Note the deception from Reuters. It doesn't say that how many of the 10 electors voted for Mrs. Bill Clinton instead of Donald Trump who had won their state's popular vote. They want you think that all of the changed votes were from Clinton to Trump, but in fact the changes went both ways.
Mrs. Bill Clinton urged the electors to change their votes but in the end, hilariously more changed away from her than toward her.
Should be a slam dunk.....NO they are not but the world in insane
So it’s exactly what I said about the NPVI. As soon as a republican won the popular vote and the states (all democrat as I recall) who passed that law had to award their votes to the GOP candidate they would be clamoring to back out of the Pact. So now these same states that hate the EC want the USSC to rule The electors have to vote for the person who won your states popular vote.
This is the dimocrats biggest wet dream, the total destruction of the electoral college. Tear that down and they will never ever lose another presidential election as they have the illegal vote and the sit on their butts at home mob. That is their primary target. That, and adding more to the Supreme Court so that they never lose another argument there. I expect them to put at least four hard core leftists on the panel and they will win all arguments. Those are their primary goals!!!
>> are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.
free to disregard laws
NOPE
that is why they are laws
this is about disenfranchising “flyover country” and rural areas.
The issue of our era is our Free Constitutional Republic.
The Left is in this to destroy it and they’re in it to win.
The Right seems clueless about even what the issue is.
Because of this one-sided battle, the Right has allowed the Left to bring America to the brink.
Will Patriots and the Right wake up in time? God in Heaven only knows.
> “The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.”
I don’t remember this as true. In fact, I remember the issue was just the opposite. I can tell the Reuters reporters are biased towards Hillary so I am inclined to think their writeup here is confused.
I remember there were electors that were pressured to vote for Hillary in states where the majority of votes went to Trump but state law required the electors to support the candidate backed by the state’s majority vote.
The issue was whether an elector could vote according to the NATIONAL popular vote ignoring state laws.
This is about the “faithless elector”, where a Colorado elector was removed for not voting for the Colorado candidate.
HOWEVER, this is also about the “faithless State” where Colorado law now says the State elector must ignore the Colorado voter and vote for the candidate with the most popular votes.
Colorado wants to say their electors must follow the voter but then says the electors must NOT follow the voter.
Let me preface this with the fact that the Democrat party-minus a few deluded people who still imagine the dems are like JFK and for the little man and labor...they are NOT, most are MARXIST totalitarians.
Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary responses.
If by hook and crook a dem wins the WH in NOV by obviously illegal means...IMO Trump will not accept the results.
All will look to the SCOTUS for resolution, BUT RBG may still be clinging to life, AND mysteriously a conservative justice may have passed on due to some unusual circumstances.
Look where that places us.
Trump could either accept the illegitimate results (which would result in the ruination and possible death of his family members and business empire) Not to mention the general population being placed under the hobnailed boot of oppression.
OR, he could appeal to his followers to separate from the few blu states and form a new union to safeguard our freedoms.
He could seize the gold reserves, secure the military assets, renounce all debt of the new rump nation and begin with a clean slate backed by a new dollar convertible to gold. Bankruptcy Trump style.
A great migration of blu staters would soon follow as the welfare state of the new union would be wholly inadequate to satisfy the blue-state leeches. Blu states would quickly pass legislation to strip assets from red staters seeking to leave blue states...but Trump has a quiver full of arrows in his bow to halt that nonsense.
The new Republic’s constitution would have an extremely clean and precise wording, leaving behind all ambiguity in the original founding document..thank GOD almighty, I believe he would look with pleasure upon such an undertaking and would long for the fallen in blu states to see the light and petition to migrate to the new Republic! (The Parable of the Lost Lamb)
Over the years unfortunates stuck in blu areas would petition for admission the New republic....eventually the nation would reconstitute under the new plain-language constitution.
There would ensure a short-lived civil-war of sorts but with the New republic having secured the armed forces and supplies to their service it would by quickly over.
Do not discount such a scenario, it seems strange...but is not what is occurring now very nearly as insane!?
One more thing, no one from a blue state should be allowed to work in a Republic state, no foreigner should be allowed to do the same unless their skill set is so vital an exception has to be made..and by law they should be paid more so as not to steal jobs from locals.
For the many who will say this is too preposterous and strange to ever happen consider this.
This Nation once went to war with the worlds greatest Military and humiliated them, then later became friends.
The hapless and helpless people in blue states would fall upon very desperate times in short order...they would petition us for food, water and necessary goods of all types. What else could they possibly do!?
They would be disallowed firearms anywhere within 50 miles of a republic border under penalty of summary execution.
Within 50yrs I could see a destitute Canada and Mexico begging to enter the union and abide by all its rules...Both Canadians and Mexicans are good people and I love them both. Living under a just government they would within a 100 years became an asset so valuable we would wonder how we ever got along without them!
China would simply fade away into a broken up tribal nation unable to rise again for a millennium.
Don’t get me wrong, millions would die in this endeavor, but IMO it would be a small number compared to the precious babies lost daily as sacrifices to Moloch...I will risk my hide for these innocents! Who among you is with me?
Something similar is coming our way, I can see no way out of it...can you...if so please explain. It might give me a little hope
Their web site
Here is the state by state count. Scroll down. As you might expect nearly all of the states that have enacted this into law are blue states.