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

To: DaveinOK54
Regarding Textual Analysis:

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.

The whole sentence from Article II reads: "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." (Emphasis added.)

I haven't done the math to see how there could "be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes", but it doesn't seem to me that they were trying to "emphasize...an absolute majority of possible electors..." if they conceived of more than one with a majority.

And they didn't write "possible electors", they wrote "appointed electors".

In the same section of the Constitution, the appointment of electors by each state was made mandatory, whether or not the electors actually voted.

It says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....". If the Legislature's direction is not adequate for an unforeseen circumstance , a State may not be able to follow it to appoint Electors, so we fall back to "a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed" not "an absolute majority of possible electors".

Regarding Federal Statute Law:

Last I heard, Federal Statue Law is void if it doesn't agree with the Constitution. Admittedly, many of us might disagree with the courts who decide a particular law is in agreement with the Constitution.

Regarding 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.

So what? No president has been convicted after impeachment either. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Things change.

Regarding Common Sense:

Who gets to decide what's Common Sense?

22 posted on 11/27/2016 10:09:22 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle

Good points. I was just going on what people who are a lot smarter than I am said.


24 posted on 11/27/2016 10:22:43 AM PST by DaveinOK54 (Freedom is not Free and I'll never quit defending it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: KrisKrinkle
Originally the electors voted for two persons without designating one as President and one as Vice President. In 1787 they did not foresee the rise of political parties. In 1800 the Jeffersonian Republicans had all of their electors vote for both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who ended up with 73 votes each, more than John Adams got, so the House (with a Federalist majority) had to choose between Jefferson and Burr.

Because of the 1800 election, the 12th amendment was adopted, whereby the electors vote separately for a President and for a Vice President.

45 posted on 11/27/2016 5:51:09 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | 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