Posted on 11/30/2016 9:50:35 AM PST by drewh
Anti-Trump forces are apparently planning an all out legal assault on the Electoral College in a last ditch effort to keep Donald Trump from taking office in the White House. The plan? To file legal action in all 29 states which have laws that prohibit electors from “voting their conscience.” In other words, laws that prevent electors from going against the state’s popular vote.
The inside scoop on what is being planned:
Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.
They’d still have to get 37 Republican electors to turn against Trump to have an impact on the election outcome. That’s going to be a tough task especially because there have been few reports that Republican electors are willing to abandon their party to vote against Trump. Sources said they will also have a coalition of lawyers that will be ready to defend (for free) anyone who votes in opposition to their party’s candidate when then the Electoral College meets on December 19.
Last week, Lawrence Lessig, a well-known professor of law at Harvard University and a political activist, penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post encouraging electors to cast their votes for Clinton despite Trump winning more votes in the Electoral College. His theory is that, while it has never been tested like this, the Electoral College is a “safety valve” that is intended “to confirm — or not — the people’s choice.
Other legal scholars believe that if the Electoral College abandons Trump, it may go against the rule of law. “Turning the electors into mighty platonic guardians doesn’t seem to be the right way to go,” UC Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen wrote in a Friday blog post.
“So yes, I’d love to get rid of the Electoral College,” he wrote. “But not ignore it in an election where everyone agreed it was the set of rules to use.” LawNewz.com will follow this legal effort closely, and update you on this website.
I have a new word to add to the lexicon:
“Dembaby” - An adult whose crying and whining exceeds that of the average baby/infant/toddler.
Usage:
1. “Shirley husbands Jack was shocked by Shirleys dembaby response to the election”
2. The dembaby attitude of the protesters was making the public cringe in embarrassment.
Any state can choose an alternative method of sending electors to vote in a presidential election.
I think this election should be decided in a trial by combat.
Somebody give Hellary a stick and let her at him.
:)
‘Sorry to burst your bubble but the Blue states are net positive contributors of federal taxes and that is likely due to the cities.’
____________________________________________
That is an interesting point that I hadn’t considered.
I guess we all need each other. :)
‘If Republicans could neutralize the parasitic class the cities would be republican. ‘
____________________________________
Yes ... and if Trump succeeds in revitalizing the inner cities, who knows what could happen? :)
Chicago is the economic and financial engine powering the whole state. Its influence for good or ill cannot be escaped.
Cities do not just arbitrarily pop up out of the earth. Today they exist to drive the Division of Labor and thus productivity to the limits, something only numbers allow.
Conflicts of interest between rural and urban are superficial and not as important as the similarity of interests, if Chicago is suffering it is probably worse in the rest of the state and region.
An economy which isn’t mixed is more vulnerable than those dependent upon agriculture alone or industry alone.
You are correct.
I tend to agree about each county having a vote...but I would worry about Democrat governors taking populous democrat cities and counties and splitting them into multiple “counties”.
If only we could get that principle to work at the state level also. I hate crooked Chicago running and ruining all of Illinois. I think trump won 90 out of 102 counties here.
The electoral isn’t going anywhere. The recounts are not going to change anything. So, why are they doing this? To try and legitimize Trump’s presidency, and deprive his supporters of celebrating. Instead his supporters end up reading all these crap articles.
I want Trump sworn in so badly I can’t stand it. Once in, I want Sessions to go after the Clinton’s with everything he’s got, including Chelsea. I want them stomped on like the cockroaches they are and to remember, forever, the day Trump was sworn in.
There are other cities and towns in Illinois that could bloom if not for the strangle hold of the crooked northwest of Illinois. With a conservative new state of South Illinois with low taxes and a reduction of regulations, I wouldn’t bet against them becoming a powerhouse over time. Chicago became a powerful crossroads because of it’s access to the great lakes and railroads...those factors are diminished now due to roads and changes in our manufacturing economy. Anyway, I don’t see a “brexit” happening anytime soon unless the downstaters get so desperate and start an intrastate conflict that won’t get put out until the congress acts!
My feelings also...
I’m sure Hillary, Bill and Chelsea are all ‘LAWYERING UP’ BECAUSE FOR SURE THE TRUMP DOJ AND FBI WILL BE GOING AFTER THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND HILLARY’S CRIMES WITH HER EMAIL SERVER THAT COMEY FEARED TO TOUCH...
AS FOR ‘OBAMA’S DOJ’ LYING LORETTA, SHE IS ALSO GOING TO BE IN GREAT PAIN..
AND THEY ALL BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES.
AMERICANS ARE AWAKENED AND WE WILL BE FOR THE NEXT TWENTY OR SO YEARS...TIME TO ENJOY LIFE AGAIN...
So do I.
If the courts go along with this (which is very, very unlikely) they’ll be civil war in the streets. The left truly thinks they’ll win it. They’re quite insane.
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.
It seems to me that if a legislature directs that its electors are to be bound to the outcome of the state's popular vote, then it is entirely Constitutionally supreme law of the land, and no lower law needs to be "tested" on the matter.
-PJ
I think that you have to look at the whole picture when you mention that blue areas are often positive contributors of federal taxes. These same areas also have the worst state and local budget deficits(Illinois) and long term budget deficits in their pension plans as well as levying highest state and local taxes. If some blue areas are among the highest net “federal contributors”, like you said, the money is coming from the wealthy business owners not the average “hoi polloi”. I suppose we are making the same general point but I just wanted to add a point concerning the effects of blue areas’ local and state fiscal malfeasance on their economies!
It’s obvious that “faithless elector” laws are unconstitutional. This highlights the importance of the role, and should discourage the practice of using nobodies for the job.
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.