Posted on 08/21/2019 2:28:30 PM PDT by mplc51
DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution in 2016 when he removed an elector and nullified his vote when the elector refused to cast his ballot for Democrat Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote. It was not immediately clear what effect the ruling might have on the Electoral College system, which is established in the Constitution. Voters in each state choose members of the Electoral College, called electors, who are pledged to a presidential candidate. The electors then choose the president. Most states require electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state, but the Denver appeals court said the states do not have that authority. The Constitution allows electors to cast their votes at their own discretion, the ruling said, “and the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The left has AOC. The right needs a Madison in congress to rattle GOP colored socks gang.
They should be.
That’s their job.
“A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states.”
This is called tyranny of government.
Maybe If the little district judge blocks it and many months later the SCOTUS happens to not be too timid to rule, and doesn't take off on another recess vacation and wait July,2021 to rule "maybe."
"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."- Article II, Section 1."
"That would seem to me to say that a state can remove an elector who does it actin it the manner that the state legislature directed."
Based on what words? There's nothing there that implies such a thing.
It only says the the legislatures appoint electors. At the time this was written it wasn't assumed that the electors would have pre-determined instructions. They are empowered to be a deliberative body.
There is no constitutional right for the people to vote for President. That was a choice left to the states, acting through a panel of electors.
I thought this was well established as a matter of law. “Faithless electors” and all that. If this were not the case why would Debra Messing, et al. have spent good money to make TV ads pleading with the 2016 Electors to abandon Trump?
I mean, it was a dumb idea, but had it been an impossible, or illegal, idea, I doubt they would have run the ads. And I saw them several times in the NY/NJ market which must be one of the most expensive ones.
Democrats dont care about votes or elections,
They are about winning by any means.
The Constitution gives the states the power to appoint electors. It doesn't go beyond that.
Yep.
Could start a conflict among the smaller states legislators and public.
That could spread quickly.
5.56mm
Actually, it’s constitutional. The Founders put up checks and balances all over the place and for good reason.
Or are you with Hillary et al, and are pushing for the elimination of the EC?
Electing representatives to cast your vote IS a constitutional republic madam.
Stop the parties from nominating the electors?! My GOD man - who do you think you’re voting for in the actual elections? People the party put up for a vote that they wanted you to vote for!
[[[Or are you with Hillary et al, and are pushing for the elimination of the EC?]]]
You caught me, I’m a communist. LOL
Just asking questions.
Maybe this will help others if I have it correct:
Myself and other voters in my state cast our votes.
The winner, in my state, is Trump.
The GOP in my state selects the electors.
It is assumed that those electors chosen by the winning party of my state will vote for Trump at the convention.
However, if one or two choose not too, that is legal except now they will lose any love they may have had from the party leadership.
Question for the court; Then what is the point of the Electoral College than to overturn the will of the voters?
Question for the court; Then what is the point of the Electoral College? Seems they think it is to overturn the will of the voters.
I remember quite a few decades ago when, in a Presidential election, the electoral votes were divvied up, ONE voter in some state revolted, and threw his vote to a third party candidate.
I don’t remember the candidate.
The States have what rights and powers the Constitution doesn’t deny them, not what the Constitution gives them.
In the details are conflicts of course.
Gere, I don’t see where the State is usurping 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.