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 ...
"In such manner as the legislature may direct.
The vote was 2 to 1 and thus not the full court. It will be overturned, either by review of the 10th or by the Supreme Court.
should SCOTUS uphold this, then Electors can choose to ignore the National Popular Vote Pact in the unlikely event enough states join the Pact to make it go active ...
i bet the Colorado leftists never thought about that when they filed their lawsuit ...
“Once you are a Faithless Elector, your party will never put you on a future slate of Electors.
and probably not let you get involved in party politics ever again in any position, including cleaning the bathrooms in local county party headquarters .
Colorado imposed such a law, and the Court has thrown it out.
Obviously, I’m in the minority here, but the decision is consistent with the doctrine of original intent.
Amendment 12 says that the electors sign the lists; it does not say that they sign the ballots. The best I can show you right now is this:
https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1627&context=faculty_publications
Therein the Tennessee list was filled out correctly, and the Georgia list was not quite. (For the record I think it was properly counted for Jefferson and Burr) Ideally we need a split delegation vote to really demonstrate the point (only such delegation was Rhode Island that year).
Aha!
https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/tufts:us.potus.1800
So no the ballots weren’t signed, just the lists.
The obligation is with the parties to run loyal electors.
I am also of the opinion that former President of the United States is an office of trust or profit of the United States (pension, secret service) and Bill Clinton was ineligible to serve as elector. I was inclined to think that just his vote should have been disqualified but after rereading the Virginia Law Review article, I think the entire New York vote should have been disqualified.
Are we as determined to see him[President Trump[ returned to the White House as they are as they are to keep him out.
_____________________________________________________________
Absolutely.
Their mask is off.
Want proof? They’ve gone from “He’s a narcissist” to “He has early Alzheimer’s” to “He’s gonna die from his lousy diet and no gym time” to “He’s thriving and looks younger, contrary to all other Presidents, because he doesn’t care.”
No one believes any of it.
But you might go on to become the Presidential nominee for another party (Republican Roger MacBride voted for Libertarians John Hospers/Theodora Nathan rather than Nixon/Agnew in 1972) - became the Libertarian nominee in 1976.
“...the electoral college was the means to ensure it was the states that elected the Executive.”
No, it was intended to keep the big states from controlling an election.
Why do you think the Left now hates the electoral college?
Depends on the state and the party rules.
Some states have you sign a oath to vote for the candidate of the party you represent. If you do not your vote is considered null and you are replaced.
in 2016 there were 7 faithless electors.
I think the codicil that states appoint electors by whichever manner the state prescribes makes the faithless elector laws constitutional. The constitution deliberately says that the states can make up their own rules on the subject.
First and foremost, we should be mindful that when the constitution was ratified by the states (thus bringing the fed government itself into existence), there wasn't a single presidential election day. Rather, over periods of weeks, the various states, by different methodologies reached agreements on how their state's electors would cast their votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)
Development of the Morse electric telegraph, funded by Congress in 1843 and successfully tested in 1844, was a technological change that clearly augured an imminent future of instant communication nationwide.[4] To prevent information from one state from influencing Presidential electoral outcomes in another, Congress responded in 1845 by mandating a uniform national date for choosing Presidential electors.[1] Congress chose the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to harmonize current electoral practice with the existing 34-day window in Federal law, as the span between Election Day and the first Wednesday in December is always 29 days.[5] The effect is to constrain Election Day to the week between November 2 and November 8 inclusive. Beginning with Presidential elections, gradually all states brought nearly all elections into conformity with this date.
With respect to this court decision, it's simply observing that the chosen method of enforcing elector compliance is unconstitutional; it is silent as to whether states can enforce electors by different methods/means (they can).
Secondly, this opinion does not address the current 'popular vote' compact of states either. That's a separate issue altogether, as it actually violates constitutional guarantees ensuring a republican form of government ie no direct democracy between states. (That in effect is why the compact will ultimately fail as well.)
So, we've come full circle where state appointed electors elect the president. The fail safe is they act in good faith according to political will within the respective state. That in turn is the responsibility of each state legislature, which in turn answer to the constituent power of the people.
This is the correct, constitutional decision. Does it also mean that John Kasich gets an electoral vote?
The electors can either decide to vote as the state voters did or follow the compact.
+1! I see it as a win as well. The states cannot compel an Elector to vote for the “popular” winner.
These electors faced massive pressure, intimidation and no doubt huge bribe offers. Nothing was done to the army of leftists that made the electors lives hell. The Hollywood creeps even made a video appeal for the electors to vote for Kasich or anyone other than Trump. This ruling is dangerous as hell.
“Who puts in the Electoral College members?”
Their State Legislatures.
The Court, for once, merely follows the Constitution and should not surprise anyone with knowledge of it. State legislatures could legally run a lottery to determine who the electors are.
There are a couple of relevant points: when the Constitution was written Honor was important to most people and there were NO POLITICAL PARTIES at that time.
Jefferson and Madison created the first party which became the Demon party in an attempt to thwart Hamilton’s influence and control of the Washington administration.
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.