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 ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it does. great scrutiny is needed to appoint electors whom are certain not to succumb No RINOS, no people in financial straights, only those who intend to remain in the city/state and have a future.......and even that's not fool proof.
I'm not as comfortable as those here who insist there's nothing to worry about. PDJT has the dems capable of anything. A N Y T H I N G. And they think it's OK for the greater good. I suspect it's approaching Lincoln's civil war political temperature.
“Why have an election if the electors are going to give there votes to whichever candidate they want to win?”
The Constitution does not require an election (except, arguably, in the District of Columbia).
The Constitution gives the states the power to appoint electors. It doesn't go beyond that.
What level of punishment can a state afford to a rouge elector? Can it go all the way to capital punishment? Why not if they can pass a law to bind the vote of the elector and he/she commits this "treason"? Ridiculous sounding but the nose under the tent when having to deal with mentally ill TDS state legislature members. Explain why or why not because this is about where we're at for hatred degrees.
The assumptions that underly our system have been falling apart since 2000.
Bush v. Gore should never have been heard by a court.
I’ll bring you water and ammo CID. As long as it takes
Perhaps, because the US is not a democracy. It’s a Constitutional Republic.
States can pass laws, individually or in an illegal coalition, about their Electoral College voting, but the States’ laws don’t have precedence over the Constitution.
It appears the court has (correctly) avoided making a determination whether or not the respective state legislative bodies can select/control electors prior to a presidential election. Where it gets interesting is the circuit court has opined that state legislators cannot control/direct electors' votes after a presidential election.
This I believe is in error and will be ultimately overturned. Their logic is similar to Trump not being exonerated; that is, referencing a negative. Specifically, by noting that the constitution doesn't specifically state what a state can/cannot do, the judge has determined a state cannot.
A proper reading, with respect to the specific clause regarding electors, and of course the 10th amendment, is that states can not only select electors of their choosing, but can task them with casting votes in accordance with guidelines however the state wishes (as long as it is in accordance with republican guarantees).
Prediction: inter-state popular vote accord ruled unconstitutional, individual state elector control/direction by state legislative bodies upheld.
Another case headed for the USSC to be decided by Constitutionalists in a 5-4 decision.
If Hillary and Soros can buy enough write-in votes from low-information voters, legal and illegal, so that PDJT cannot get minimum electoral votes to be reelected, then desperate Democrats may do the following.
Democrats might possibly be able to exploit 12th Amendment “loophole” where the current Democratic-controlled House can possibly elect write-in Hillary POTUS, regardless if PDJT wins plurality of electoral votes and popular vote.
Excerpted from 12th Amendment: "...and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President [emphasis added]. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two- thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."
Note that House vote for this purpose recognizes only one vote from each state. So Hillary would need 26 states to win.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Patriots bear in mind that the only reason that reason that desperate Democrats cry for popular vote is this. Crook politicians and the people who own them want to retain control of state powers that the unconstitutionally big, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress has stolen from the states.
This is why patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to surrender stolen state powers back to the states.
And to make such changes permanent, patriots also need to support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and Ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
This case is the result of a suit filed in court.
It was not the result of a runaway court system poking its nose into something out of its jurisdiction.
Posting this article did not enlighten me but made painfully clear that at least half the Freepers don’t have a clue as to the meaning of the constitution.
Likely these are the ones jumping up and down about something being ruled constitutional.
I doubt that half have even read the document or know anything about how the system was intended to work.
This!!!
A distinction without a difference is how I would characterize their point.
There are several ways the “compact” conflicts with the Constitution.
But I don’t see how requiring an Elector to vote for the popular vote candidate does.
I don’t think the supremes will even hear this one. It’s pretty much settled. And it nukes the NPV agenda, which would be heard because its a violation of state compacts .
I wonder which “half” you are in !
Maybe most people are just not giving due consideration of various points though...
The half which has made careful study of the constitution and US history, the founding especially.
This is not a new concern nor an unusual ruling.
People are not aware that no voter votes for a president but rather for representatives to cast votes in his name.
Thanks mplc51.
On the drive home from work, I’ve re-considered my position...
According the the Constitution, the FedGov should have no say in how the States apportion their electors.
If Colorado law allows their SecState to fiddle with electors, then OK. If not, then the SecState is in violation of STATE laws.
Strange than that you and I have different opinions.
If s State sets requirements on electors I see that as within their powers.
You're correct, because you don't vote for the President, the state does via representatives to the Electoral College.
You express your desire for which slate of electors is sent to the Electoral College. Those people, as your representatives, have the same freedom as Congressmen to make their own decisions once there.
-PJ
Thumbs up in agreement!
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.