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 ...
When you really examine how our system is supposed to work it becomes very clear how important the states really were. The State legislatures appointed Senators, the States chose electors who elect the President. The people vote for Congressmen.
I’m glad Lincoln freed the slaves, but he also destroyed the notion that we are a federation of the several states. Now we’re just a blob of demagoguery appealing to the mob. Technically still a Republic, we really are a democracy, and we are the worse for it.
“You came away with an incomplete understanding of what Mark Levin said.”
What I posted and what Levin stated, were one and the same. Almost verbatim.
The electoral college was intended to dilute the power of the large states in a presidential election.
“...action of the state legislatures, not the popular vote, that elected the president and vice president.”
Then why did they bother with a popular vote?
You can't render a complex reason for the Electoral College into a single sentence. A popular vote was the means to establish the Vox Populi for the states in a time when communications were sketchy at best. Then as today the winner of electoral college vote and not the popular vote becomes president.
How so? It looks to me that DC is not governed by the 14th Amendment as the other states are.
Also see my post 155.
George Wallace, 1968?
The Constitution doesn’t forbid the State’s from requiring the electors to vote for the popular vote winner. Therefore, the 10th amendment rules and that power belongs to the States.
I read the court’s ruling and its explanation of why the 10th amendment doesn’t apply is ridiculous. It says the only powers the States have are the powers they had before the Constitution.
That’s not what the 10th says in plain language.
There appears to be no reason that an elector cannot vote for whomever he wishes.
The legislature can only appoint electors they do not become part of the legislature after appointment are and were intended to be complete Free Agents.
Madison dreaded legislative control of the electors as the excerpt you posted shows.
The “requirements” were not political but primarily property qualifications to hold office.
The Founders would have no problems with this ruling.
Thanks for posting those notes which refute your argument even more. Madison feared election by the legislatures and set the system up to prevent that.
“If the magistrate does not look forward to his re-election to the Executive, he will be pretty sure to keep in view the opportunity of his going into the Legislature itself. He will have little objection then to an extension of power on a theatre where he expects to act a distinguished part; and will be very unwilling to take any step that may endanger his popularity with the Legislature, on his influence over which the figure he is to make will depend. 3. To avoid the third evil, impeachments will be essential, and hence an additional reason agst an election by the Legislature. He considered an election by the people as the best, by the Legislature as the worst, mode.”
On any Constitutional question Hamilton should be consulted.
Some of the others are nothing special.
A “Republic” is a political form wherein representatives vote on issues before the public.
Its meaning has varied somewhat over history but at some point the “public” has to be consulted or it devolves into monarchy/aristocracy/oligarchy/tyranny.
.
I think we’ve known this for about 240 years.
.
This is Constituion 101.
.
.
>> “Bad news for the national popular vote compact.” <<
But nothing new!
.
Constitutionally, winner ake all does not exist.
.
Madison said the election of the Chief executive was the WORST method to use. He clearly establishes the reasons why.
What you (apparently) support is legislative control of the appointment.
.
You’re a bit confused.
Electors cannot be bound.
Sounds good but unlikely breaks new ground.
It should be remembered that Madison’s Notes were published a quarter of a century after the ratification. Who knows how accurate they are?
Any questions about the Constitution should begin with the Federalist, Hamilton’s tour-de-force.
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.