I am admittedly not up on electoral college rules but I seem to recall discussiom about four years ago on the matter of whether electors are bound to vote according to how their states voted or whether they were free agents who could vote as they wanted. Of course, if they assumed free agent status, the states could sue them and I imagine that would end up in court but I’m not sure anyone else would have the right to sue the electors besides their state governments. When it comes to the election of the president, we are not a strict democracy.
The electoral college exists to prevent problems such as the one in question, having a treasonous president, etc.
The college could debate and hammer out the issue of not natural born, and their vote could also be reviewed by the Supreme COurt.
>>>I am admittedly not up on electoral college rules but I seem to recall discussiom about four years ago on the matter of whether electors are bound to vote according to how their states voted or whether they were free agents who could vote as they wanted.
Maybe that was the point of the Popular Vote Bill. Some states already made it law to give their electorals to the candidate receiving the popular vote.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
Excerpt:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation’s voters for President