Posted on 07/19/2010 2:13:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Something has gone critically wrong with intelligence in Massachusetts. We should ban any further political activity or politicians from there, and any other New England states that are infected. Their disease is killing America.
I absolutely disagree.
Legislatures have the power to APPOINT, or to CAUSE TO BE APPOINTED, Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.
Once they are appointed, they are principal Constitutional officers of the United States, of equal (although very temporary) stature with Senators, Members of Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court.
It is absurd to think that they can be controlled, post appointment, by a crew of mouth-breathing, thieving hacks in some shithole state capital.
The Legislature appoints. That's their role, and their only role.
"Faithless elector" laws are facially unConstitutional.
The case you cite states that it is not unconstitutional to require a pledge from the candidates. However, it has never been litigated whether it is constitutional for a state to punish an elector that votes contrary to that pledge. In other words, the pledge may have no legal weight.
.....And it will take 100 times the number of troops that the 7000 it would take to protect our Southern border......
It will take only a few very good marksmen to place fear into the minds of drivers that bring 18 wheelers into the cities. Once they fear for their lives, a stranglehold will exist.
They’re setting it up - which one do you want - states’ rights, Constiution or federal law?
It doesn’t matter really. Elections will eventually be quashed by federal executive directives. That is the plan.
I may be wrong, but I believe the states participating in this are not allocating their electors proportionally according to the popular vote - I think they are awarding ALL of their electors to the winner of the popular vote. That is why the law does not go into effect until states with 270 electoral votes pass the law - that insures that all 270 of those electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote, guaranteeing that the winner of the popular vote is the winner of the electoral college vote.
Utter nonsense. It boldly states that in order to agree that this is just hunky dory we must not read this clause literally.
That’s why we write constitutions. Because we literally mean what they say.
This is judicial activism on display.
Where did you get that from? They intend to seek Congressional approval.
Where does the proposed law punish electors?
It cites Supreme Court precedents AND states that it WILL seek Congressional approval when and if the requisite number of states sign on.
Those precedents are the worst form of judicial bullshit. “It only seems to say that if you are pedestrian enough to have the immature perspective that the clause was meant to b taken literally.”
As for Congressional approval, yes they said they will seek it. Good for them, cause it’s a Constitutional requirement. No matter what any stupid justices say.
Whether Congress would approve of it is another, interesting question. I can’t see the small-state Senators being so stupid as to do so.
MA Legislature Red Sox fans ???
I think I hear some fire engines..........Excuse me while I check it out.
Two dozen states have them.
"We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention. Where a state authorizes a party to choose its nominees for elector in a party primary and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, we see no federal constitutional objection to the requirement of this pledge." --U.S. Supreme Court Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)
I don't think this law does that. I was responding in part to the statement about it being constitutional to force the electors to vote a certain way. I don't think it is. States can require a pledge in order to stand for election, but I don't think they can punish an elector for changing their mind once elected. There are Faithless Elector laws in some states, but they have never been tested, and I doubt they could be constitutional, as they would deny an elected official (the elector) the ability to perform their duties freely and without coercion.
That is exactly what I was thinking. When it all blows up in their faces they will quickly change the law back.
Is that in the text of the law somewhere? I thought the only requirement was that states representing 270 EV had to pass the law for it to take effect. If the law also states that Congressional approval is required, let us know - I am sure that will give some of us a little relief...
In that the entirety of your argument?
Is that all that I wrote?
The liberal conceit that legal founding documents are not meant to be taken literally is a an argument that requires no lengthy thesis to counter.
I said what needs to be said. I can’t help you to comprehend it.
Quote, please.
Meanwhile:
"However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional."
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.