Posted on 11/30/2016 9:50:35 AM PST by drewh
Anti-Trump forces are apparently planning an all out legal assault on the Electoral College in a last ditch effort to keep Donald Trump from taking office in the White House. The plan? To file legal action in all 29 states which have laws that prohibit electors from “voting their conscience.” In other words, laws that prevent electors from going against the state’s popular vote.
The inside scoop on what is being planned:
Leaders of the effort, mainly Democrats, have plans to challenge laws in the 29 states that force electors to support their party’s candidate. Those laws have never been tested, leaving some constitutional experts to argue they’re in conflict with the founders’ intention to establish a body that can evaluate the fitness of candidates for office and vote accordingly.
They’d still have to get 37 Republican electors to turn against Trump to have an impact on the election outcome. That’s going to be a tough task especially because there have been few reports that Republican electors are willing to abandon their party to vote against Trump. Sources said they will also have a coalition of lawyers that will be ready to defend (for free) anyone who votes in opposition to their party’s candidate when then the Electoral College meets on December 19.
Last week, Lawrence Lessig, a well-known professor of law at Harvard University and a political activist, penned an opinion piece in The Washington Post encouraging electors to cast their votes for Clinton despite Trump winning more votes in the Electoral College. His theory is that, while it has never been tested like this, the Electoral College is a “safety valve” that is intended “to confirm — or not — the people’s choice.
Other legal scholars believe that if the Electoral College abandons Trump, it may go against the rule of law. “Turning the electors into mighty platonic guardians doesn’t seem to be the right way to go,” UC Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen wrote in a Friday blog post.
“So yes, I’d love to get rid of the Electoral College,” he wrote. “But not ignore it in an election where everyone agreed it was the set of rules to use.” LawNewz.com will follow this legal effort closely, and update you on this website.
(Yawn)........
Like I stated a thousand times on FR repeatedly: we CANNOT CO-EXIST with liberals.
How many times do you Freepers have to be reminded of thaT?
Piece of line from below propelled into the rotor shaft / blade control hub. So easy Tarzan could do it.
Maybe it’s time to launch an ILLEGAL assault against traitors in this country....heh....
“They’re bugs, Wyatt. All that smart talk about live and let live.....there ain’t no live and let live with bugs.”
LOL! Leftists concerned with conscience.
You can’t make this stuff up.
All that money could be spent on improving inner cities.
So one of the reasons Trump supporters should start popping Xanax is because some alt left activist, Lawrence Lessig, wrote an opinion piece in the Washington post?
Seriously there is no boogie man. Trump won. Trump will be sworn in. Trump will make America great again.
Please refrain from MSM drama pieces. Thank you
They have a lot of our money from the past 8 years.
Feet first and balls out!
‘The DNC has decided, like in the primary between Hillary and Bernie, that they know better than you do, and intend on doing anything and everything to obstruct the will of the voters. It's time to say no to the corruption that fills every level of the DNC. Help us send a message, re-register today and say no to corrupt Democrats trying to steal your elections.’
I am still trying to go there. They are saying 2 million are going. A clue to the out pouring of support will be seen in the victory tour starting tomorrow in Cincinnati.
“...the Constitution seems to be written in a way that suggests the founders expected most presidents to be elected in the special election in Congress, not in the initial Electoral College vote.” On what do you base this belief?
Hillary = sore loser girl
The founders intention is to let the state decide how to run their elections.
Yawn... from NeverTrumpers to MSM nuts, I have heard this garbage from day one. It’s all hot gas, no substance.
1. It describes more than one candidate having a majority of the electoral vote, which means Electors were permitted to vote for two candidates. The President was the one who got the most votes, and the Vice President was the one who got the second most votes. There was no such thing as a President/VP "ticket" back then.
2. The clause also describes a scenario where no candidate gets a majority in the Electoral College, and lays out a process where the House would elect the President "from the five highest on the list" of candidates in the Electoral College vote. This clearly suggests that they anticipated presidential elections to have many candidates instead of the modern convention of one candidate each from two dominant political parties.
They sure can. In fact I had to change my tag line to match.
None of the laws are criminal, they at most propose a fine of 1,000 to the electors. The idea that these laws stop any electors from switching is absurd on it’s face.
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.