Posted on 01/17/2020 12:57:48 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Nope...
“As the text and structure show, the Twelfth Amendment allows no room for the states to interfere with the electors’ exercise of their federal functions. From the moment the electors are appointed, the election process proceeds according to detailed instructions set forth in the Constitution itself. The Twelfth Amendment directs the electors to “name in their [distinct] ballots the person voted for as President . . . [and] Vice-President.” U.S. Const. amend. XII. And it demands that the lists of votes certified and delivered to the President of the Senate include “all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President, and the number of votes for each.” Id. The plain language of the Constitution provides that, once a vote is cast, it must be included in the certified list sent to the President of the Senate. Nowhere in the Twelfth Amendment is there a grant of power to the state to remove an elector who votes in a manner unacceptable to the state or to strike that vote. Indeed, the express requirement that all votes be listed is inconsistent with such power. And because Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 sets the precise number of electors, the state may not appoint additional electors to cast new votes in favor of the candidate preferred by the state.
In short, while the Constitution grants the states plenary power to appoint their electors, it does not provide the states the power to interfere once voting begins, to remove an elector, to direct the other electors to disregard the removed elector’s vote,”
because a State removed an elector and trashed his vote!
“Although we concur with the Department’s review of historical practice, we cannot agree that these practices dictate the result the Department seeks. First, and most importantly, the practices employed—even over a long period—cannot overcome the allocation of power in the Constitution. McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35–36. Second, there is an opposing historical practice at play: a history of anomalous votes, all of which have been counted by Congress. As discussed, the first vote cast in defiance of a pledge occurred in 1796—before the Twelfth Amendment was enacted—when Samuel Miles voted for Thomas Jefferson instead of John Adams, much to the displeasure of his Federalist contemporaries. But Elector Miles’s vote for Thomas Jefferson was listed and delivered to the Senate, where it was counted. 6 Annals of Cong. 2096 (1797); FairVote, Faithless Electors,”
WRONG!
Wrong!
Wrong!
And a couple, changing their State trends, could decide for the whole country...
Well l have to beleive doxing and making the electors life hell and/or trying to bribe them between the election and convening the EC is illegal. If 20 is close they will need new identities.
No. Completely wrong.
There was no hoax. The system designed into the Constitution is a representative republic. There never was any intent for the popular election of anyone but Representatives in the House.
Senators were selected by each state legislature to represent the state in the Senate.
The President was selected by a panel of electors, appointed by the state legislatures.
Remember, the federal government is a union of States. It was formed by the states and is supposed to be controlled by the states. The idea that Senators and Presidents are supposed to be popularly elected came later.
"Why isn’t it that you can’t find anywhere in history the idea electors were free to choose whoever the hell they wanted to was ever prevalent?"
I think you presume too much, and you substitute your personal notions of what makes sense to you in place of the law. There is no difficulty at all in finding the historical basis for what I've described. You just have to look.
A little melodramatic there. In fact they've been free all along. Our elections have been fine. Although I'll point out again, there is no popular election for President defined in the Constitution.
“I think you presume too much, and you substitute your personal notions of what makes sense to you...”
No, they are not my personal notions; they are the way the president of the United States has been elected for hundreds of years.
From Wikipedia:
“The 1824 presidential election was the first election in American history in which the popular vote mattered, as 18 states chose presidential electors by popular vote in 1824 (six states still left the choice up to their state legislatures).”
So you see, in 1824, 18 states chose presidential electors by popular vote. Unfortunately, they did not have you around to explain the Constitution to them.
People like you who spout off such nonsense are evidently beyond any ability to reason.
No, they are your personal notions.
"So you see, in 1824, 18 states chose presidential electors by popular vote. Unfortunately, they did not have you around to explain the Constitution to them."
You aren't paying attention. Nobody disputes that the states have held popular elections for most of our history. That's perfectly allowable under the Constitution. But you want to believe it is required, and it isn't. Each state can choose how to appoint it's electors. It's a choice to hold a popular election for that purpose, but it's not a requirement. A legislature could simply pass a resolution appointing a slate of electors, if that's what they wanted to do.
None of this is vague or seriously debatable. It's how the Constitution defines the process. Read it. Apparently some people do need it explained to them.
“None of this is vague or seriously debatable.”
What is debatable is the idea that a state legislature can hold an official election and then tell the majority of the voters to go pound sand. Talk about voter disenfranchisement.
It is not only not debatable, it is laughable and extremely unconstitutional and will not pass muster for a minute.
You keep making these legal assertions but never cite any law. Just your sense of what's right.
It's very simple. Quote the passage in the Constitution that requires a vote of the people for President.
There's a full copy here, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript, and many other places. Go to it and copy and paste the passage that requires a vote into your next response, or admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
“Quote the passage in the Constitution that requires a vote of the people for President.”
If you honestly think that, in this day and age, and after hundreds of years of tradition regarding electing a president by vote of the people, that the voters in one state will sit back and allow their votes for the candidate of their choice to be cancelled by voters in another state, then the conversation is useless.
That is not the topic at hand. We aren't discussing what voters will "allow". And also weren't discussing what voters in one state will think about voters in another state, whatever that means.
You've asserted that the Constitution requires a vote of the people for electing a President. I've explained that it does not. To prove your point all you have to do is quote the passage in the Constitution that proves you right. So go ahead.
“You’ve asserted that the Constitution requires a vote of the people for electing a President”
No, you are not paying attention. I did not assert that. Remember my first post, where I said that our present system is Constitutional through centuries of use and common sense.
But that's not how it works. It's constitutional if the constitution allows it. Holding a vote of the people is allowed, hence constitutional, but it isn't required. If there's a clear choice available, the fact that most people have chosen one option does not convert that into a mandate.
Holding a vote is common sense only because we are used to it. The founder's method is also common sense, if you approach it from their perspective. It's the states choosing the President, through the medium of appointed electors. A popular vote for President was not the idea.
And as I've pointed out before, you're counter argument isn't a legal argument. It's just what you think makes more sense. But the case we're discussing here is a legal one, based on the constitution.
“But the case we’re discussing here is a legal one, based on the constitution.”
So, by 1824, which is not too distant from 1789, 75% of the state legislatures could not see what you so easily perceive, that by appointing electors according to the majority vote in a state, they were not electing a president according to the Constitution?
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.