Posted on 03/03/2019 5:38:03 PM PST by yesthatjallen
Unfortunately, nothing in the Constitution specifies HOW or for whom the Electors must vote. Occasionally one strays off the reservation and votes for someone to whom he was not committed but it is rare.
The motto of the Democratic party:
"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".
We have expected this for years.
The only real constitutional way to oppose it appears to me to invoke Article I, Section 10, line 1.
They are following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler
OK....not a lawyer, BUT....my argument would be that the Constitution says that the states are sovereign.
Would not a compact whereas a state surrenders its sovereignty, disenfranchise that state's citizens?
The left is willing to sacrifice States for power. Another blow against Federalism.
I would pursue the argument that compact is unconstitutional because it denies the non-compacting states' equal protection that each state determines its electors independently from all the rest.
States cannot form compacts to gang up on other states. That's what the Confederacy was.
That's what the Compact of 270 will be.
-PJ
Cities have always ruled the less powerful areas of a civilization since they created it.
Republicans face extinction if they cannot get the city vote.
Sorry,not so.
COMPACT PRISON REGISTRY LIST
Any rural or suburban county, disenfranchised, shall demand that their Electoral vote be returned back to the certified vote, the signed vote, per the U.S. Constitution.
Added to the registry list, is the altering official, to be imprisoned.
Each County in the U.S., and there are 100s, can pursue imprisonment of each official, forfeiture of their property, and reversal back to the legitimate certified tally.
Things worked out for the Secessionists’ plans for a while but they did not count on a Lincoln opposing them
You are wrong. Learn to read the document and quit posting false nonsense.
I am exactly right about the States’ power wrt this as other posters have more exhaustively demonstrated.
You are clueless. Quit spouting nonsense.
It does not. Read the document.
You have no idea what you talk about.
Electors represent districts, not States.
Go back and do your homework.
texas goes blue it’s all over. The republic will die.
Can the SC support a denial of peoples’ votes?
Lot of problems with this.
Did you read the article? If enough states legislatures vote to give their electoral votes to the majority...that would effectively destroy the Electoral College without any Constitutional amendment.
Someone needs to go to court to get this stopped, pronto.
There is no guarantee in the constitution of an individual vote for the President but the states’ rights of choosing electors is specified.
Yeah, but there have been a few amendments since.
Fascinating to think what those who are “all in” on those amendments in other cases will do with this.
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.