For the past month, as you’ve certainly seen, it’s been all the rage within the Democrat community to try and get enough members of the Electoral College to become faithless, which would, at a minimum, send the election to the House of Representatives which would then vote to pick someone. Which would be Trump, really, since they have to chose from those who were running. Their real objective, which they work to deny, is to get enough to switch to make Hillary president.
CNN features yet another of these missives by Scott Piro, supposedly an “Independent” (uh huh), with the typical tag about this not necessarily reflecting the views of CNN. If the shoe was reversed, would CNN be running this type of opinion piece, or would they be shooting down the notion of faithless electors?
It’s time for the Electoral College to fall on its sword
Amid the last month’s exhausting drama around Cabinet picks and presidential tweetstorms, one date stands out — December 19, the day the Electoral College picks our next president.
As hope from Jill Stein’s recount fades for Hillary Clinton’s supporters, another Hail Mary chance to thwart Donald Trump’s presidency has taken its place: that enough members of the Electoral College sworn to vote for Trump will break their pledge and vote to elect an alternate candidate.
America needs 37 “faithless electors” from states Trump won to do this in order to drop him below the 270 threshold and block him from automatically winning the White House. (snip)
There is still one idea with the power not only to end a Trump administration, but also to eradicate democracy’s ugliest anachronism — the Electoral College. Thirty-eight faithless electors from states Trump won switching their votes to Clinton would do it. Regardless of your political affiliation, it would be the best possible thing for America in the long run.
How would this be the best thing? Trump won fair and square according to the rules as set up by the Constitution. The Washington Post’s Charles Lane lays out why the system works. And, let’s face it, if this happens, and Trump doesn’t end up president, do all these sore losers think there will be no consequences? Especially if Hillary wins? The words “violent insurrection” and “rebellion” come to mind.
The Electoral College has contradicted the popular vote in two of the last five presidential elections, electing a Republican president in both those splits. Not surprisingly, many Democrats already favor abolishing it. The system favors the GOP because too many liberal voters live in too few (primarily coastal) states.
Can’t run this type of piece without a Florida 2000 whine.
Swing voters, centrists and moderate Republicans, you have less than a week to join fed-up Democrats in raising hell to persuade 38 Trump electors to vote for Clinton, putting enough pressure on them that they risk whatever fallout may come from their actions. In the short term, it would elect Hillary Clinton, whom you may not support. But in the long run, it’s the only way to take our democracy back. Make the federal government acknowledge we are smart enough to elect our own president.
“you have less than a week to join sore loser Democrats…..it’s the only way to take our democracy back.” Who are they taking their “democracy” back from? The guy who spent time working the people on the ground and earned their votes, as opposed to the woman who spent her time at fundraisers with the 1%ers Democrats say they hate? The guy who worked the system and won? The guy who played by the rules? Democrats are simply setting themselves up to be sore losers for at least the next 4 years.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text — that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices. Certainly, under that plan, no state law could control the elector in performance of his federal duty, any more than it could a United States Senator who also is chosen by, and represents, the State.
The AG cannot override how electors are regulated by the state legislature under Article II, Section I, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Y’all tend to repeat yourselves.
Then y’all don’t remember what y’all wrote.
Then y’all move the goalposts when y’all are proven wrong.
Then y’all want to continue to argue.
Fuck y’all, pajama boys.
Have another steaming cup of STFU.
It has nothing to do with whether the Attorney General is correctly applying Colorado law or not. The 10th Circuit referred to the 12th Amendment. They said removing electors or regulating how they vote is “unlikely in light of the text of the Twelfth Amendment,” citing also Ray v. Blair.
In other words, they are making the same argument we have made.
This is our original contention: Under the current system, electors can vote for anyone they want, and it’s not clear that state laws can bind them. You said this position was “nonsense”, yet it is supported by sixty years of case law.
Apparently you failed to read the ruling and instead relied on news reports. The 10th Circuit denied the plaintiffs claims to vote for the candidate they choose. They denied them straight across the board.
In fact, the court ruled that once the pledge was signed, the electors had a legal duty to abide by it.
They have no right to vote for whom they want. The part you are talking about is the timing of the CO State Attorney’s actions which if he seeks to remove electors while the voting takes place, would be a violation of the 12th Amendment. As is stands now, the Court ruled the electors are bound by their pledge.
I am sorry, but this is such a ridiculous argument.
Actually, you are wrong again. You have a tendency to stick with your arguments that have been disproven or at the very least, lie about supporting documentation. No one is “sputtering insults,” but rather noting that you act in a manner where that is not conducive to any discussion. You maintained that “moot” did not mean “inconsequential” and when shown that it did, you continued down that same path.
You seem to be adverse to looking at facts and instead look to misrepresent ideas such as:
They did no such thing. The 10th Circuit denied the electors lawsuit to vote for whom they choose. What was “probably not Constitutional” was the timing of the CO AG’s actions if he sought to remove the electors during the electoral college vote. The 12th Amendment deals with the procedures of the Electoral College, and not the votes itself.
In other words, you ran with a lie because once again you don’t either know how to read and understand legal opinions or are so desperate to make a point that you cherry pick and take things out of context to show the exact opposite of what is stated in context.
The only person ignoring arguments here is you.
That was part of the basis of the request for the injunction.
Here’s the relevant part:
They said no such thing:
Maybe. But the what you are missing is the Court shot down those arguments.
And the Court rejected that contention.
It is amazing that you continue to argue that the Court ruled in favor when it did not.
It is so “supported by 60 years of case law” that the 10th Circuit rejected every claim by the plaintiffs who were arguing exactly what you tried to say.
10th Circuit: This is not to say that there is no language in Article II or the Twelfth 3 Amendment that might ultimately support plaintiffs’ position. See Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 232 (1952) (“No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices.†(emphasis added)).
But the Court rejected that as an absolute and agreed that the electors had a duty to vote as they pledged.
Either that, or you are arguing that the Court denied the injunction knowing their ruling would be against the Constitution.
Once again, you really don’t have a clue as to how rulings are issued and their meanings and structure.
BTW- to show the ridiculousness of this:
Does the Congressional Black Caucus know that according to the learned Zachriel they are breaking the law and cannot enforce that agreement?
Notably, we keep citing specific statements, while you wave your hands in the general direction.
What the 10th Circuit did was reject the plaintiff’s arguments because they didn’t properly address the Constitution, but then said such an argument may ultimately prevail. “No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices.â€
Y’all still keep losing your argument, even by using your own words.
I didn’t write that.
QED, motherfuckers.
I didn’the write that either.
Get your quotes straight.
Sorry for the misattribution. In the last two comments, they should have been attributed to gitarcarver.
Notably, we have addressed and given direct quotes to rebut your statements.
You take things out of context and make them as some sort of ruling.
Sorry, that is not correct either. The Court rejected their arguments because the plaintiffs raised no Constitutional issues on which they would likely prevail in a full hearing.
From the opinion:
No matter how much you quote a note, that note did not fit in with the decision that went against the plaintiffs arguing your very points.
They lost.
So did you.
It is also interesting to note that the plaintiffs in this case are pledged to vote for Clinton – not Trump. Even they think that Clinton is not good enough to be President.
See my posts at 2016-12-18 13:47:48 , 2016-12-18 13:56:05 , 2016-12-18 14:23:17 , and 2016-12-18 14:29:11. All the posts reject for stated reasons (giving citations) as to why your assertions are wrong.
No one is ignoring arguments but you.
That’s right! They then noted that the plaintiff’s might very well ultimately prevail, citing Ray v. Blair.
Some advice for y’all…
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2ec02f1c-583a-48d2-ae31-9036d7a89662
To be more specific:
10th Cirucit: “By failing to point us to any language in the Constitution that would support their position, we conclude they have failed to meet their burden.”
So the plaintiff’s in this case have not met their burden. However, the footnote to this very sentence clearly states, “This is not to say that there is no language in Article II or the Twelfth Amendment that might ultimately support plaintiffs’ position.”
In other words, it’s an open question, but one that the plaintiff’s may win.
No, they did not say the plaintiffs “may very well prevail.” Once again, you are adding meaning to a note.
Right. So the very arguments that they and you tried to put forth were shot down. You have stated that the Court ruled that you were correct and they haven’t.
So now you are hanging on the note.
First, “ultimately support the plaintiff’s position” in no way indicates that the plaintiffs may prevail. There is often language that may support a position but is superseded by other provisions.
Secondly, it is somewhat important to note the context of the statement from Ray v. Blair:
The statement is made in the DISSENT of the majority opinion which held the pledge requirement was Constitutional.
Let me state that in a different manner again for you. The comment on which the note in the 10th Circuit is based is contrary to what the Supreme Court held.
Here’s a relevant portion from the majority opinion:
In other words, the Court rejected the very argument that the pledged electors are “free agents.”
Ray v. Blair said the pledges were legal. If they are legal, they are binding.
Quoting the dissent doesn’t change that.
So let’s be clear here. The Supreme Court has ruled the pledges are legal. The 10th Circuit says the pledges are binding.
That’s it.
Game over.
gitarcarver: The statement is made in the DISSENT of the majority opinion which held the pledge requirement was Constitutional.
That’s right! The dissenters didn’t even think the states could require a pledge, much less enforce it.
gitarcarver: No, they did not say the plaintiffs “may very well prevail.â€
As we quoted, they said “This is not to say that there is no language in Article II or the Twelfth Amendment that might ultimately support plaintiffs’ position.â€
They went out of their way to add the footnote. Why? And how do you read it?
Circumstances can change, and people can change their minds. It doesn’t follow that the pledge is enforceable, and that was clearly left undecided in Ray v. Blair, as noted recently by the 10th Circuit.
Move those goalposts again, fellas.
It’s the very same claim.
Z: Under the current system, electors can vote for anyone they want, and it’s not clear that state laws can bind them.
A claim that has been proven wrong.
Y’all lost.
Get over it.
So in addition to being an expert in climate science, law, politics, economics and science just to name a few, Zachriel is also an expert on Constitutional law and the Electoral College? Wow! I’m impressed. Jeffery’s only a expert on conservatives, Republicans, racists, fascists, bigots, moslems, fundamentalist Christians (but not fundamentalist moslems they are called “terrorists”), blacks, Hispanics, and why Stinky lost the election (anything but Stinky’s fault). Jeffery, you need to catch up to Zach. He’s a more worldly expert on so many things you are lacking.
Used to be one needed at least a degree in a subject to be considered an expert. Now all one needs is to be able to Google, cut and paste faster than the opposition. Or in Jeffery’s case snarky in a totally insane way. It wouldn’t be so bad if you all stated you were just giving an opinion or even an educated guess but you think you’re undisputedly correct on all things is really quite amusing. Again, you’ve learned nothing from the election. People don’t like being lectured to in a condescending manner but, please don’t let me interrupt you.
The next four years are gonna be so much fun watching you go ape-shit crazy on a daily basis every time Trump farts.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zr0fRHWBpMI/WFdWVfvZbQI/AAAAAAABEGQ/jCEyRmEOEF0wPnSuCCww5mgICSryU1dPACLcB/s640/1ninetymilesaFTqB1riy75so1_500.jpg
We cited authoritative opinion, the Supreme Court, and the recent 10th Circuit ruling, which indicate that the question of whether electors can be bound is an open constitutional question. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
The majority did think the states could require a pledge.
Now, which opinion do you think is law of the land? The majority decision? Or the dissent?
Geez man, you are either dense or deliberately being obtuse.
Let me lay it out for you: DO YOU SEE THE WORDS “MAY VERY WELL PREVAIL” IN THE NOTE?
It’s a yes or no question.
DO YOU SEE THE WORDS “MAY VERY WELL PREVAIL” IN THE NOTE?
If you answer “yes,” then it is clear you are just being ridiculous, can’t read or some other thing. If you answer “no,” then you admit your statement was incorrect and gave more weight to the note than it carries. In other words, you will be admitting that you lied.
Furthermore, you completely ignored the argument that language that may “support” is not the same thing as “this is the law of the land” as there is other language (like the entire Ray v/ Blair majority decision) that contradicts that one line in a dissent.
Weren’t you the one complaining that your arguments were being ignored? Even though you were the one not addressing points, you are still playing the ostrich even as your points are being shot down one by one.
All you are doing is going back the same discredited argument without any further support.
They didn’t “go out of their way.” This once again shows your ignorance in these areas and how Federal Court work. This was an emergency appeal to a 3 member panel of the 10th Circuit and not an “en banc” hearing. When issuing decisions from a panel, it is typical to not issue a dissent, but to allow a dissenting opinion in the notes.
Once again, the note refers to a Supreme Court dissent which carries no weight at all and by its very definition, is not the law.
No, it is a different claim. You are now claiming that a dissent is the law of the land.
Explain how Ray v Blair could say the pledges are legal if the consequences of not following those pledges is unConstitutional? If the consequences – the terms of the contract – are unConstitutional, then the pledges would not be allowed. But the Supreme Court ruled the pledges and therefore the consequences are Constitutional and enforceable.
And Ray v Blair and the 10th Circuit disagrees with you.
So let’s be clear here. The Supreme Court has ruled the pledges are legal. The 10th Circuit says the pledges are binding.
That’s it.
Game over.
http://i.imgur.com/7rkSxxw.webp
The problem is that your citations do not do what you claim they do. In fact, they show the opposite.
Furthermore, as we stated and you have failed to address, most of the time a faithless elector’s case could be declared moot. You screwed the meaning of the word “moot” up so badly to render it totally unrecognizable. Even after giving you citations, instead of saying “hmmmm…I was wrong,” you never answered the point and walked away only to try and return to it here.
That’s right, but they did not settle the issue as to whether the pledge could be enforced.
If the language can support the plaintiff’s case for electoral independence, then it means the issue is not settled.
No court has ever tossed such a case for being moot because no elector has ever been prosecuted. State laws do not have an exception for when it doesn’t change the outcome. It’s like saying the charge against someone for running a red light is moot if there’s no accident. The statute has still be violated, and subject to punishment.
http://i.imgur.com/Jm1biDG.webp
No. It’s the issue we initially raised, whether state laws can bind electors.
You are not responding to my quote, but that is fine.
You fail once again to realize that if the pledge – which contains penalties – is legal, that means the penalties can be enforced.
It means no such thing. That is a really stupid argument made from ignorance.
Once again, you can have language that appears to support an argument, but that doesn’t mean that the language is the law or that there is not other language that outweighs the “supporting language.”
If one were to take your position, in a debate (such as one with a debate team,) the moment one group raised a citation or point with “supporting language,” the rest of the debate is over. No need to debate anymore.
Furthermore, the 10th quoted a DISSENT which, by definition, is not the law of the land. Is it your contention that what is not the law is suddenly the law?
Are you that ridiculously stupid?
Okay. The quoted text was pasted incorrectly.
That’s right, but they did not settle the issue as to whether the pledge could be enforced.
No. They said the arguments raised at this point in the process are insufficient for injunctive relief. They indicate that the plaintiff’s position may find ultimately find support in the Constitution.
In this case, it is sufficient. We are not claiming that penalties are unconstitutional, just that it is an open constitutional issue. If the plaintiff’s position for electoral independence can be supported, then it’s not a settled issue.
http://i.imgur.com/sjo36TQ.webp
That means nothing. What we are taking about is the likelihood of a case not being pursued because it is moot.
We’ve gone over this. There doesn’t have to be a written law for a case to be rendered moot.
No, it’s like saying the police and prosecutors have the discretion to not pursue a case. If the case doesn’t change the outcome, there is no reason to pursue the case because it is moot.
Your point is akin to prosecuting a person for murder that the state executed for murder last week.
Or, a state not prosecuting a person for a murder as they are under a death sentence in another state. The outcome of the second trial would be moot.
The stupidity continues:
So you think the Supreme Court would rule that non-enforceable pledges because of Constitutional issues would be legal and Constitutional?
One cannot argue with that lack of logic or thinking..
Nope. They ruled that the pledges were binding as that was one of the points the plaintiffs raised and was rejected by the court.
Once again, quoting a dissent is not persuasive.
No, you have said the binding of the electors is unConstitutional – a point with which the Supreme Court and the 10th Circuit disagrees.
We’ve been over this. Repeating it doesn’t change the fact that supporting language in a dissent either opens an issue or is persuasive as you claim it to be.
Well, Git, these guys are ridiculous.
They’ve drawn another flag with their fallacious arguments.
http://i.imgur.com/lUDWyqb.webp
Game over.
This is an official publication of the U.S. government.
No, we did not. Several times previous on this thread we have stated, “it’s not clear that state laws can bind” electors.
Sorry, while I agree with the point that no case has specifically said the penalties can be binding, there is law that says the breaking of pledges is punishable.
Try and follow the thinking here, Zach. It is clear that you are having trouble.
If the pledges which include the punishment – are legal and allowable, why do you think they are suddenly unenforceable?
And you have raised your objections based on the First Amendment and the 12th Amendment.
Did they move those amendments out of the Constitution without telling the rest of us?
BTW Zach, you seem to have ignored this:
Can you either give a yes or no answer or admit that you won’t address the point?
Thanks.
Zach feels that stamping his feet and is the same thing as answering an point.
It is amazing what kids in grade school will do.
If you mean state law, that’s exactly what is at issue.
Ray v. Blair concerns a party requiring a pledge. Parties are private organizations. Breaking a party pledge is a political act, not a criminal one.
We did address it. We quoted the relevant section for clarity. The 10th Circuit said “This is not to say that there is no language in Article II or the Twelfth 3 Amendment that might ultimately support plaintiffs’ position.” If it is supportable, it can’t be already settled against the plaintiff’s position.
They clearly added this language for a reason, a reason you have been unable to explain. The National Archives and Records Administration made a point of stating that the issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court. It’s not a settled issue.
Grade school? No these geniuses are wasting no telling how many thousands of dollars of momma and daddy’s money at some state college that apparently doesn’t emphasize any rudimentary cognitive skills.
Texas electors push Trump over 270 threshold.
Once again,Zach, the fact that the SCOTUS allowed the pledge requirement which included the punishment shows that you are wrong on this issue.
I apologize Zach. In my haste I thought I was talking with a person who could read or understand the English language.
I’ll ask again:
You have not given a “yes” or “no” answer and you have not addressed the reason why you misstated…scratch that…..lied about about what the note read.
We’ve gone over this time and time again. You repeating the same thing does not change that supporting language may be the law as there are plenty of cases – especially Supreme Court cases – where the Court acknowledges so called “supporting language” and then says “that doesn’t carry the day because previously we said this…”
Furthermore, as I have stated and you have failed to even consider, language from a dissent (one that advocates abolishing the electoral college) is not part of the law. Period.
The dissent is a part of the case that settled the law.
Bull, you lying sack….
From my comment of 2016-12-19 14:39:19:
I addressed it, Zach, but you were too busy doing other things like showing your ignorance time and time again to see what was said.
Another lie from you.
Once again, let’s look at what the NARA actually said:
As I and other legal scholars have stated, the reason is that if the pledges – which include the penalties – are LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL, there is no need to say it as the court has no reason to directly address an issue that people of normal intelligence and morals can understand.
So what is your excuse for failing to understand it?