1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President,...(snip)
I believe the highlighted text is what the Left is hanging their hats on. They make their electors pledge to go with the majority. However IMHO, that would seem to be violate the 4thA.
Article IV (States' Relations) Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Ruling via "majority rule" is not 'a Republican Form of Government." Another windmill to tilt.
It's not clear what side of the argument you're defending or arguing against. You correctly quote the Constitution to demonstrate that it is up to the States to determine for themselves, with zero review by the Federal Court or Supreme Court, to determine how their electors are appointed - which also means unappointed.
Then your last statement seems to imply that they can't be required to vote the will of the majority. Your Article IV quote has zero to do with your Article II quote. Having the electors vote the majority does not mean majority rules.
The government of Rome was called a republican government. The Founders read that republican government was one in which:
The power of government is held by the people.
The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.
The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.
The republican government is not changed by requiring the electors to vote the will of the people of the State rather than the will of a political party.
08-27-2019, 10:08 PM
"2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:...
Although the appointment is "in such a manner of the Legislation there of may direct" to my reading means they control who and how they are appointed, not how they vote.
The quote of Article lV, Section 4, is to point out that lacking a stated authority to direct the outcome of the vote, the act is un-constitutional, IMHO. A "Republican form of government" is representative of the proportionate of the population, NOT majority rules, and then only in compliance with the Constitution.