Court Decision Imperils the Electoral College
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Court Decision Imperils the Electoral College

  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    52,104

    Default Court Decision Imperils the Electoral College

    RICK MORAN
    AUGUST 22, 2019


    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver issued a ruling that may be the beginning of the end for the Electoral College.

    At issue was faithless electors -- presidential electors who refused to cast their vote in the Electoral College for the winner of the state's popular vote. Colorado state law gave the secretary of state the right to replace the electors.

    But the appeals court said otherwise.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    “Secretary Williams impermissibly interfered with Mr. Baca’s exercise of his right to vote as a presidential elector,” the court said in a 125-page opinion written by U.S. Circuit Court Judge Carolyn Baldwin McHugh. “Specifically, Secretary Williams acted unconstitutionally by removing Mr. Baca and nullifying his vote for failing to comply with the vote-binding provision.”The court added that the Constitution provides “presidential electors the right to cast a vote for president and vice president with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that Constitutional right.”

    Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told The Colorado Sun on Wednesday that the ruling “sets an extremely dangerous precedent that would enable a few people to override the majority of Colorado votes.”

    The "winner take all" philosophy of the Electoral College -- where a candidate receives all of the state's electoral votes based on the outcome of the popular vote in the state -- has meant an orderly transfer of power from one person or party to another for 230 years. It's not hard to imagine the chaos that would ensue in a close election if some electors could conspire to deny a candidate an Electoral College majority by voting for other candidates.

    If you recall, that's what happened in 2016.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] from November, 2016:

    But the Democratic electors are convinced that even in defeat, their efforts would erode confidence in the Electoral College and fuel efforts to eliminate it, ending the body’s 228-year run as the only official constitutional process for electing the president. With that goal in mind, the group is also contemplating encouraging Democratic electors to oppose Hillary Clinton and partner with Republicans in support of a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.The underlying idea is that a mass defection of electors could provide the impetus for a wave of changes to the Electoral College.

    Those electors in 2016 were not "voting their conscience." They were part of a cabal to deny Trump the presidency. The court's decision gives encouragement to further mischief by electors who might not like the Democrat's choice next time.

    But as part of the Democrats' effort to destroy the Electoral College, the way forward seems clear. Overturning state laws that bind electors to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote is a huge first step. That's because all it will take is one contested election where the race is thrown into the House of Representatives for the country to be panicked into scrapping the institution altogether.

    Chaos does not befit a democratic republic. But it's the answer to a prayer for revolutionaries. There is nothing that would suit the radicals in the Democratic Party more than every election devolving into a chaotic mess where the courts would have the final say.

    And 230 years of precedent and traditiin are tossed on the dustbin of history.




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Stamps6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northern NJ.
    Posts
    3,264

    Default

    yes I think that letting the coastal states decide who the president is or the popular vote to decide it is a great idea. Let’s get this bullshit over with and skip right to revolution. Everything they do to undermine the systems and laws of this country push us closer.
    KILTED COWBOY likes this.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    16

    Default

    I'm with Stamps.....




    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member NGF Addict! friendof2nd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,719

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stamps6 View Post
    yes I think that letting the coastal states decide who the president is or the popular vote to decide it is a great idea. Let’s get this bullshit over with and skip right to revolution. Everything they do to undermine the systems and laws of this country push us closer.
    I disagreed! I we allow the coastal states determine the outcome of the presidential elections, you will never see a GOP candidate win again! The reason: the Communist Socialist doctrine can not allow opponents, so, once they are in power, they will do anything, and I mean anything, needed to stay in power, that would include cheating on the elections, false ballots, misguide propaganda, and even assassinations to prevent the other side from winning.

    So, beware of what you wish for............................................... ..
    Progressive = The new Political Correct name for a Communist

    A gun on your hip is like the insurance you pay every month that you hope never have to use.

    You can vote yourself into Socialism, but you will have to fight your way out of it! - Bearing Arms. com

  6. #5
    AZHerper NGF Addict! gvaldeg1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    Presently 30 States and DC have laws biding electors to the nominee of the party prevailing in the General election within that State. However. the Constitutionality of these laws has been challenged because there is nothing in the Constitution that binds electors in that manner.
    NRA MEMBER

  7. #6
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    western PA
    Posts
    1,017

    Default

    But is there anything in the Constitution that forbids it? If the Constitution does not say yes or no, then it is up to the states.
    gvaldeg1 and Levant like this.

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    173

    Default

    UM we are a republic are we not? The electoral do not have to listen to the popular vote of the state when deciding who is president and vice president. Which is why they can not have the threat of removal from office if they do go against the state wishes.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimp View Post
    UM we are a republic are we not? The electoral do not have to listen to the popular vote of the state when deciding who is president and vice president. Which is why they can not have the threat of removal from office if they do go against the state wishes.
    Huh? The electoral? Where do you get the idea that they can't be removed?

  10. #9
    Senior Member Racist Infidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Ft McCoy, FL
    Posts
    549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john9001 View Post
    But is there anything in the Constitution that forbids it? If the Constitution does not say yes or no, then it is up to the states.
    Article II (Executive) Section 1

    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.
    Levant likes this.

  11. #10
    Senior Member NGF Addict! PrairieHunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Black Hills of South Dakota
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Oh face it... The 10th District court in Denver is smoking too much wacky weed.
    "​My dog sleeps with me, and we both snore."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)