It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electoral College member files lawsuit to block Donald Trump presidency

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

"However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional."

It's a crappy judgement. What they are saying is that pledges do not violate the constitution. However, enforcing said pledges may not be possible. However, the requirement of a pledge is not unconstitutional.

So in my understanding of it, if it is not violating the constitution, it goes back to the 10th amendment to said constitution.

I may be wrong... I am all the time.

What I would REALLY like to know and will research a little tomorrow is the actual role that the founders meant for electorals.

I've not gone through the federalist/anti-federalist papers for a decade or so, but I honestly don't remember any real references on their actual intention on setting up electorals as opposed to just tallying the votes of the states.




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Electors are not supposed to be activist, and neither try to influence other electors, she should be excused or banned from voting.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreyScale
What I would REALLY like to know and will research a little tomorrow is the actual role that the founders meant for electorals.

I've not gone through the federalist/anti-federalist papers for a decade or so, but I honestly don't remember any real references on their actual intention on setting up electorals as opposed to just tallying the votes of the states.


I hope the following saves you some time.


In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton tells us why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College: to prevent an unqualified demagogue who is under foreign influence from taking over the nation’s highest office.

Trump fails the Founding Fathers’ three part test for the presidency — he is unqualified, he is a dangerous demagogue, and he cannot prove his independence from foreign nations.

This means Trump as commander-in-chief is a clear and present danger to national security, and he will likely do permanent damage to the Bill of Rights, if inaugurated. Men like him are why the Electoral College exists as a Constitutional check and balance against popular, but unqualified, leadership for our country.

LINK



originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Profusion

Electors are not supposed to be activist, and neither try to influence other electors, she should be excused or banned from voting.



Everything I've seen seems to point to the intention of the Founding Fathers being the possibility that electors in the Electoral College would be activists when they deemed it necessary. Please see the article I linked to directly above.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Should have linked to the federalist papers and not biased BS

FP 68: (on the election of the POTUS)

avalon.law.yale.edu...


FP 10(On the electoral college)
avalon.law.yale.edu...
edit on 12-12-2016 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

No they are not, they have no power within our political system but those given to them by the states that select them, they have to follow rules and sign contracts.

The are not politicians and neither hold political seats in congress or else.

They only have one job and is set by the rules of the states from where they come from.

BTW Trump eligibility for president was set by the voters in the nation and qualification is a matter of opinion, those that voter for him vs those that didn't, by law he is very much eligible.

Article Two, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:


No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.[1]

The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution also sets constraints on who may be elected to the Presidency:


No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.[2]



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

From Federalist papers 68:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

Hamilton was a Federalist... big government guy. He failed at a lot of stuff in an official capacity.

Even he pointed out here that the role of the electoral college was to make sure that a tyrant should not arise from a single colony and take over the others. That it was a check and balance. So a populist could not just take over the 13 colonies.

Trump won the electoral college.

For Hillary to go against that seems to me the reason the electoral college was set up for.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Correct me if I'm wrong here... I am all the time.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Profusion

No they are not, they have no power within our political system but those given to them by the states that select them, they have to follow rules and sign contracts.


Did you read the excerpt from the Supreme Court decision that I posted earlier?

"However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional."
SOURCE

The Supreme Court decided that "promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable."


originally posted by: GreyScale
Correct me if I'm wrong here... I am all the time.


What point are you trying to make?



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

You forget that in order to become an elector they sign contracts with their states, you forget that we are still a republic and states still exercises power.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The only point I was trying to make was that it was a crappy judgement.

They basically said that binding an elector was constitutional. Then they said that said binding may interfere with the elector's own constitutional rights.

So in the end to me they did not really make a judgement on the case. I'm assuming that they hoped it would just be resolved on a state to state basis.

Thank you for posting the Federalist paper in question... it is changing my idea on the reason for the electoral college in general.






posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Profusion

You forget that in order to become an elector they sign contracts with their states, you forget that we are still a republic and states still exercises power.



I didn't give you my opinion on the issue. I only repeated the opinion of the Supreme Court.


originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: Profusion

The only point I was trying to make was that it was a crappy judgement.

They basically said that binding an elector was constitutional. Then they said that said binding may interfere with the elector's own constitutional rights.

So in the end to me they did not really make a judgement on the case. I'm assuming that they hoped it would just be resolved on a state to state basis.

Thank you for posting the Federalist paper in question... it is changing my idea on the reason for the electoral college in general.





I think their decision was that asking for a legally unenforceable promise is not binding at all. That's why I believe the lawsuit mentioned in the original post in this thread should be an open and shut case.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Whilst I think it is morally wrong for a representative of the state to go against the popular vote of those they represent, America is not a pure democracy. The electoral college is there precisely to override the will of the people in their state should there be a need to. That is how it is supposed to work.

It has never happened before and it would be a major surprise to get 37 electors in Republican won states to go down this route, but if it does happen then it is nothing more that the system operating as it was designed to.

Even if it happens, it is still highly unlikely that Trump will be replaced. The House will decide and the Republican majority is very large in the house. Over the last few weeks Trump seems to have marshalled the Republican House under Paul Ryan.

All these checks, balances, and gates to get through is why the US political system is the best in the world.
edit on 13/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




I think their decision was that asking for a legally unenforceable promise is not binding at all. That's why I believe the lawsuit mentioned in the original post in this thread should be an open and shut case.


They didn't show standing. They did not say that the individual's rights trumped the binding, or vice versa. They just said both sides were constitutional.

I'm aware of what the dissenting opinion was. However, that is not law... just the other viewpoint.

Color of the law, spirit of the law... we can discuss that all day long. I do lean towards what you are pointing out.

However, this was a crappy judgement. They could have just solved this while they were there, one way or the other. They did not... so here we are.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst I think it is morally wrong for a representative of the state to go against the popular vote of those they represent, America is not a pure democracy. The electoral college is there precisely to override the will of the people in their state should there be a need to. That is how it is supposed to work.


That's not exactly true, if we are going by what Hamilton was speaking about.



It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.


They wished to have people come together to finalize the election process that would be the FINAL OBJECT OF THE PUBLIC WISHES.

People are misreading what Hamilton was speaking about. What he was trying to convey is that the electoral college was put together so that a person who was popular in a few colonies should not win the presidency by popular vote.




Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.


I would like to thank Profusion again for posting the related Federalist paper, but it appears upon reflection that he was not advocating the electors to just vote for whomever, but to vote the will of the people in the colony.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: StudColt
a reply to: Profusion

These guys can either ensure Trump is made President or start picking out their headstones. That's the only decision they get to make.


This a little funny but so very true. VERY true!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join