Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The manner the legislature directs must be in compliance with both federal and state laws or subsequent elections decided by improperly installed electors might just be null and void.
Did that say that? It just said that the electors are chosen in a mannor that the state directs. It does not mention anything else.
which means they send electors proportionately by party, via the popular vote or they send all electors in the support of the winner only...winner takes all....the state can choose this....that's what i had thought?
Did that say that? It just said that the electors are chosen in a mannor that the state directs. It does not mention anything else.
Yes you said as much in your OP, which you quoted in the post i responded to.
Here is what you said;
"OK this ain't about the birther bill as it is about new and exciting possibilities of state governments getting more control over the presidency. The constitution says that the state legislature may choose any manor of selection for the electors of the electorial college for the president on the United States. This is the legal justification for the Arizona birther bill because each state picks the method in which the electors are to be chosen. All states have chosen a democratic method of direct voting but what if each state started to put conditions on which they will release the electors such as being a natural born citizen, not signing unbalanced budgets into law, not going to war without consent of congress, etc, etc, etc, and more etc.
Every president and canidate will then have to meet these conditions that that state legislature picks in order get that state's electorial college votes. This will put a huge restraint on the president of the United States because if a state the size of California decided not to release the electors on the issue of the president signing an unbalanced budget then that president will always sign a balanced budget for fear of not getting the biggest state in the union electorial votes."
and there you have it. Yes, you did say that.
I know I said that but you said that they have to be in compliance with federal law which is not true. It has to be in compliance with the constitution and the constitution gives each state a wide latitude about how they are to choose electors.
Yes you said as much in your OP, which you quoted in the post i responded to.
Here is what you said;
"OK this ain't about the birther bill as it is about new and exciting possibilities of state governments getting more control over the presidency. The constitution says that the state legislature may choose any manor of selection for the electors of the electorial college for the president on the United States. This is the legal justification for the Arizona birther bill because each state picks the method in which the electors are to be chosen. All states have chosen a democratic method of direct voting but what if each state started to put conditions on which they will release the electors such as being a natural born citizen, not signing unbalanced budgets into law, not going to war without consent of congress, etc, etc, etc, and more etc.
Every president and canidate will then have to meet these conditions that that state legislature picks in order get that state's electorial college votes. This will put a huge restraint on the president of the United States because if a state the size of California decided not to release the electors on the issue of the president signing an unbalanced budget then that president will always sign a balanced budget for fear of not getting the biggest state in the union electorial votes."
and there you have it. Yes, you did say that.
I know I said that but you said that they have to be in compliance with federal law which is not true. It has to be in compliance with the constitution and the constitution gives each state a wide latitude about how they are to choose electors.
Hey hopehefails, how are you doing?
I point out that a state I lived in once, for a season, Nevada, has "none of the above" as a choice on state ballots. (at least when i lived there in the late 80s) They could not put it on the federal ballot as that violates federal election law. I would say some of the 'conditions' you mentioned would be viewed the same way. The latitude for the selection of electors can range the gammit from popular vote, to a vote of the assembly and even appointment by the governor. Those are the election processes that used to be used for the election of senators prior to the 17 amendment.
Although in today's polorized and responsibility free political climate, I would not be surprised if someone from some state tried some of the things you mentioned, I doubt they would stand up to a challenge in court. Each state's electors has to be certified both by the state where they come from and the federal government election commission. I don't think electors selected because they are pro-life, or pro choice would stand up to a challenge, and therefore the selection process does have to comply with federal election laws.
IMHO.
I know I said that but you said that they have to be in compliance with federal law which is not true. It has to be in compliance with the constitution and the constitution gives each state a wide latitude about how they are to choose electors.
Hey hopehefails, how are you doing?
I point out that a state I lived in once, for a season, Nevada, has "none of the above" as a choice on state ballots. (at least when i lived there in the late 80s) They could not put it on the federal ballot as that violates federal election law. I would say some of the 'conditions' you mentioned would be viewed the same way. The latitude for the selection of electors can range the gammit from popular vote, to a vote of the assembly and even appointment by the governor. Those are the election processes that used to be used for the election of senators prior to the 17 amendment.
Although in today's polorized and responsibility free political climate, I would not be surprised if someone from some state tried some of the things you mentioned, I doubt they would stand up to a challenge in court. Each state's electors has to be certified both by the state where they come from and the federal government election commission. I don't think electors selected because they are pro-life, or pro choice would stand up to a challenge, and therefore the selection process does have to comply with federal election laws.
IMHO.
The constitution says otherwise unless you can show me where is says states can't decide on the mannor at which electors can be chosen. I have actually pointed out the actually text where it said that in the constitution yet everyone just keeps saying federal law blah blah blah. Are you aware of the supremacy clause that states the constitution is the supreme law of the land? When federal law is in violation of the constitution then federal law gets squashed.
Hey hopehefails, how are you doing?
I point out that a state I lived in once, for a season, Nevada, has "none of the above" as a choice on state ballots. (at least when i lived there in the late 80s) They could not put it on the federal ballot as that violates federal election law. I would say some of the 'conditions' you mentioned would be viewed the same way. The latitude for the selection of electors can range the gammit from popular vote, to a vote of the assembly and even appointment by the governor. Those are the election processes that used to be used for the election of senators prior to the 17 amendment.
Although in today's polorized and responsibility free political climate, I would not be surprised if someone from some state tried some of the things you mentioned, I doubt they would stand up to a challenge in court. Each state's electors has to be certified both by the state where they come from and the federal government election commission. I don't think electors selected because they are pro-life, or pro choice would stand up to a challenge, and therefore the selection process does have to comply with federal election laws.
IMHO.
The constitution says otherwise unless you can show me where is says states can't decide on the mannor at which electors can be chosen. I have actually pointed out the actually text where it said that in the constitution yet everyone just keeps saying federal law blah blah blah. Are you aware of the supremacy clause that states the constitution is the supreme law of the land? When federal law is in violation of the constitution then federal law gets squashed.
What the constitution says about electors;
Article II Section 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:
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.
(This clause in parentheses is superseded by Amendment XII.)
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie 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, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.)
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout 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.
(This clause in parentheses is modified by Amendments XX and XXV.)
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.)
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Here is what federal law says about electors;
TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > § 6
Prev | Next
§ 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
How Current is This?
It shall be the duty of the executive of each State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7 of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the seal of the State; and if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration.
the requirements of both must be met, as well as the laws of the state where the elector is from.
It isn't hard, the constitutional requirements, the requirements of federal law, and the requirements of state law must all be met.
The states can prescribe the manner in which the electors are chosen, but it simply can't allow discriminatory practices, which are illegal under federal law, to be used to do so.
states can decline to send electors, or electors could cast their vote outside their pledge. states each have constitutions, too, and which uphold democracy. the latter fact precludes the likelihood of fails' dream coming to pass in any state. for once i think he's right about the constitution. this time he's just wrong about democracy.
OK this ain't about the birther bill as it is about new and exciting possibilities of state governments getting more control over the presidency. The constitution says that the state legislature may choose any manor of selection for the electors of the electorial college for the president on the United States. This is the legal justification for the Arizona birther bill because each state picks the method in which the electors are to be chosen. All states have chosen a democratic method of direct voting but what if each state started to put conditions on which they will release the electors such as being a natural born citizen, not signing unbalanced budgets into law, not going to war without consent of congress, etc, etc, etc, and more etc.
Every president and canidate will then have to meet these conditions that that state legislature picks in order get that state's electorial college votes. This will put a huge restraint on the president of the United States because if a state the size of California decided not to release the electors on the issue of the president signing an unbalanced budget then that president will always sign a balanced budget for fear of not getting the biggest state in the union electorial votes.
You are a fucking idiot. I can't even bother to make a logical response, because it would be such a waste of my time.
A brick has more value than you. At least a brick can be used to build something.
