Can the Electoral College Elect Clinton legally?

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

doesn't matter if she already conceded.

Sure it does. She took herself out of the race. Done deal.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

fyi, flighty was correct on the electors.

No. Sorry, he isn't.

If one is unhappy with the outcome of the 2016 elections (on any level) it would be more productive to begin WORKING to change the results of the 2018 and 2020 elections rather than waste your time fantasizing about how to steal the 2016 election ....

HillaryNoMore wasted her time doing it and look where it got her.

[Gotyour6]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Talk about the potential to start a civil war.
I wonder which side is the most armed and stocked with ammunition?

This

If you want a civil war this is how you would get one

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Gotyour6

This

If you want a civil war this is how you would get one

The process to revise the Constitution sounds great on paper, but so did HillaryNoMore's campaign strategy. The "lock" on the electoral votes by HillaryNoMore also sounded inevitable, but that didn't work out either.

It's refreshing to know that not all voters are "whores."

[CuteOldGuy]

Dream all you want. It isn't going to happen.

[LexusLover]

Thanksgiving is just around the corner. Food will appease them.

Then Santa comes!

[rexdutchman]

Not constitutional possible , LEXUSLOVER is correct VOTE then next time. NO body that I know voted and wanted Oboo boo Just saying.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. Sorry, he isn't.

If one is unhappy with the outcome of the 2016 elections (on any level) it would be more productive to begin WORKING to change the results of the 2018 and 2020 elections rather than waste your time fantasizing about how to steal the 2016 election ....

HillaryNoMore wasted her time doing it and look where it got her.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Dream all you want. It isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Not constitutional possible , LEXUSLOVER is correct VOTE then next time. NO body that I know voted and wanted Oboo boo Just saying.

not constitutionally possible?

then explain what happened in the 1836 election where 23 faithless electors by 1 vote threw the election of Franklin Pierce's Vice President to the Senate.

otherwise, your reasoning is full of shit!

cite cases to prove your point.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Liar.

You are ate up with it bad. Just like you clinging to all the Obamacare lies and trying to justifying them by any means necessary.

Oh, and by the way.....





LIAR.

How did I lie? You don't like Factcheck.org? Take it up with them.

From the link in Post #1.

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. It is true, as the National Archives and Records Administration notes, that there is “no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.” But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states could require electors to take a pledge to support the party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees from its national convention. And many do. Some even prescribe fines of $500 to $1,000 to so-called “faithless electors” for not voting for the party’s nominee, or allow them to be replaced by an alternate.
Whether those pledges or fines could be upheld by the Supreme Court is unclear. As the National Archives notes, “No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.” In addition, more than 20 states do not have a state law or party or state pledge requiring electors to back the candidates with the most votes in their state.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The process to revise the Constitution sounds great on paper, but so did HillaryNoMore's campaign strategy. The "lock" on the electoral votes by HillaryNoMore also sounded inevitable, but that didn't work out either.

It's refreshing to know that not all voters are "whores."

Only those that vote for the liberal agenda ! And they " bareback " !!! And expect the rest of U.S. to suffer the potential consequences from that !!!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

How did I lie? You don't like Factcheck.org? Take it up with them.

From the link in Post #1.

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. It is true, as the National Archives and Records Administration notes, that there is “no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states.” But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states could require electors to take a pledge to support the party’s presidential and vice presidential nominees from its national convention. And many do. Some even prescribe fines of $500 to $1,000 to so-called “faithless electors” for not voting for the party’s nominee, or allow them to be replaced by an alternate.
Whether those pledges or fines could be upheld by the Supreme Court is unclear. As the National Archives notes, “No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.” In addition, more than 20 states do not have a state law or party or state pledge requiring electors to back the candidates with the most votes in their state.

you ignore the obvious you obtuse moron, you flounder like a beached sperm whale .. wearing high heels. bahahaaa

who has the last word to declare a president? the Senate. controlled currently by ... the Republicans. ... there's no hope for you, got that? oh don't worry! Trump will take care of you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Not going to happen. It's possible, but it won't. Find a safe space and color, Fluffy. You'll feel better.

[OldManRon]

who has the last word to declare a president? the Senate. controlled currently by ... the Republicans. ...

Actually, no, the Senate doesn't have the last word. According to the Constitution, the President of the Senate is the one who is in charge of the Electoral Votes on the true election day. At the moment, that is Vice President Joe Biden - a Democrat.

As per the U.S. Constitution:
"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;...."(Note: the emphasis is mine.The rest of the text only applies if no majority of the Electoral Votes is won by any candidate)
Can the Electors change their votes? Legally, certainly. Will they in this election? Highly unlikely of course, unless Donald Trump were to make some egregious, and completely unrecoverable blunder, or if he were to become incapacitated in some way that would render him incapable to serve as our President - prior to the actual votes being cast by the Electors.

We all need to remember that the U.S. is still a nation of written laws, and therefore we all are legally bound to abide by the foundational laws that are spelled out within our Constitution - up until some future time that a Constitutional Amendment is passed which would specifically override the original text. That's a long and difficult process. In 227 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times - and 10 of those were ratified only two years after the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. And, two more were added four years later. So, in the 221 years since then, only 15 have been added. Just about one every 15 years. A very difficult undertaking indeed.

So, at this time, the Constitutional process that clearly states that Electoral Votes supersede the popular vote, also clearly states that Electors are free to vote for whomever they please. The power of any Federal laws will override State laws every time if the Constitution specifically addresses that power. The processes for electing our President fall into that category, except when it clearly states otherwise.

So, I'm just sayin', whether we, as individuals, like it or not, legally, that's just the way it is for now. If you want either of those processes changed, then get out there and work to get a Constitutional Amendment initiated, passed, and ratified. You only have two options - accept it the way it is, or work to get it changed.

I'm not trying to take a side here. I'm just pointing out the facts that are clearly stated, within our Constitution, concerning the processes involved in electing a President of the U.S.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by OldManRon

Actually, no, the Senate doesn't have the last word. According to the Constitution, the President of the Senate is the one who is in charge of the Electoral Votes on the true election day. At the moment, that is Vice President Joe Biden - a Democrat.

As per the U.S. Constitution:
"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;...."(Note: the emphasis is mine.The rest of the text only applies if no majority of the Electoral Votes is won by any candidate)
Can the Electors change their votes? Legally, certainly. Will they in this election? Highly unlikely of course, unless Donald Trump were to make some egregious, and completely unrecoverable blunder, or if he were to become incapacitated in some way that would render him incapable to serve as our President - prior to the actual votes being cast by the Electors.

We all need to remember that the U.S. is still a nation of written laws, and therefore we all are legally bound to abide by the foundational laws that are spelled out within our Constitution - up until some future time that a Constitutional Amendment is passed which would specifically override the original text. That's a long and difficult process. In 227 years, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times - and 10 of those were ratified only two years after the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. And, two more were added four years later. So, in the 221 years since then, only 15 have been added. Just about one every 15 years. A very difficult undertaking indeed.

So, at this time, the Constitutional process that clearly states that Electoral Votes supersede the popular vote, also clearly states that Electors are free to vote for whomever they please. The power of any Federal laws will override State laws every time if the Constitution specifically addresses that power. The processes for electing our President fall into that category, except when it clearly states otherwise.

So, I'm just sayin', whether we, as individuals, like it or not, legally, that's just the way it is for now. If you want either of those processes changed, then get out there and work to get a Constitutional Amendment initiated, passed, and ratified. You only have two options - accept it the way it is, or work to get it changed.

I'm not trying to take a side here. I'm just pointing out the facts that are clearly stated, within our Constitution, concerning the processes involved in electing a President of the U.S.

You are ignoring the SCOTUS interpretations of the "State's rights" issues regarding national elections. The 2000 dispute raised by Gore provided the SCOTUS with another opportunity to opin on the issue. A flaw in looking only to the language of the 12th amendment of the Constitution is that it ignores the SCOTUS writings on the application of each State's laws to the Federal election process with regard to voting and the selection of Electors, which are controlled by the States. Basically the SCOTUS allows the States to determine the "selection" process and only reviews the States' laws on elections and selecting the electorial voters as to due process and equal protection...which is deeply entrenched in the "one-man, one-vote" concept.

Like you said: "We all need to remember that the U.S. is still a nation of written laws, and therefore we all are legally bound to abide by the foundational laws that are spelled out within our Constitution.." ... which includes ALL the amendments and necessarily includes the 10TH which states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The SCOTUS in the Gore vs. Bush decisions emphasized the role of the State in deciding the Presidential elections ... which will control.

As for the 1836 "example" as being "authority".... see the above.

As for this quote out of your discourse:

So, at this time, the Constitutional process that clearly states that Electoral Votes supersede the popular vote, also clearly states that Electors are free to vote for whomever they please. The power of any Federal laws will override State laws every time if the Constitution specifically addresses that power. The processes for electing our President fall into that category, except when it clearly states otherwise.

Please isolate the portions of the 12th amendment that "clearly state" what you posted!

[OldManRon]

Sorry if this double posts - knocked off my mouse - then the thread disappeared - geez.

Lex,

Remember, there are still 21 states that don't require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party’s designated candidate anyway.

Anyway, I was just making the point that it's possible. Hell, it's possible that I'll hit the lottery tonight too. ;-) (oh, wait. I have to play in order for that possibility to happen = right?)

My 71-year-old brain isn't as good as it used to be. Could you provide me with a link (here or PM is fine) to the

SCOTUS interpretations of the "State's rights" issues

statement you mentioned. My mind was a terrible thing to waste - LOL

Were this to happen, I'm sure it would wind up in the SCOTUS very quickly. With a 4-4 ideology split this time, it could get quite interesting. ;-)