Supreme Court will decide whether "electors" must vote for the person who won their state. Seriously.
How far has this country fallen from the ideas of the Founders? Consider the following story:
As every American should know, a key provision of our Constitution is that we elect presidents with a system called the "electoral college," under which states actually vote for "electors," who then cast the electoral votes of their state for the candidate who won the vote in their state.
At least that was how the Founders intended it to work. But after the 2016 election showed Trump winning, a handful of Democrat "electors" decided they didn't like that result--and hit on a cunning, clever way to prevent it: They would try to persuade GOP electors in states Trump won to simply vote for someone else.
Cool, eh?
Because it never occurred to the Founders that any elector would be so brazenly dishonest as to cast their vote for someone who didn't win a majority of the votes in their state, no one had ever bothered to explicitly write a rule or law saying you couldn't do that.
So about now you may be thinking that the point of this article is that we should be stunned that a handful of Democrat "electors" would try to persuade GOP electors in other states NOT to cast their state's vote for Trump, right?
Nah, bro. That kind of brazen contempt for reason is *exactly* what we've come to expect from Democrats. It only surprises you if you haven't been paying attention to how often they break the law without consequence.
So although the "Democrats scheme to get GOP electors to vote against Trump" story does show how far we've fallen from the ideas of the Founders, the real story is worse:
This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether presidential electors can vote for whoever they wish, instead of for the candidate who won their state's popular vote.
Sounds too insane to be real, so let me explain:
Michael Baca and Bret Chiafalo were electors in Colorado and Washington, respectively. Both supported Bernie Sanders supporters in the 2016 Democratic race.
Then, contrary to polls and expectations, Trump won the November election. To Baca and Chiafalo that was simply unacceptable, and on election night the two spoke on the phone about ways they might be able to overturn the "unacceptable" result and put Hillary Clinton in the presidency.
It was breath-taking in its audacity--much like the FBI/media lie that Trump had "colluded" with Russia.
All the schemers had to do was convince 37 GOP electors to go along with their scheme. They doubted they could get 37 Republicans to write down Hillary Clinton, so they decided to try to get Republican electors to vote for a different Republican to keep Trump under 270.
To show their commitment to the Republican electors they were asking to abandon Trump, the plotters would promise to vote for a non-Trump GOP candidate.
The two Democrats quickly began calling GOP electors around the country asking them not to vote for Trump, even though Trump won the vote in their states.
As one media propagandist put it, "The movement grew, with people from across the political spectrum joining the cause."
Ah! A "movement," with "people from across the political spectrum joining the cause," you say? Oh, you bet. The propagandist then summarizes:
"In the end, seven electors ended up *successfully defecting.*"
Cuz, see, if Democrats convince GOP electors not to vote for their party's candidate--who won their state--the Media consider this a "success."
These people are anti-American rat-bastards for whom the law is irrelevant in their pursuit of power.
Suddenly the Washington secretary of state's office began to get calls from electors began asking what their legal obligations were. State law provided that electors who didn't vote for the winner of the state's vote would be subject to a $1,000 fine, and her office decided there was no legal reason to overturn that law.
As we would expect from Democrats, the Washington plotters quickly asked a court to prevent the state from fining them (i.e. preventing the state from complying with a valid law). In other words, they implicitly asked a judge to rule that they had the absolute right to cast their electoral vote for anyone they wanted, regardless of who won their state's vote--with no penalty at all.
Colorado law provides that electors who vote contra to the winner of their state's vote shall be replaced. In Colorado, plotter Baca asked a federal judge to prevent Colorado from enforcing that law.
The faithless electors lost both cases, and as the day electors meet to cast their ballots drew closer it became clear that not enough Republican electors would join the Democrat plotters to keep Trump from being elected.
Chiafalo ended up casting his state's electoral vote for Colin Powell. The vote was counted, and Chiafalo was later fined.
In Colorado, the federal judge had ordered the state to use an oath of no substance. As faithless elector Baca prepared to swear to vote as his state had voted, he was shocked that someone in the state had had the *gall* to NOT follow the judge's order, and had instead used what Baca described as "a super-specific oath to kind of pigeonhole the electors."
"To kind of pigeonhole the electors" is a Media euphemism for trying to persuade electors to vote as their state's voters directed. Wow, that way lies anarchy and ruin, eh? Imagine how outraged Baca must have been! The idea that someone would not follow an established legal procedure must have had his blood boiling.
In protest at having to use the new oath, Baca signed it on the ground, but said that if he violated it he didn't believe the state could replace him as an elector.
He decided to follow through on the plan to vote for a moderate Republican. He crossed out Hillary Clinton's name and wrote in John Kasich.
Now, almost no one is surprised that Democrats would ask judges to allow them to cast their state's vote for someone who didn't win the vote in their state. But a rational person would think that no sane judge would be corrupt enough to give this argument any credence. This case should have been slapped down the first time it made it to court. Yet the morons on the 10th Circuit ruled for Baca.
To be clear: a majority on the 10th Circuit ruled that not only could electors vote for someone who didn't win their state's vote, but that the state didn't have the power to remove faithless electors.
The shock is that this case has made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One wonders what the Founders of this nation would think of this.
Surely "logic" like that shown by the 10th Circuit suggests we must be nearing the End Times.
As every American should know, a key provision of our Constitution is that we elect presidents with a system called the "electoral college," under which states actually vote for "electors," who then cast the electoral votes of their state for the candidate who won the vote in their state.
At least that was how the Founders intended it to work. But after the 2016 election showed Trump winning, a handful of Democrat "electors" decided they didn't like that result--and hit on a cunning, clever way to prevent it: They would try to persuade GOP electors in states Trump won to simply vote for someone else.
Cool, eh?
Because it never occurred to the Founders that any elector would be so brazenly dishonest as to cast their vote for someone who didn't win a majority of the votes in their state, no one had ever bothered to explicitly write a rule or law saying you couldn't do that.
So about now you may be thinking that the point of this article is that we should be stunned that a handful of Democrat "electors" would try to persuade GOP electors in other states NOT to cast their state's vote for Trump, right?
Nah, bro. That kind of brazen contempt for reason is *exactly* what we've come to expect from Democrats. It only surprises you if you haven't been paying attention to how often they break the law without consequence.
So although the "Democrats scheme to get GOP electors to vote against Trump" story does show how far we've fallen from the ideas of the Founders, the real story is worse:
This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether presidential electors can vote for whoever they wish, instead of for the candidate who won their state's popular vote.
Sounds too insane to be real, so let me explain:
Michael Baca and Bret Chiafalo were electors in Colorado and Washington, respectively. Both supported Bernie Sanders supporters in the 2016 Democratic race.
Then, contrary to polls and expectations, Trump won the November election. To Baca and Chiafalo that was simply unacceptable, and on election night the two spoke on the phone about ways they might be able to overturn the "unacceptable" result and put Hillary Clinton in the presidency.
It was breath-taking in its audacity--much like the FBI/media lie that Trump had "colluded" with Russia.
All the schemers had to do was convince 37 GOP electors to go along with their scheme. They doubted they could get 37 Republicans to write down Hillary Clinton, so they decided to try to get Republican electors to vote for a different Republican to keep Trump under 270.
To show their commitment to the Republican electors they were asking to abandon Trump, the plotters would promise to vote for a non-Trump GOP candidate.
The two Democrats quickly began calling GOP electors around the country asking them not to vote for Trump, even though Trump won the vote in their states.
As one media propagandist put it, "The movement grew, with people from across the political spectrum joining the cause."
Ah! A "movement," with "people from across the political spectrum joining the cause," you say? Oh, you bet. The propagandist then summarizes:
"In the end, seven electors ended up *successfully defecting.*"
Cuz, see, if Democrats convince GOP electors not to vote for their party's candidate--who won their state--the Media consider this a "success."
These people are anti-American rat-bastards for whom the law is irrelevant in their pursuit of power.
Suddenly the Washington secretary of state's office began to get calls from electors began asking what their legal obligations were. State law provided that electors who didn't vote for the winner of the state's vote would be subject to a $1,000 fine, and her office decided there was no legal reason to overturn that law.
As we would expect from Democrats, the Washington plotters quickly asked a court to prevent the state from fining them (i.e. preventing the state from complying with a valid law). In other words, they implicitly asked a judge to rule that they had the absolute right to cast their electoral vote for anyone they wanted, regardless of who won their state's vote--with no penalty at all.
Colorado law provides that electors who vote contra to the winner of their state's vote shall be replaced. In Colorado, plotter Baca asked a federal judge to prevent Colorado from enforcing that law.
The faithless electors lost both cases, and as the day electors meet to cast their ballots drew closer it became clear that not enough Republican electors would join the Democrat plotters to keep Trump from being elected.
Chiafalo ended up casting his state's electoral vote for Colin Powell. The vote was counted, and Chiafalo was later fined.
In Colorado, the federal judge had ordered the state to use an oath of no substance. As faithless elector Baca prepared to swear to vote as his state had voted, he was shocked that someone in the state had had the *gall* to NOT follow the judge's order, and had instead used what Baca described as "a super-specific oath to kind of pigeonhole the electors."
"To kind of pigeonhole the electors" is a Media euphemism for trying to persuade electors to vote as their state's voters directed. Wow, that way lies anarchy and ruin, eh? Imagine how outraged Baca must have been! The idea that someone would not follow an established legal procedure must have had his blood boiling.
In protest at having to use the new oath, Baca signed it on the ground, but said that if he violated it he didn't believe the state could replace him as an elector.
He decided to follow through on the plan to vote for a moderate Republican. He crossed out Hillary Clinton's name and wrote in John Kasich.
Now, almost no one is surprised that Democrats would ask judges to allow them to cast their state's vote for someone who didn't win the vote in their state. But a rational person would think that no sane judge would be corrupt enough to give this argument any credence. This case should have been slapped down the first time it made it to court. Yet the morons on the 10th Circuit ruled for Baca.
To be clear: a majority on the 10th Circuit ruled that not only could electors vote for someone who didn't win their state's vote, but that the state didn't have the power to remove faithless electors.
The shock is that this case has made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One wonders what the Founders of this nation would think of this.
Surely "logic" like that shown by the 10th Circuit suggests we must be nearing the End Times.
posted by SF at
2:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home