Electoral College Case

PUBLISHED: 5:08 PM 18 Jan 2020

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Electoral College Case After 1952 Ruling Defied

The people who are pushing to destroy the Republic of the United States despise the Electoral College because of the fairness—and prevention of mob rule—it ensures.

This case is a means to an end for leftists in America.

Over the past few years, advocates who are determined to establish democracy-based chaos in the United States have taken aim at their primary enemy—The Electoral College.

Leftists understand that this entity prevents mob rule from controlling the Republic, so they are steadily working to undermine and abolish it, which in effect would demolish the liberties of individuals.

In the 2016 election, sore loser democrats complained about having to cast their Electoral College vote according to a 1952 Supreme Court ruling that confirmed state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution.

However, these democrats who defied their state laws and gave their vote to someone other than the popular vote winner were punished. So they are complaining.

The so-called “faithless electors” have brought their case to the Supreme Court.

Townhall reported:

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would decide whether Electoral College electors must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. Half the states currently have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.

Electors who do not vote in accordance to the winner of their state’s popular vote are known as “faithless electors.”

But in 2016, the Democrats ran such a rotten candidate that several electors in states carried by Hillary Clinton cast their ballots for someone else. One elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people — three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren.

Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court’s decision, arguing “[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience.”

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the Electoral College they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez’s dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose.

“The states’ power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes,” the 10th Circuit declared.

Just like Arizonans can vote to send Jeff Flake to the Senate, but, once there, the voters cannot nullify Flake’s votes or fine the senator for voting his conscience, as much as the voters would like to.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

The lawyer for the Washington State electors, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig is hoping the case will focus attention on what he characterizes as shortcomings in the Electoral College when it comes to reflecting the outcome of the popular vote.

“It could also convince both sides that it is finally time to step up and modify the Constitution to address this underlying problem,” Professor Lessig said. The professor suggested such fixes as the National Popular Vote plan or even a constitutional amendment.

Because a Democrat lost the last presidential election, surely something must be wrong with the Constitution that allowed it to happen.

The case goes before the court this spring and a decision is expected by the end of June.

Look very carefully at what Lessig said. It’s easy to understand that this case is NOT about faithless electors. It is only about abolishing the Electoral College and in essence, obliterating the Republic which ensures individual liberty and voice.

Think about what would happen if elections were decided by the social media mob and cancel culture permeating Twitter, Facebook, and other outlets?

Thank about what would have happened in the 1860’s if majority rule alone were enough to control the nation’s path. Likewise, if the Civil Rights movement had to depend on “popular” sentiment, the years of conflict and strife would have carried out longer.

Mobs are NOT smart. Mob rule, which is democracy, is NOT the recipe that ensures liberty. The Founding Fathers understood this truth.

That is why Venezuela is overrun with corruption and people are living in poverty and filth. A ‘true’ democracy ensures only ONE thing: the elitists with power to sway an ignorant populace with promises of a chicken in every pot are the only ones who end up with food, safety, or rights. Everyone else becomes a slave.