Duh - it's http://asktheelectors.org
Having been around the military all of my life I'm pretty worked up about foreign interference in our election...
BTW, Abadi Dirt, pants-pooping is what draft dodgers like Ted Nugent do when they don't want to get shot at - was that your tactic?
BTW, Priss. Hillary has a present 2.8 MILLION vote lead. That's the will of the people!
YAY, CHUCK DOUDNA! Couldn't have said it more succinctly for these morons myself!
Matt2 - The purpose of the Electoral College is beautifully and fully stated in Federalist 68 by Alexander Hamilton - take a break from the dab and read it. The language is a little stilted - you might have to get the dictionary out, but do it anyway - for yourself, your children and your country.
Priss, the States cannot supersede Federal Law. They can penalize "unfaithful electors", but that's all. All State laws that bind electors are unconstitutional. Period. When we caucused we were subjected to the same pledge...but then we didn't know that the Russian government was going to be behind the hacks and the drip drip drip of leaks too WikiLeaks and subsequently to the good ol' "liberal" media (my aching red ass they are).
The interference President Obama was talking about was the hacking of voting machines - do YOU remember that? This had nothing to do with the voting machines...it was disinformation, which has been a KGB/FSB tactic all over the world for decades. Putin is a master spy and a master puppeteer, and, if you voted for Trump you elected Putin - dummy! The Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, if you're geographically challenged as well as Constitutionally challenged), the Ukraine, Romania, Czech Republic, the rest of the former Soviet Union - they are all at risk. And so are you, whether you choose to believe it or not. Wake up. NOW!
Abadi Dirt, i'm pretty sure you're as dumb as your post. Take a little time and read the Constitution, and the essays that comprised the Federalist Papers. If you read objectively you will understand that the Founders put that section in Article II to protect our Republic from exactly this kind of foreign influence. My father spent his entire life keeping the USSR in check - patrolling the East German border airspace and the polar routes. If he were alive he would think you're as big a dumbass I do. Personally, I got to peer through the barbed wire at the Communist guards on the East German border numerous times, and even visited East Berlin before the Wall came down. Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union under the Russian banner.
You want more information? Try reading. Pretty much anything will improve your limited knowledge, but "The Plot to Hack America" by Malcolm Vance would improve your IQ by about a hundred points - maybe to 120?
The electoral college has been around for over 200 yrs, and you whining democrats didn't change it when obama could have either legally or illegally cuz he don't care about the constitution or the law. Only when its not in your favor do you cry about it go host a cry in poop your pants out of grief. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd crying foul. Trump wasnt my pick either but what you guys are proposing is dangerous, and really just shows how immature and sore loosing you are grow up guys and gals.
THIS IS A FEDERAL ELECTION NOT A STATE ELECTION. SCREW THE STATE. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE, OR IF THAT BOTHERS YOU.....RESIGN. DON'T VOTE AT ALL. IF TRUMP DOESN'T GET 270 VOTES HE CAN'T WIN.
If electors can't vote differently from the popular vote, then what's the point of the electoral college?
If electors can vote any way they want, regardless of the popular vote, then what's the point of the electoral college?
Does anyone recall the pre-election speeches by both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, stating fervently that the election results should be accepted graciously and that the 'loser' should aspire to work with the President Elect to ensure they are successful? Remember those remarks? Obama also ensured the nation that elections are not and cannot be rigged, by Russia or anyone else. Remember those remarks? Guess not, because now that the Dems lost out they are doing everything to ensure Trump fails. Give the guy a chance! We sat here and let Obama practically destroy the country for 8 years.
I was at caucus. Electorates pledged that they would abide by the laws in place and vote the will of the people. Why would a small group of people think they are better or know more than the people they 'represent'? What arrogance!
I would like to correct an error - the website that gives access to the electors is askanelector.com. Please take the time to voice your opinion.
I was reminded by an attorney friend of mine that Judge Daniel's comments were a violation of his judicial ethics. Judge Daniel is allowed to have a private opinion, but he is not allowed to insert it into an active case. The same goes for the threat issued by Judge Starrs. Binding Electors is unconstitutional. Period. State law cannot supersede Federal Law. Period. These two jurists should recognize their ethical lapses and remove themselves from the bench.
Priss, try studying a little about Constitutional law before you go letting state law upend the Constitution.
I have written a rather lengthy article explaining why Judge Daniels got this wrong. It is in response by this article, also written by Corey Hutchins, which discusses Judge Daniels' ruling in more detail.
Here are some of the highlights from my article.
There are five reasons why Judge Daniels clearly got this wrong.
1)As noted above, he clearly went against the wishes of our Founding Fathers.
2)As noted by the Electors' lawyer, Jason Wesoky, if Hillary had won the election and the FBI later disclosed that she had engaged in criminal activity, Trump's lawyers would be filing suit arguing that the Electors should be free.
3) Judge Daniel's insistence that electors should get the legislators to change the law can only be classified as cute. He knows that this is no remedy since the odds of convincing the legislators of changing the law before December 19th are zero. It is also an abdication of his judicial responsibility for striking down unconstitutional law.
4) Those who voted for Clinton did not just vote for Clinton. They also voted against Donald Trump. A sizeable portion probably held their nose in voting for Clinton because they saw no alternative. (An August 2016 Pew Research Survey showed that 46% of those who planned to vote for Clinton were doing so mainly because they wanted to prevent Trump from becoming President.) Judge Wiley claimed that voters who had voted for Clinton would be harmed if their Electors were free to vote for someone else. However, if all Electors were bound to their candidate then Trump would be guaranteed to become President and all Clinton voters would suffer 100% harm. Freeing the Electors to vote their conscience would set a precedent for judges in other states to unbind their states' Electors. This would increase the chance that someone other than Trump would become president, thus partially satisfying the wishes of a substantial number of Clinton voters. In other words, the harm suffered by Clinton voters would be reduced by unbinding the Electors. The same argument would hold even more strongly for unbinding the Electors who were pledged to Trump. That same Pew Research Survey showed that 53% of those planning to vote for Trump were primarily doing so to prevent Clinton from winning. Their interests would arguably be better served by freeing the electors to vote for another candidate. The next point explains why EVERYONE'S interests, both voters and nonvoters, are better served by unbinding the Electors.
5)The Constitution is not a suicide pact. So warned Justice Robert Jackson in his dissent in Termineillo v. City of Chicago. So too did many who justified increased electronic surveillance of American Citizens as a response to the 9/11 attack. And while he was arguing for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S., Donald Trump said, "The Constitution there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK?" If the Constitution is not a suicide pact, then certainly a state law binding selectors is not a suicide pact either. I will argue below why enabling Trump to become President is equivalent to entering a national suicide pact, or at the very least, equivalent to playing Russian Roulette. But before arguing this, I shall present several non-suicide related reasons for allowing the Electors to reject Donald Trump. . . .
To summarize, Donald Trump poses a great threat to the existence of the United States.
1)He is sure to antagonize most of the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.
2) He is likely to antagonize the Chinese government that represents 1.35 billion people, or 20% of the world's population. This government commands the largest military in the world and possesses over 200 nuclear warheads.
3)Trump has said that China must take stronger action against North Korea to pressure it to halt its nuclear weapons program. He has even suggested that China should invade North Korea to solve this problem for us. It is impossible to imagine China invading North Korea under even the best of circumstances. Imagining it will increase cooperation with the U.S. in any realm while we are challenging the One China policy is folly.
4)He has already antagonized our neighbors to the South with his threat to build a wall and make the Mexicans pay.
5) He has, perhaps inadvertently, created major divisions within our society by creating conditions where the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazis flourish.
6) He has called global warming a hoax and is seeking a way to withdraw from the Paris Agreement to fight climate change by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. He is reportedly considering stripping NASA's budget to prevent it from monitoring climate change.
7) He may be looking for an excuse to abandon the Iran nucler deal. It is extremely unlikely that other nations will join us in reinstating a sanctions regime against Iran if we torpedo the deal. If the deal collapses we will be faced with a choice of letting Iran's nuclear program go unchecked or going to war with Iran.
8) Putting Donald Trump in charge of nuclear weapons is not just playing Russian Roulette with our national security. It is playing Russian Roulette with human survival.
Again, this has only included the highlights of my article, The entire article can be found here.
Let him fund his own self-aggrandizing claptrap.
There is more than a little debate as to whether state law can trump (ugly pun) Federal law with regard to something as well defined in the Constitution as the authority of Electors as described in Article II, Sec 1 and in the 12th Amendment. Nemanich and his attorney, Jason Wesocky are arguing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and States cannot force an Elector to vote against his or her conscience. Whether you "buy it" or not, Mr Howell, it would behoove you to read Hamilton's Federalist 68 and reference it to Clinton Rossiter's edition of "The Federalist Papers", which includes margin references in the Constitutional section to the different Federalist Papers that were considered in the construction of the language of the final document. Madison's Federalist 10 also has references to "mischief" by "factions" and that a stopgap was needed to prevent our democracy from falling into the hands of outside interests.
The overtly loud noises coming from the Denver courtrooms (Judge Daniel's 'political stunt' comment, and Judge Starrs' threat of 'repercussions' are ominous. Article II, Section 1 is clear - the Electors have the final say in judging whether a candidate is fit for the office of President. There are numerous utterances that have come from the mouth of President-elect Trump that would get him removed from public gatherings of civilized citizens, thrown out of parties, perhaps arrested for aggravated sexual assault, tax fraud, fraud in general with his phony Trump University, etc...but most troubling is the cozy relationship he and his Cabinet/NSA selections have with Vladimir Putin. Putin and crew are poised to take a major role in the Middle East as Syria's ally and Iran's best friend (and oil client). If John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton could provide a persuasive enough argument to have the language in Article II, Sec 1 in the main text of the Constitution they must have felt pretty strongly about it. Could the judges legal knowledge be so remiss? Or could they be so un-American?
That the Electoral College has not been tested in this matter is not the issue. This is not a "political stunt", Judge Daniel - this is the United States Constitution at work. Its purpose is to prevent outside influence in our democracy. Hamilton, in Federalist 68, paragraph 5, states "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desires of foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this by raising one of their own to the chief magistracy of the
Hamilton goes on to comment that the Electors should be under the influence of no outside sources and should vote as their conscience dictates for the good of the country (paraphrased to preserve space).
Trump has not condemned Russia's intervention in Syria. Trump has not condemned Putin's annexation of Crimea. Putin has made it clear that he has an interest in the Baltic States. He has said that he may abandon our allies in NATO. He has considered David Petraeus, a convicted criminal who shared classified information with his mistress, for Secretary of State before selecting Rex Tillerson who has done multiple billions in oil deals with Russia; he has chosen Gen Mike Flynn as National Security Advisor after it was learned that Flynn shared classified information with the Afghan military; his first campaign manager, Paul Manafort, operated as a lobbyist for the Ukraine for former President Yevtushenko, a Putin loyalist, without registering with the State Department, a potential felony. Coupled with his vulgarity and admission of sexual assault because he could get away with it due to his celebrity make him totally unfit to serve as President.
If you are a single issue voter - gun control laws and abortion rights specifically - please remember that Trump's opponent amassed 2.8 million votes more than he did, and momentum shifted after a false news release regarding 650,000 emails hacked from DNC servers and Hillary Clinton's personal emails. Emails that had already been reviewed by the FBI and dismissed and careless but not harmful...and the timing of the release was devastating.
If you are a jubilant Republican I lay this entire disaster at your feet...and you can bet I'll be there to tell you I told you so when the bottom falls out and we find ourselves in a worldwide oligarchy - and not at the top of the heap, either. For shame!
But you probably won't read this and the references, anyway.
First of all, he is not a math 'teacher'. Second of all, what the heck is he trying to do? He has to vote for Clinton, whom apparently he supports anyway! I'm sorry if he did not check the laws first - he is bound. He just wants to oust Trump - why???? Why is America not supporting, encouraging and giving Trump a chance? Clinton is a proven liar and a cheat - why would we want her? I am very sorry Mr. Nemanich will not have his 'ceremonial situation' for history...awww shucks.
I'm not buying this AT ALL. No doubt Mr. Nemanich took on the responsibility of being an elector knowing that he was bound by state law to vote for the state's popular vote winner. If he didn't agree with the law, then he should not have become an elector. I smell grandstanding.
You are an amazing an inspiring women Tara I have been in two abusive relationships the first was physically mentally emotionslly Abusive the second was emotionally and mentally abusive I had kids with the second one which made it so .much harder to leave that was giyr years ago that you left thank you for sharing .
All this talk of 1st Amendment rights, but does anyone find troubling the censorship by CSIndy on the FB page? It seems dissent is the *lowest* form of patriotism when someone challenges the party line.
Any thoughts on that, Nat Stein?
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation