Constitutional Question....?

[vanzandt]

That's because the passage he cherry-picked (and left out most of for context purposes) describes what happens AFTER The Electoral College AND The House have decided that there is not a President-Elect nor Vice President-Elect.

Well that would be the case in this example, so in absence of a legitimate vote count, I don't see how the EC could do anything at all but sit on their hands. So you are technically incorrect on that one. You are correct however that the sitting president would be required to vacate the office, Piezoe's reference points that out too. We would get an "acting" president. In 2020 it surely wouldn't be DJT.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Well that would be the case in this example, so in absence of a legitimate vote count, I don't see how the EC could do anything at all but sit on their hands. So you are technically incorrect on that one. You are correct however that the sitting president would be required to vacate the office, Piezoe's reference points that out too. We would get an "acting" president. In 2020 it surely wouldn't be DJT.

The Constitution does not mandate that Electors are chose by popular vote. This is up to the states and the state legislature would send who they want. The Electoral College would not sit on their hands. If a state didn't send Electors, the College would meet and vote anyway. If no one got 270, it would go to the House.

 

[vanzandt]

The Constitution does not mandate that Electors are chose by popular vote. This is up to the states and the state legislature would send who they want.

Send them where? They aren't going to be allowed to do anything.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Send them where? They aren't going to be allowed to do anything.

The Electors that the state legislature selected would be sent to The Electoral College meeting to vote.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Send them where? They aren't going to be allowed to do anything.

Of course, they would be allowed to vote. What's going on here?

 

[piezoe]

It dismays me when I see folks talking about The Constitution that know nearly nothing about it. There is not now and has never been a requirement for Electors to be chosen by popular vote. That is up to the states and can be easily changed by the state legislatures at any time whether before or after certification. It is the state's legislature that determines the manner of selecting Electors. Gore never had any leg to stand on despite your liberal claptrap analysis of Bush v Gore. This is what I typically see from Leftists-----"revisionist constitutional analysis" to get the answer they want. In this case, the Florida legislature was set to send Bush electors since certification was done, but they could have done so at any time.

I fully agree you posts leave me as dismayed as you. Of course you do realize, since you are an expert in these matters, that there is Florida law stating how electors will be chosen. And that law applies in Florida. How does your state do it; just appoint them by spinning a bottle, I suppose. Why not, since as we know the Constitution leaves the matter of choosing electors up to the State legislatures.

I suspect your real goal here is not to impress me with your encyclopedic knowledge, but rather to get me to call you a "horse's ass". Well, give up now, because I am not going to do it! You might as well pack it in.

 

[smallfil]

It dismays me when I see folks talking about The Constitution that know nearly nothing about it. There is not now and has never been a requirement for Electors to be chosen by popular vote. That is up to the states and can be easily changed by the state legislatures at any time whether before or after certification. It is the state's legislature that determines the manner of selecting Electors. Gore never had any leg to stand on despite your liberal claptrap analysis of Bush v Gore. This is what I typically see from Leftists-----"revisionist constitutional analysis" to get the answer they want. In this case, the Florida legislature was set to send Bush electors since certification was done, but they could have done so at any time.

The issue of electors came during the November 8, 2016 elections when they were about to confirm Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Electors are appointed to represent the votes of their state. I do not know if anyone recalls the efforts of Never Trumpers to pressure the electors to go against the result of the primary votes in their respective states. While, the electors can go against the result of the actual votes cast in their state, most have the guts to stand by the voter's will! I think there was one case of an elector who voted against Donald Trump. There are consequences to electors trying to overturn the will of the voters. Do not remember what happened to that elector.