Special to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante
After reading the Washington Post article “Why efforts to persuade the electoral college to ditch Trump probably won’t work” by Sean Sullivan and Ed O’Keefe, December 6, 2016, and the Politico article “Rogue electors brief Clinton camp on anti-Trump plan – Kasich emerges as the group’s alternative Electoral College pick” By Kyle Cheney and Gabriel Debenedetti, 12/05/16, where we are informed about the existence of a group calling itself the “Hamilton Electors,” I thought it time, past time, perhaps, to revisit the subject of American presidents as was actually laid out by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers, which have to be read as a body to properly understand them, and what they have bequeathed to us in our own times here in the USA.
According to the Washington Post, the name of this group calling itself the “Hamilton Electors” nods to Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist Papers, which the founders of this group and other Trump critics hold up as an argument that the electoral college should serve as a safeguard against allowing someone unfit for the presidency to serve.
In actuality, the first time we come across mention of the Electoral College in the Federalist Papers, it is not by Alexander Hamilton, at all; to the contrary, it is John Jay, this nation’s first chief justice, in FEDERALIST No. 64 from the New York Packet on Friday, March 7, 1788 to the People of the State of New York, wherein Jay, writing as Publius, informs us as follows with respect to selection of this nation’s chief magistrate, to wit:
The power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good.
The convention appears to have been attentive to both these points: they have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose; and they have committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures.
end quotes
They (the founding fathers in the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention) have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose.
But are these “electors” today deputed by “the people?”
Or are they selected by the very political parties that have given us endless bickering and gridlock in our federal government?
Getting back to John Jay and FEDERALIST No. 64, we are further informed that the mode chosen, the so-called “electoral college,” has “vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.”
Getting to the “electoral college,” itself, Jay, writing as Publius, gave us this to consider in our own times concerning the make-up of the electoral college:
As the select assembly for choosing the President will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.
end quotes
While it may have been true in his time, some 228 years ago now, that the “select assembly” for choosing the President would in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, is that still true today?
Jay then continues as follows:
The Constitution manifests very particular attention to this object.
The inference which naturally results from these considerations is this, that the President will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence.
end quotes
That seems to bring us to the heart of the matter here, does it not, this inference that the President will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests and who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence?
Do any of the presidential contenders put before us this election season really understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations?
More to the point, perhaps, do any of the “main-stream” presidential candidates have a reputation for integrity that inspires and merits confidence?
Getting back to the Federalist Papers, in FEDERALIST No. 62, for the Independent Journal by either Hamilton or Jemmy Madison, to the People of the State of New York, we were informed as follows concerning our national government the president is supposed to understand:
A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.
end quotes
Fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people.
HMMMMMMMMMM.
Are we a happy people today?
And that thought brings us to HIP-HOP star Alexander Hamilton and FEDERALIST No. 68, entitled “The Mode of Electing the President” from the New York Packet, Friday, March 14, 1788, to the People of the State of New York, where Rapper extraordinaire Hamilton informs us as follows:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
end quotes
Which takes us back to the important question of who it actually was who selected these “electors” of today, because it sure was not “the people.”
According to Alexander Hamilton:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
end quote
Is that really who we have in the electoral college of today, men and women most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station of United States president?
Or do we instead have a bunch of political hacks chosen by the two political parties because they can be reli8ed on to be rubber-stamps?
Which thought takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and FEDERALIST No. 68:
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
end quotes
But we, the people, did not select those people, the political parties did, so has the spirit of the Federalist Papers as outlined by Alexander Hamilton on March 14, 1788 been violated here?
With respect to the electoral college today, Hamilton continued by stating:
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
end quotes
As one reads the afore-mentioned Washington Post and Politico articles above here, one has to seriously question whether Alexander Hamilton was feeding us a line of BULL****, or if he really believed a word he was saying when he stated it was peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States, but the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
Do they?
A serious question for our times, indeed!
Were we to actually be naïve or gullible enough, or trusting enough to believe that the Federalist Papers meant what they said, as opposed to being little more than evidence of a political writing style once extant here in the United States of America, or possibly a major-league con job, I would next take us to FEDERALIST No. 70, The Executive Department Further Considered, from the New York Packet, Tuesday, March 18, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York, wherein we were informed by the hip-hop star as follows with respect to what qualities we should be looking for in a chief magistrate for this nation:
Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government.
It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.
end quote
Those, people, are the qualities that the “electors” of the so-called electoral college are supposed to be looking for in our next United States president when they meet on December 19th, but will they?
Conversely, according to rapper extraordinaire Hamilton, a feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government, and a feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.
That is what the electors of the electoral college are supposed to be protecting us against when they meet on December 19th to cast their electoral vote for president.
But will they?
In FEDERALIST No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, from the New York Packet, Friday, March 14, 1788 to the People of the State of New York, writing as Publius, Alexander Hamilton stated his opinion as to the answers to those two questions as follows:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
end quotes
Moral certainty, people.
Moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
Here, I must confess, I find myself restraining myself from laughing right out loud in Rap star Alexander Hamilton’s face at the absurdity of that statement in the light of our experience with U.S. presidents since that statement was made.
According to Hamilton:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
end quotes
What other talents, Alexander?
Check the news, dude!
Neither of these main stream candidates were established in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him or her a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States, and yet it is those same two candidates who this so-called electoral college will be voting for on the 19th of this month.
Getting back to FEDERALIST No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, writing as Publius, Alexander Hamilton tells us this:
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
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 desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
end quote
As American political history subsequent to 1788 will clearly demonstrate, as we consider it in here in subsequent posts, Alexander Hamilton was way wide of the mark here.
Either he himself was totally naïve, or he was simply selling us a bill of goods or a pig in a poke, but his views on the independence of the electoral college were totally discarded subsequent to the first presidential election in this country as unworkable.
Proof of that assertion can be found in S. Rep. No. 22, 19th Cong., 1st Sess. (1826), p. 4, as follows:
“In the first election held under the constitution, the people looked beyond these agents [electors], fixed upon their own candidates for President and Vice President, and took pledges from the electoral candidates to obey their will.”
“In every subsequent election, the same thing has been done.”
“Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution.”
“They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be.”
“They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment; on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents.”
“They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless, if he is faithful, and dangerous, if he is not.”
end quotes
More recently, in RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), MR. JUSTICE JACKSON of the United States Supreme Court, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, gave us this indictment of the electoral college system as it is today in the United States of America, regardless of what Alexander Hamilton may have untended for it:
No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation’s highest offices. *
Certainly under that plan no state law could control the elector in performance of his federal duty, any more than it could a United States Senator who also is chosen by, and represents, the State.
This arrangement miscarried.
Electors, although often personally eminent, independent, and respectable, officially became voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities to whose memory we might justly paraphrase a tuneful satire:
They always voted at their Party’s call And never thought of thinking for themselves at all.
As an institution the Electoral College suffered atrophy almost indistinguishable from rigor mortis.
end quote
His conclusion with respect to the electoral college in 1952, long after the demise of Alexander Hamilton and his writings on the electoral college in his Federalist Papers, is as follows:
The demise of the whole electoral system would not impress me as a disaster.
At its best it is a mystifying and distorting factor in presidential elections which may resolve a popular defeat into an electoral victory.
At its worst it is open to local corruption and manipulation, once so flagrant as to threaten the stability of the country.
To abolish it and substitute direct election of the President, so that every vote wherever cast would have equal weight in calculating the result, would seem to me a gain for simplicity and integrity of our governmental processes.
end quote
And there is where I will leave the matter for the moment, as we ponder those thoughts of that United States Supreme Court Justice back when.
As someone who lived through the VEET NAM times here in America, I certainly am no stranger to the surreal, but what is going on in this country right now with respect to the so-called “electoral college” is pushing the bounds of surreality out to new limits.
I am of course referring to the breaking USA TODAY story “Clinton’s team backs electors’ demand for a briefing” by Eliza Collins on 12 December 2016 wherein we have just been informed as follows:
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman and current adviser says that the campaign backs demands from 10 members of the Electoral College to receive an intelligence briefing on conclusions about whether foreign governments intervened in the election.
end quotes
HUH?
Electoral College members are now demanding intelligence briefings from the US government?
From whence comes that authority, one must wonder, after the United States Supreme Court sixty-four (64) years ago in 1952 informed us in RAY v. BLAIR, a case every American of voting age should be acquainted with, that the Electors, although often personally eminent, independent, and respectable, officially became voluntary party lackeys and intellectual nonentities to whose memory we might justly paraphrase a tuneful satire: They always voted at their Party’s call And never thought of thinking for themselves at all.
Getting back to the breaking USA TODAY story, we have this:
“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” John Podesta said in a statement Monday according to Politico.
“Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”
end quotes
Actually, that is a laughable assertion coming from John Podesta, in light of the history of the Electoral College in this country, including the fact that Democrat electoral college members have to take a LOYALTY OATH to the Democrat Party to be an elector, according to the United States Supreme Court in RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), No. 649, argued: March 31, 1952, decided: April 3, 1952, as follows:
Where a state authorizes a political party to choose its nominees for Presidential Electors in a state-controlled party primary election and to fix the qualifications for the candidates, it is not violative of the Federal Constitution for the party to require the candidates for the office of Presidential Elector to take a pledge to support the nominees of the party’s National Convention for President and Vice-President or for the party’s officers to refuse to certify as a candidate for Presidential Elector a person otherwise qualified who refuses to take such a pledge.
end quotes
Yes, people, that is correct – loyalty oaths, not to the United States of America, not to the Constitution, not to our laws, but to the Democrat National Committee!
According to MR. JUSTICE REED who delivered the opinion of the Court RAY v. BLAIR:
As is well known, political parties in the modern sense were not born with the Republic.
They were created by necessity, by the need to organize the rapidly increasing population, scattered over our Land, so as to coordinate efforts to secure needed legislation and oppose that deemed undesirable.
Various tests of party allegiance for candidates in direct primaries are found in a number of states.
The requirement of a pledge from the candidate participating in primaries to support the nominee is not unusual.
Such a provision protects a party from intrusion by those with adverse political principles.
end quotes
With that thought of party loyalty oaths on our mind, let’s get back to the breaking USA TODAY story, where we are further informed as follows:
The letter posted on Medium Monday morning also said that the electors “will separately require from Donald Trump conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign, and conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward.”
end quotes
HUH all over again!
The electors will separately require from Donald Trump conclusive evidence that he and his staff and advisors did not accept Russian interference?
What exactly might that be then?
How exactly does one present someone else with “conclusive evidence” that they did not do something?
Doesn’t it generally work the other way around, that the accusers, in this case, the members of the Electoral College, present us, we, the people, with conclusive evidence that Trump and his staff and advisors did accept Russian interference, or otherwise collaborate during the campaign as their justification for not selecting Trump as president?
And what of this “conclusive disavowal and repudiation of such collaboration and interference going forward?”
Will they accept his word, I wonder?
Going back to the breaking USA TODAY story:
Podesta pointed to the Oct. 7 announcement from the intelligence community that members were confident that Russia was responsible for some of the hacks.
“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump.”
“Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign.”
“We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our election was for the purpose of election Donald Trump,” Podesta continued.
“This should distress every American.”
end quotes
Actually, what distresses me as an American citizen, especially with this latest fiasco of a “presidential election” which was as farcical as I have ever experienced in my lifetime, is the fact that in this country today, we do have farces pretending to be presidential elections.
What distresses me is the gridlock we have from party politics and political faction in this country.
And just when it appeared that the electoral silliness might finally be over, and we could all get back to moving ahead in our own lives without having to listen to endless Republican/Democrat bickering and name-calling, here it is, the ridiculousness starting up all over again with the politically partisan electoral college this time around.
What a clown show, people.
For what other name can it be called?
Speaking of American political history subsequent to 1788, when the Federalist Papers were being presented to the People of the State of New York, as that political history pertains to the so-called “electoral college” here in the United States of America, and how far that original concept of selecting an American president has become politicized and bastardized since then, so that today, the process of selecting an American president would be in all likelihood totally unrecognizable to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and Jemmy Madison, all we need do is refer to the article in The Atlantic entitled “New York Is the Latest State to Reject the Electoral College – But it’ll take a lot more work to abolish the current system altogether” by Emma Roller dated April 17, 2014, wherein we are informed as follows concerning the politicization and bastardization of the system in this state:
On Monday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that adds New York to the roster of states in the National Popular Vote compact.
The law allows New York to award its 29 electoral votes “in any manner it deems appropriate,” under Article II of the Constitution.
end quotes
Yes, people, while it is true that John Jay, this nation’s first chief justice, told us in FEDERALIST No. 64 from the New York Packet on Friday, March 7, 1788 that the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention had directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose, in reality, that proved unworkable, and quickly went right out the window after the election of 1800 in which Jefferson and Burr received tie votes in the electoral college, thus throwing the selection of a President into the House of Representatives, which is why we now have the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution concerning the electoral college, and that began a process of politicizing the process of the electoral college so that now, today, at least in New York state, where both Andy Cuomo and Bill Clinton are electors, the electors no longer are deputed by “the people.”
To the contrary, they in essence have become the sole property of Andy Cuomo in his capacity as governor, to do with as he wishes, and according to The Atlantic, Cuomo has pledged New York to give those votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.
According to The Atlantic, popular-vote advocates say the Electoral College system gives disproportionate influence to small states and swing states over the outcome of an election, because small states that may only have one representative in Congress still automatically get three electors.
Getting back to Andy Cuomo, according to The Atlantic, “With the passage of this legislation, New York is taking a bold step to fundamentally increase the strength and fairness of our nation’s presidential elections,” Cuomo said in a press release, which comes across as pure BULL****.
So much then for FEDERALIST No. 68, The Mode of Electing the President, where writing as Publius, Alexander Hamilton told us this:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
end quotes
When a governor of a state such as Andy Cuomo, himself also a presidential elector, can by executive fiat, in essence, take over the votes of the electors of New York state as his own to disperse as he chooses, it becomes patently obvious that contrary to what Hamilton was saying in FEDERALIST No. 68 about the Constitutional Convention having guarded against all danger of cabal, intrigue, and corruption with the most provident and judicious attention, that supposed “provident and judicious attention” simply was not near enough.
So, without looking either to the right or to the left here for the moment, and leaving off further consideration for the moment of the assertion, specious or otherwise, of Democrat New York governor and presidential elector Andy Cuomo in the above Atlantic article by Emma Roller dated April 17, 2014 that “(T)he law allows New York to award its 29 electoral votes ‘in any manner it deems appropriate,’ under Article II of the Constitution,” let us look at the specific language of the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution governing the electoral college to see what guidance that amendment might give us on the subject of what should be transpiring with the electoral college on the 19th of this month.
First of all, that amendment tells us this: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President, Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.”
“They shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President.”
end quotes
That seems fairly simple and straightforward, does it not – the Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot?
But what, pray tell, is the real meaning of the words in that amendment, “vote by ballot?”
Does that imply some kind of independence on the part of the elector?
And if the electors have already pledged themselves to one candidate, and one candidate only, does that serve to make a mockery out of that phrase “vote by ballot?”
Going to the majority decision of the United States Supreme Court in RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), we have this on how those five unelected American citizens appointed to the Supreme Court handily dealt with that subject:
Secondly, we consider the argument that the Twelfth Amendment demands absolute freedom for the elector to vote his own choice, uninhibited by a pledge.
It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot.
But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector’s announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself.
The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors – contemporaries of the Founders – would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept.
History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees.
Experts in the history of government recognize the long-standing practice.
end quotes
WOW, ain’t it, people!
History teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees.
Except that is BULL****, notwithstanding that it is the opinion of a political appointee on the U.S. Supreme Court!
What history teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees?
Certainly not any version of American history that I have read.
Nor do the solons on the Supreme Court give us an answer as to that; to the contrary, they deal with it like this: Experts in the history of government recognize the long-standing practice!
WHOA!
What experts?
Who are these so-called and supposed “experts” in the history of government who recognize the long-standing practice?
No answer, people, only silence.
We just have to take their word for it, that such experts do exist, even though we can’t know who they are, and we just have to take it on faith that unlike we, the people, who really count for nothing in this electoral college process, these experts we know nothing about know what they are talking about to the Supreme Court, who takes their word for it, over what the Constitution itself might have to say.
As to those assertions concerning American history by the majority of five judges in RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), this is what the two dissenting judges had to say in reply:
What it (the majority) is doing is to entrench the worst features of the system in constitutional law and to elevate the perversion of the forefathers’ plan into a constitutional principle.
This judicial overturn of the theory that has come down to us cannot plead the excuse that it is a practical remedy for the evils or weaknesses of the system.
The Court is sanctioning a new instrument of power in the hands of any faction that can get control of the Democratic National Convention to make it sure of Alabama’s electoral vote.
When the party is in power this will likely be the administration faction and when not in power no one knows what group it will be.
This device of prepledged and oath-bound electors imposes upon the party within the State an oath-bound regularity and loyalty to the controlling element in the national party.
It centralizes party control and, instead of securing for the locality a share in the central management, it secures the central management in dominance of the local vote in the Electoral College.
If we desire free elections, we should not add to the leverage over local party representatives always possessed by those who enjoy the prestige and dispense the patronage of a national administration.
The view of many that it is the progressive or liberal element of the party that will presently advantage from this device does not prove that the device itself has any proper place in a truly liberal or progressive scheme of government.
Who will come to possess this weapon and to whose advantage it will prove in the long run I am not foresighted enough to predict.
But party control entrenched by disfranchisement and exclusion of nonconforming party members is a means which to my mind cannot be justified by any end.
In the interest of free government, we should foster the power and the will to be independent even on the part of those we may think to be independently wrong.
Candidates for elector, like those for Senator, of course, may announce to their constituents their policies and preferences, and assume a moral duty to carry them out if they are chosen.
Competition in the primary between those of different views would forward the representative principle.
But this plan effects a complete suppression of competition between different views within the party.
All who are not ready to follow blindly anyone chosen by the national convention are excluded from the primary, and that, in practice, means also from the election.
It is not for me, as a judge, to pass upon the wisdom or righteousness of the political revolt this measure was designed to suppress.
For me it is enough that, be it ever so benevolent and virtuous, the end cannot justify these means.
I would affirm the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
end quotes
Think about it, people: have we lost something of our true American heritage here?
Is it now a case in America of all are equal, but some are more equal than others?
Seems so to me.
How about you?
Before giving further consideration to the statement of Democrat New York State governor Andy Cuomo in The Atlantic article entitled “New York Is the Latest State to Reject the Electoral College – But it’ll take a lot more work to abolish the current system altogether” by Emma Roller dated April 17, 2014 that Article II of the Constitution allows New York to award its 29 electoral votes “in any manner it deems appropriate,” and before attempting to answer the question “is it now a case in America of all are equal, but some are more equal than others,” I would first like to go back to the 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and this specific language from that Amendment concerning what can rightly be construed as the duties to We, the People of each member of the so-called Electoral College in each of our respective states, to wit:
And they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
end quotes
For the record, whether or not Democrat New York State governor Andy Cuomo is aware of it or not, those same words are found in clause 3 of Section 1 of Article II of the United States Constitution, which clause has been superseded by the 12th Amendment, which would seem to put the lie to Andy’s statement in The Atlantic that Article II of the Constitution allows New York to award its 29 electoral votes “in any manner it deems appropriate.”
Were that to truly be the case, then why would the 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution require the electors in each state to make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate?
And while we mull that over, when it comes to how U.S. presidents are now selected, is it now a case in America of all are equal, but some are more equal than others?
For that answer, let us go back to the United States Supreme Court in RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), No. 649, argued: March 31, 1952, decided: April 3, 1952, where we find this following language which is dispositive on that subject:
Even though the victory of an independent candidate for elector in Alabama cannot be anticipated, the state does offer the opportunity for the development of other strong political organizations where the need is felt for them by a sizable block of voters.
Such parties may leave their electors to their own choice.
We conclude that the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring the pledge to support the nominees of the National Convention.
end quotes
What that language is clearly stating is that we Americans who are registered to vote as independents in essence have no voice in how an American president is selected, because there are no independent electors, not only in Alabama, from whence came RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), which was a case where the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the petitioner, the chairman of that state’s Executive Committee of the Democratic Party, to certify respondent Edmund Blair, a member of that party, to the Secretary of State of Alabama as a candidate for Presidential Elector in the Democratic Primary to be held May 6, 1952, but throughout the United States of America, as well.
(There certainly are no independent electors here in New York State, where both Bill Clinton and Andy Cuomo are electors.)
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, respondent Blair was admittedly qualified as a candidate except that he refused to include the following quoted words in the pledge required of party candidates – a pledge to aid and support “the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United States.”
The chairman’s refusal of certification was based on that omission.
The mandamus was approved by the Supreme Court of Alabama on the sole ground that the above requirement restricted the freedom of a federal elector to vote in his Electoral College for his choice for President, so that in Alabama, the pledge was held void as unconstitutional under the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
In RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), five members of the United States Supreme Court overturned the Alabama Supreme Court and instead ruled the Twelfth Amendment does not bar a political party from requiring of a candidate for Presidential Elector in its primary a pledge to support the nominees of its National Convention.
In RAY v. BLAIR, (1952), the majority stated, “the argument against the party’s power to exclude as candidates in the primary those unwilling to agree to aid and support the national nominees runs as follows: The constitutional method for the selection of the President and Vice-President is for states to appoint electors who shall in turn vote for our chief executives.”
“The intention of the Founders was that those electors should exercise their judgment in voting for President and Vice-President.”
“Therefore this requirement of a pledge is a restriction in substance, if not in form, that interferes with the performance of this constitutional duty to select the proper persons to head the Nation, according to the best judgment of the elector.”
end quotes
Having stated that, the Supreme Court Justices then simply swept away the requirement that electors should exercise their judgment by stating “history teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees,” and “experts in the history of government recognize the long-standing practice,” relying on McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 36, in support of that statement wherein is stated:
“Doubtless it was supposed that the electors would exercise a reasonable independence and fair judgment in the selection of the Chief Executive, but experience soon demonstrated that, whether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, they were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate.”
end quotes
In further support of its statement that “experts in the history of government recognize the long-standing practice,” the Court cites from III Cyclopedia of American Government (Appleton, 1914), Presidential Elections, by Albert Bushnell Hart, p. 8, as follows:
“In the three elections of 1788-89, 1792 and 1796 there was a liberal scattering of votes, 13 persons receiving votes in 1796; but in 1800 there were only five names voted on.”
“As early as 1792 an understanding was established between the electors in some of the different states that they should combine on the same man; and from 1796 on there were always, with the exception of the two elections of 1820 and 1824, regular party candidates.”
“In practice most of the members of the electoral colleges belonged to a party, and expected to support it; and after 1824 it became a fixed principle that the electors offered themselves for the choice of the voters or legislatures upon a pledge to vote for a predesignated candidate.”
end quotes
As to its statement that “history teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees,” the Court relies in part on 11 Annals of Congress 1289-1290, 7th Cong., 1st Sess. (1802), wherein we are informed as follows:
“Wise and virtuous as were the members of the Convention, experience has shown that the mode therein adopted cannot be carried into operation; for the people do not elect a person for an elector who, they know, does not intend to vote for a particular person as President.”
end quotes
So much for the independence of the electors, people.
In further support of its statement that “history teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees,” the Court relied on S. Rep. No. 22, 19th Cong., 1st Sess. (1826), p. 4, wherein was stated:
“In the first election held under the constitution, the people looked beyond these agents [electors], fixed upon their own candidates for President and Vice President, and took pledges from the electoral candidates to obey their will.”
“In every subsequent election, the same thing has been done.”
“Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution.”
“They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be.”
“They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment; on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents.”
“They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless, if he is faithful, and dangerous, if he is not.”
end quotes
So there we have it, people.
Whatever might have been the intention of the framers of the United States Constitution in the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia with respect to the mode of selection of U.S. presidents, with the rise of modern political parties in the United States of America, all of that has gone out the window.
It is now a brave new world here in the United States of America, where, when it comes to the selection of a United States presidents, the voices of a majority of us no longer count for anything because we have not taken an oath of loyalty to a political party to “protect” the party from intrusion by those with adverse political principles, that according to five justices of the United States Supreme Court in 1952.
Based on what we saw transpiring yesterday in Washington, D.C. with respect to what is purported to be the “electoral college,” it seems time to revive this thread on the electoral college as it was originally envisioned to be, as opposed to the farce that we have now.
IF the electoral college actually functioned the way the so-called “founders” envisioned it working, “Corn Pop” Biden would never be an American president, no matter how many popular votes he received, because “Corn Pop” is far too controversial, based on his past statements where without any proof adduced at a trial, and no due process of law offered, “Corn Pop” denounced the followers of Donald Trump as the “dregs of society.”
Given his obvious contempt and disdain for those American citizens, there is no way that “Corn Pop” Biden can be trusted to take care that the laws are enforced, period, which would make him unbfit to be an American president, again, regardless of how many popular votes he received, as it would appear that those people who were voting for “Corn Pop” Biden were doing so on the hope and belief that he would deprive American citizens that they don’t like of their due process rights and equal protection of law.
As to the electoral college, going back in our history to this nation’s beginnings, in the election of 1789, the eloectoral votes were as follows:
George Washington 69
John Adams 34
John Jay 9
Robert H. Harrison 6
John Rutledge 6
John Hancock 4
George Clinton 3
Samuel Huntington 2
John Milton 2
James Armstrong 1
Benjamin Lincoln 1
Edward Telfair 1
That is the system as it was originally intended to function, with each elector voting for the person he thought best for the position of chief magistrate of the United States of America.
Contrast that with what we have today:
On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December of a presidential election year, each state’s electors meet, usually in their state capitol, and simultaneously cast their ballots nationwide.
This is largely ceremonial: Because electors nearly always vote with their party, presidential elections are essentially decided on Election Day.
Although electors aren’t constitutionally mandated to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, it is demanded by tradition and required by law in 26 states and the District of Columbia (in some states, violating this rule is punishable by $1,000 fine).
Historically, over 99 percent of all electors have cast their ballots in line with the voters.
On January 6, as a formality, the electoral votes are counted before Congress and on January 20, the commander in chief is sworn into office.
end quotes
So today, someone can be made president because like “Corn Pop” Biden, they have campaigned on a platform of depriving American citizens of protection of law, and that platform was popular enough with the faction whose rights would not be stripped from them, to give that person the electoral college votes for that state based solely on popularity, and the electoral college will simply rubber-stamp that, which totally perverts OUR Constitution.
But, as we shall clearly see from the July 6, 2020 decision of the United States Supreme Court in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 19–465, argued May 13, 2020, all of that talk, blather, really, in hindsight, by John Jay, this nation’s first chief justice, in FEDERALIST No. 64 from the New York Packet on Friday, March 7, 1788 to the People of the State of New York about “(T)he inference which naturally results from these considerations is this, that the President will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence” is now long since dead, thanks to the Supreme Court, and we have been reduced as a nation and as a people to the status of Romans in the time of the emperor Tiberius circa AD 14 to 37, and the “Donativum,” which was the Latin name given to the gifts of money dispersed to the soldiers of the Roman legions or to the Praetorian Guard by the Roman Emperors to purchase the Guards’ support and loyalty, with the inevitable result of the custom of the donativum being the Praetorians’ auctioning of the Empire to Didius Julianus in 193.
Despite the fact that most people in America today cannot remember what took place even four or five minutes ago, and in many cases are totally unaware of the fact that the world existed before they were born, and did not come into creation the day they were born, specifically for them, the so-called “founders” of this nation were very well aware of this history, including the earlier election violence in Rome before their civil war in the time of Cicero and the gangs of Milo and Clodius Pulcher, and given that they were forming a constitution for POSTERITY, as we see in for example “Brutus II” by Brutus on November 1, 1787, “(T)he Constitution proposed to your acceptance, is designed not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn,” they took pains at the nation’s beginnings to protect us from that same type of political violence and the buying and selling of the nation’s highest office to the one offering the greatest rewards from the nation’s treasury by setting up the electoral college.
Getting back to CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, which sings the death knell of integrity in the office of our chief magistrate and opens it up to Tammany Hall type corruption, it provides as follows:
When Americans cast ballots for presidential candidates, their votes actually go toward selecting members of the Electoral College, whom each State appoints based on the popular returns.
The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred.
end quotes
In other words, despite what the Constitution states, and despite the clear language in the Federalist papers as to the intent of the framers with respect to the electoral college being an independent body to give us the best possible choice for our chief magistrate, according to the Supreme Court, and they, not congress, make the laws, the states are free to ignore the Constitution and instead, make it a popularity contest as to who should be the president.
The electoral college is considered “elitist” afterall.
Getting back to CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON:
With two partial exceptions, every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the political party whose candidate has won the State’s popular vote.
Most States also compel electors to pledge to support the nominee of that party.
end quotes
So in truth, the electoral college is a BULL**** anachronism as we clearly see by getting back to CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, to wit:
Relevant here, 15 States back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction.
Almost all of these States immediately remove a so-called “faithless elector” from his position, substituting an alternate whose vote the State reports instead.
end quotes
Now, think about that, people – if the states choose people to be electors who will do what the state tells them to do, then their votes that are reported are worthless, because they are not votes – they are simply rubber stamps, which again takes us back to CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, as follows:
A few States impose a monetary fine on any elector who flouts his pledge.
Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
In response, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had.
end quotes
It is fitting, of course, that this case involves none other than Hillary Clinton.
And getting back to it once more, we have:
The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please.
end quotes
But since the Constitution is now nothing more than a steaming pile of dog ****, that is no longer true, to wit:
The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214 (a U.S. Supreme Court case).
In Ray, this Court upheld a pledge requirement — though one without a penalty to back it up.
Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions.
end quotes
And what BULL**** that statement is, that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history.
Only a ******* moron who knows nothing of our history and who never bothered to cure their ignorance would believe that horse****, but they are the Supreme Court, and they are totally free to peddle whatever BULL**** they want to peddle, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it as we watch them gut and eviscerate our Constitutional protections and open our national government and its highest office up to unbridled political corruption, to wit:
Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee — and the state voters’ choice — for President.
end quotes
So whomever can buy the most votes in that state wins the pot!
Welcome to the new world, people – a guarantee of corruption in our highest office thanks to the United States Supreme Court!
And while we are on the subject of OUR nation’s history, which is something we ourselves are supposed to know, as opposed to having it dictated to us by a political lawyer dressed in the black robes of a Supreme Court Justice, and consistency with OUR Constitution, before we go further with CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, let us go back in time to just after the contested presidential election of 1800, and the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution ratified in 1804, to wit:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; 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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
end quotes
Now, to read that and be able to understand that, all that is needed is basic reading skills, because the Constitution was not written for lawyers; it was written for the common folks!
And it says nothing about the states, read, the two political factions who control the states, having any right to force their electors to have to rubber-stamp the popular vote.
So why is the Supreme Court letting them get away with it to pour detriment as a nation and as a people?
Stay tuned!
More on that subject is yet to come!