That’s why congressional approval should be pursued even if there are reasons to think it’s not necessary. An interstate compact approved by Congress is both a federal law and a binding contract, and state legislatures are explicitly prohibited from unilaterally voiding either.
Good point.
But just to play devil’s advocate, suppose the NPVIC was ratified with states with >270 EVs, and it was approved by Congress as well, but the first time the popular and electoral majorities differed, a state with enough EVs to flip the result appointed a slate of electors that did just that.
What would be the legal remedies in that case? Sure, they’d be doing something they’re prohibited from doing, but assuming the popular vote winner contested it, how would s/he do so, and how do you think it would play out?
Not only has the phrase “constitutional coup” been thrown about before, this wouldn’t even be the first time Hillary Clinton has been involved - both the 2009 Honduras constitutional crisis and the 2012 Paraguay impeachment have been described as such, and happened while Clinton was Secretary of State.
Trump doesn’t lack the requisite qualifications. The electors are under only tenuous obligation to vote for him, though. If they’re willing to face the penalties determined by their home states, if any, congress has no basis to object.
Well, no established basis. A situation like this hypothetical has the potential for a lot of hasty compromising, negotiation and improvisation, should it come to pass and of course I have little expectation that it will.
I don’t believe they do.
3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List 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 shall be the President…
The certification happens at the state level amongst the Electors. There is no certification at the Federal level. Congress counts the votes up and the one who wins gets to be President.
Yes every time you leave a position of trust you are debriefed
Yes, the Russians fixed the election. Explains why the polls and pundits were wrong. The EC must now vote in Clinton.
That’s not what that link says.
It says:
So, which part is inconsistent with the claim that Russia tampered with the election in order to help Trump win?
Inconsistent? None of it. I didn’t say it was inconsistent with fixing, just that it doesn’t support it.
Fixing the election and influencing it are not the same thing. He claimed the former and you are citing the latter.
Forget about doing away with or even modifying the Electoral College. Republicans will NEVER go along with changing a system that has allowed them to snatch electoral victory from the jaws of popular defeat in 2 out of the last 5 presidential elections.
A revolution is more likely. (And, indeed, made marginally more likely by that posture.)
Correct.
“Did Russian hackers elect the U.S. president? Don’t believe the hype.”
To date, squirrels have caused more attacks and deaths related to critical infrastructure than have cyberattacks. But the hysteria caused by the threat of cyber hacks and election violations has played a role in how Americans view this recent election.
Beware the squirrels ! There are billions of them ! And they are watching !
You’re telling me that the dope smoking, peace loving, 2nd and 10th amendment hating hippies are going to lead a revolution?
Fake news? Nothing in that link supports the idea that Russia tampered with “the vote”. Tried to influence the election? I’d shocked, SHOCKED to find out that Russia tries to influence* our elections.
*Note the use of “influence” rather than “tamper with” as the latter implies a physical interference along the lines of changing actual votes.
I’m a hella lot angrier at the FBI director for influencing the election than I am at the Russians.
Thats the fucking Washington Post, not a fake news site, and Snopes and many others have covered it. :rolleyes:
California is happy, and the urban citizens celebrate. Rural citizens feel deceived, however, and will begin mild or moderate protests nearby cities, albeit not as bad as the November 8th Election. Trump complains and Clinton has a conference praising the electors or something. Liberal media outlets praise the decision, conservative media outlets get agitated. Not sure about civil war, but it’s really an internal cold war in America.
Regardless, Trump wouldn’t be worried long-term, since congress will overrule the College’s decision, and it’s November 8th again. Perhaps a bit more aggressive since the decision is final.
For security details, Trump would still have it because the agencies know Clinton is still not going in the white house. Not with congress making the final decision. And secret briefings? I have no clue.
Octopus wrote: “You’re telling me that the dope smoking, peace loving, 2nd and 10th amendment hating hippies are going to lead a revolution?”
They won’t be the ones leading it.
And I kind of think that Vaclav Havel would have met your criteria.
Your post was the fake news because your cite doesn’t support what you wrote.