SCOTUS Ruling Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

SCOTUS Ruling Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

By

James Scott Trimm

We are living in post-constitutional America.  Fox News has just reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws requiring those chosen for the Electoral College to back the popular winner in their state's presidential race, a rebuke of a group of so-called "faithless" presidential electors in Washington and Colorado who sued after they were sanctioned for voting contrary to pledges they took before becoming electors.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court said that those sanctions -- in Washington a fine and in Colorado being removed and replaced as an elector -- are constitutional.
(Supreme Court rules states can bind faithless electors)

In fact these laws are flatly unconstitutional.  Article II, Section 1; Clause 3 of the United States Constitution reads:

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, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing 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. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

(Article II, Section 1 ; Clause 3)

This was amended by the 12^th amendment which reads in part “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President…”

The Constitution is clear that the electors are empowered to “vote.”  What does “vote” mean? 

Well according to Webster’s 1806 (first edition) Dictionary published just nineteen years after the Constitutional Convention “vote” was understood to mean “to give or choose by votes, n. a voice”  

Dictionary.com defines “vote” to mean “to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot.”

The current Webster’s Dictionary Definition of “vote” is “a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially :  one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “vote” as follows: “Suffrage; the expression of his will, preference, or choice, formally manifested by a member of a legislative or deliberative body, or of a constituency or a body of qualified electors, in regard to the decision to be made by the body as a whole upon any proposed measure or proceeding, or the selection of an officer or representative. And the aggregate of the expressions of will or choice, thus manifested by individuals, is called tlie "vote of the body."

Most importantly we can look to Federalist Paper 68 to see clearly what the original intent of the framers was in regards to the power to vote granted to the members of the electoral college:

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.

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. 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.

(Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper 68)

Here it is clear that the original intent of the framers was that the electors be confided with trust.  It is also clear that the original intent that the electors engage in analysis, deliberation, investigation and discernment in making a vote which is specifically “their choice.”  

This bill therefore violates the stated principles of the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform:

"... we support the strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas."
(Texas 2016 Republican Party Platform)

This bill would violate the constitution by making the electors mere messengers and transferring the power to investigate, deliberate, exercise discernment and choose to a popular election.  This being in direct conflict with the original intent of the Framers as set for above in Federalist Paper 68 which specifically says:

 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.

The Framers empowered the electors with this power to vote specifically because they did not want the "general mass" voting for the president!

SCOTUS now says a state can literally make it a felony for an elector to follow the US Constitution and “vote” in the sense which is clearly that of the original intent of the framers!  Furthermore under this ruling people can be thrown in jail for voting other than the way the State requires them to vote!  (Now that is scary).

Immediately after the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin declared that the Framers had delivered to us “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  This SCOTUS ruling plays into Progressive efforts to destroy our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a Direct Democracy.