• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Some Trump electors voting illegally

BobTheCoward said:
That is something that can be debated. My problem with DAO is that he or she refuses to say if that is or is not their objection. Do they believe like you? Do they believe it is an office but not a Constitutional issue? Do they need evidence Bondi was an elector and state attorney general?

I would gladly argue any of them. But I won't blindly argue all of them.
Click to expand...
It's not an office. Even if it were, it wouldn't be a constitutional issue. Argue away.
 
phiwum said:
You might be right, but surely you need some sort of evidence that this view is supported -- indeed, that no state regards elector as an office. Because actual lawyers with training said it is not obvious whether this is the case or not, if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...
Presumption of innocence. Also not Congress's problem.
 
New York State Slate of Electors:

If holding office was against the rules they should arrest the entire body.
 
What is really sad is the Americans here that don't have a clue about their government.
 
Wolrab said:
New York State Slate of Electors:

If holding office was against the rules they should arrest the entire body.
Click to expand...

Does New York have that law?
 
BobTheCoward said:
They likely have broad power during the certification to make it their problem.
Click to expand...
Congress has broad power to make just about *anything* their problem. Unfortunately we are well into an era when Congressional overreach is not a hotly contested exception, but a widely accepted norm.

I think it would be overreach for Congress to make this their problem, and I'm glad they didn't try.
 
theprestige said:
Congress has broad power to make just about *anything* their problem. Unfortunately we are well into an era when Congressional overreach is not a hotly contested exception, but a widely accepted norm.

I think it would be overreach for Congress to make this their problem, and I'm glad they didn't try.
Click to expand...

I want them to reach that conclusion also, but only after they debate it, first.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Looks to me that it depends on whether or not the elector is bound to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in Florida. The FL Supreme Court has ruled that an office requires a delegation of sovereign authority. If the elector is bound to vote in a certain way, then there is no such delegation. At least in my opinion.

I think my view is strengthened by the additional requirement that an office must "... embrace[] the idea of tenure, duration, and duties in exercising some portion of the sovereign power ..."

There is no tenure or duration for electors. They are elected to do one thing, and then they're gone.
Click to expand...

Sunmaster, I never thanked you for reading the piece and weighing in.
 
theprestige said:
Presumption of innocence. Also not Congress's problem.
Click to expand...

Presumption of innocence does not entail that electors are not offices. The question is whether any state has explicitly said otherwise, or whether any court ruling said otherwise.

Not sure why you brought Congress into it. The statement I objected to was a bold, unevidenced statement that electors are not offices.
 
Wolrab said:
New York State Slate of Electors:

If holding office was against the rules they should arrest the entire body.
Click to expand...

Surely, whether it is against the rules depends on the state. I don't know whether it is against the rules there, nor whether former officeholders count.(I don't think Bill Clinton and many others on this list hold offices. I'll bet that the 93-year-old does not.)
 
BobTheCoward said:
I want them to reach that conclusion also, but only after they debate it, first.
Click to expand...
Sure. In the middle of the presidential installation process is not the time for it, though. I'm glad they rejected the controversy out of hand last month. Let them take up the matter in committee after the inauguration, if they must.
 
phiwum said:
Presumption of innocence does not entail that electors are not offices. The question is whether any state has explicitly said otherwise, or whether any court ruling said otherwise.

Not sure why you brought Congress into it. The statement I objected to was a bold, unevidenced statement that electors are not offices.
Click to expand...
The topic is electors voting illegally. In the absence of explicit evidence to the contrary, we presume they are innocent of the alleged crime.

The states certified their electors, convened them to vote, and tallied those votes. It's up to those challenging the certification to show evidence. If they don't, then the certification stands. Elector is not an office.

ETA: Put it another way. Do you know how Florida certifies its electors?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom