Comment Of The Day: “The Democrats’ Petition To Overturn The Election”

William Plumer---the first faithless elector. Jerk.

William Plumer—the first faithless elector. Jerk.

The effort of many Democrats to reveal their party as one rapidly evolving into an anti-democratic one that will try to take and hold power by divisive, coercive, and extra-legal means continues, so this Comment of the Day is not stale, fortunately, though I am four days late posting it. The discussion regarding the Ethics Alarms post about the Change.org petition to persuade state electors to try to reverse the results of the election was enlightening, and complaining about the Electoral College continue. Much of that is just unethical citizenship seasoned by ignorance. This post, unlike most of the others, made an articulate, measured case that provided useful information. Here is Jim Nevertrump‘s Comment of the Day–I’ll be back briefly for a final comment—on the post, “The Democrats’ Petition To Overturn The Election”

We are at a critical juncture. The choice as to the next leader of the most powerful nation in history could well spell disaster for our collective future, for the future of the globe and the human race. Devastation awaits humanity from either of two crises – we can foreseeably suffer nuclear annihilation on the one hand, or broad environmental decimation on the other. A misstep here is one that we cannot chance. With a miscalculation once made, there’s no recovery. Beyond those two vital dangers, there are enormous questions pertaining to life and death, health and disease, wealth and destitution, power and servitude, crime and punishment. All these are on short fuses, and a wrong turn will inflict suffering on a great many.

On the question of anointing the next president, the book is not closed. The Constitution challenges us to take a good hard look.

The responsibility of electing the next President of the United States is firmly in the hands of the Electors from each of the 50 States. And they can, and they must indeed, make a choice for the good of the Nation, and the good of humanity. They in truth have a free hand and the sober obligation to vote their conscience.

If I may, let me review the workings of U.S. elections that have, to this point, been rather vague to most of us.

The Constitution of the United States dictates that each state select Electors, and each state is to decide the method in which the Electors will be designated. Those Electors will cast their ballots to determine the President of the United States.

Prior to 1804 most states had their State Legislatures pick the State’s Electors. This of course would indirectly reflect the will of the people. The people directly elected their Legislators, and they trusted their Legislators to appoint Electors expressing their interests.

After 1804 more of the States tied their Electors more directly to the results of popular votes. Some States published the list of Electors on the general election ballot and had the people vote for the Electors by district. Increasingly, the States found it easier to have the people across the state vote for President and Vice-President by party. The State would have a set slate of Electors representing each party. State by state, then, the Electors affiliated with the party or candidate winning the popular vote in that State would normally cast their vote for that candidate.

A couple of states maintain an aspect of the district vote in presidential elections. Most however, are winner-take all. All Electors from each state would normally vote for the candidate who got the most votes in their state.

Why the Electoral College in any case? Let’s start with an example. In the election of 1820, William Plumer, was an elector from New Hampshire . He had been United States senator and New Hampshire governor. James Monroe ran for President pretty much unopposed that year under the Democratic-Republican Party. Monroe won all electoral votes, save for Plumer’s. Plumer cast a lone vote for John Quincy Adams, who was not running at the time. What reason did Plumer give? One of the reasons was that Monroe’s Vice-Presidential running mate, Daniel Tompkins, was “grossly intemperate”, not having “that weight of character which his office requires,.”

Why was Plumer in a position to be able to say this? Remember the old adage, “checks and balances”? The Congress passes laws, but it requires a double check. That is, the President must agree and sign the bill before it becomes law. The President appoints Federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, but the Senate is tasked with affirming the appointments.

Likewise, in a very clever move enshrined in the Constitution itself, the individual States can have the people express their preference for President through the ballot box, but the Electoral College must take that expression under advisement and make its judgement as to the most suitable candidate. Granted, some states, through state law, instruct their Electors to vote according to that state’s popular vote, with violations punishable by fine. But that is not a Federal, much less Constitutional requirement.

Checks and balances, check and double check. The people vote, but the Electors have a solemn duty, by the U. S. Constitution to use their own conscience, their own best judgement in the selection of the President.

That’s why William Plumer, in 1804, voted his conscience. And that’s why 157 Electors to date have voted their conscience in fulfilling their duty under the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were a series of commentaries on the issues surrounding the founding of our Nation, and its Constitution. They include arguments and explanations on various sides of the many issues discussed. The Federalist paper # 68 provides further elucidation on the qualifications for President. It is from March 12, 1788, and was probably written by Alexander Hamilton.

I would like to offer a paraphrase of the relevant discussion from Paper # 68:

The office of the President of the United States is a position of the highest trust. The people should have a hand in the selection of the President (“the sense of the people should operate”).

To those ends, the selection of President should be entrusted to a group of individuals chosen by the people for that specific purpose at that time.

In that way the office of the President will be entrusted to someone who is “in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

The skills of political intrigue and simple popularity may be enough get someone to the high office of a single state, but those would not be sufficient to qualify for the office of President of the United States.

A different, higher level of qualification is required for that distinguished office.

These qualifications must be sufficient to garner the high esteem and confidence of the majority of the Nation. This should assure that the President will always be a person of the highest ability and virtue.

It’s clear, then, that each Elector is assigned a role of some gravity as the final arbiter. The Electoral College is not merely an arcane rubber stamp which introduces rounding errors into the election. The Elector is entrusted with a decision for the good of the nation, not just the interests of the party.

That brings us to the election of 2016. There has been no election where the role of Elector has in more critical. We are expecting that each Elector, as directed by the Constitution, brings a sense of intelligence, wisdom, and sound judgement to his or her decision in selecting the next President of the United States. We are looking to them to be Conscientious Electors!

I’m back. Here is more perspective on the issue, in a Constitutional law professor’s excellent article from 2000. Surprise! Democrats were arguing for faithless electors then, too. The article points out that the Constitution’s understanding of the electors’ roles is of dubious value now, since the Founders did not anticipate the development of political parties. This is one of many reasons I find the appeals to Hamilton’s authority by advocates of this cheat disingenuous.

The professor also notes that the legality and force of what the petition (and Nevertrump) calls for is murky at best, and would likely lead to a protracted court battle. Hey, by any means necessary!

Interestingly—I missed this in 2000—we learn that on November 21, 2000, Al Gore “publicly disavowed any effort to encourage electors to change their vote and he declared that he would not accept such votes.” Good for Al: that was the right thing to do. It would be the right thing for Hillary to do, too.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

31 Comments

Filed under Comment of the Day, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement

31 responses to “Comment Of The Day: “The Democrats’ Petition To Overturn The Election”

  1. valkygrrl

    Trumps electors this year face an impossible choice, good. They deserve it for agreeing to vote for the man in the first place.

    First they could vote for someone other than Trump and become oath-breaking scum. Unfit for polite company, snubbed in public forever more and after, to be remembered only as scoundrels.

    On the other hand if they actually do fulfill their oaths and choose Trump, they’re betraying kith, kin, country and the human race as a whole by placing into power a man who’s proven time and again that he’s completely unfit for office.

    Joy.

    • Please stop that. You can’t blame the electors, of all people, for the voting of the public, the betrayal of the duty to be responsible by both parties, the ineptitude and dishonesty of Hillary Clinton, the bias of the news media, the crash of Obamacare, the incompetence and failure of the Obama Presidency, and all the other factors that combined to make Trump President. It’s unfair, it’s illogical, and its silly. Trump’s elected in all but formality. Stop pretending otherwise.

      • valkygrrl

        Stop what exactly? I don’t condone oath-breaking. If they do it, they will be rightfully reviled.

        • “Stop what?” Which part of “they’re betraying kith, kin, country and the human race as a whole by placing into power a man who’s proven time and again that he’s completely unfit for office”—your own post—didn’t you read?

          • valkygrrl

            That part is also true. Oath-breaking is reprehensible, so’s casting a vote for Trump.

            • No, oath-breaking is an ethics breach. Voting for Trump is a right, and an expression of a voter’s balancing act in an ethics mess. You have no standing to call the vote unethical. It is not unethical not to want to see Hillary Clinton as President.

              • Phlinn

                I suspect valkygrrl sees it as an ethics zugwzang for the electors.

                • Rich in CT

                  The electors have the solemn duty to make the election unambiguous. Even if counting the ballots in Florida under different critique gave Gore a slight lead in 2000, the college unambiguously voted for Bush. The peaceful transition of power is America’s most critical value. If the electors can be bought or influenced to break their commitment, we risk chaos every election. The Presidency becomes a mockery, with the best huckster getting the office after his shadow campaign hahahahaha for the Spector’s vote. Every Roman Emperor was a duly appointed counselor.

                  The electors are trustees of the republic. Their unambiguous, freely made vote protects us from upstream shanagins at any point in the election cycle. If they unfaithfully execute their promised vote, all trust is lost

                • Steve-O-in-NJ

                  No. V-girl, the resident cunt, twat, and all-around feminist bitch from hell, who said she wanted to stomp McConnell’s balls into a paste and has otherwise taken to talking like her 12 year old got a hold of her account, has gone on one of her periodic hate-filled, logic-free rants. That’s going to become increasingly common as we see the new Republican administration sworn in and they systematically dismantle the past eight years, until Obama is just a bad memory, and the comments of idiot lefties, shorn of any power, are revealed for just what they are: idiocy. What’s more, the lefties are now going to be revealed for the vicious, tyrannical, hate-filled jerks they are, hiding behind rhetoric becoming increasingly Orwellian. You can’t fix stupid and you can’t fix hateful.

                  • Thank you Steve-o-in-nj,you are absolutely correct…I love it when they get put into place..They are the ones siting violence,causing trouble,making threats etc…oh,not to mention harassing the electors..#NeverHillary!

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Speaking of Hamilton, I vote that the cast of that show be deemed Ethics Dunces for their shameful treatment of Mike Pence.

  3. Wayne

    I thought that the US was supposed to be a Republic, not a people’s democracy. All this nonsense about Hillary winning the popular vote and deserving the Presidency in place of Trump ignores the fact that small states votes will become marginalized in favor of favor the big states with large populations.

    • It is a Republic, and that has worked out spectacularly well. This after the fact challenging of the legitimacy of the rules is self-indicting. Progressive and Democrats doing this are undermining their credibility and the prestige of their best values. How did they get this way?

    • valkygrrl

      No, state’s votes wouldn’t matter at all, large or small. Small states would have no disadvantage, one vote there would be the equal of a vote in Texas or California.

      What you really mean is the people in small states would lose the privilege of having their votes count for more than the people in larger states, while the people of every states outside of Ohio and Florida would benefit by giving candidates a reason to court them. A Democrat in Wyoming and a Republican in New York would both benefit by having their votes matter.

      • No, what he means is that states are states, in a union, and not just randomly chosen areas containing people. They have separate interests, values and cultures, and the country was assembled of differing state governments that were told that the aspects of self-governance the care about would not be subsumed, like the Borg. That’s why each state has two Senators, regardless of size.

  4. Other Bill

    “We are at a critical juncture. The choice as to the next leader of the most powerful nation in history could well spell disaster for our collective future, for the future of the globe and the human race. Devastation awaits humanity from either of two crises – we can foreseeably suffer nuclear annihilation on the one hand, or broad environmental decimation on the other. A misstep here is one that we cannot chance. With a miscalculation once made, there’s no recovery. Beyond those two vital dangers, there are enormous questions pertaining to life and death, health and disease, wealth and destitution, power and servitude, crime and punishment. All these are on short fuses, and a wrong turn will inflict suffering on a great many.”

    This kind of tipped the commenter’s hand. I could see the lefty “ends justifiy the means” rationalization coming from a mile away. 97 percent of scientists agree the humans are causing global warming and we can reverse it immediately. Etc.

  5. John Mayor

    A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y I-S D-E-A-D!!
    .
    .
    This nigh finished U.S. Federal Election, is a testament to the fact!… to the reality!… that American “Democracy”, is D-E-A-D! That is, if American “Democracy” E-V-E-R W-A-S a staple of American Politics!… of American Elections!
    .
    There are a few details that most wanna-be and would-be supporters of “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y” should be made aware of! And!… the question to be asked of American voters re this recent Election, is:… DID MOST AMERICANS ACTUALLY DESIRE A HILLARY… OR A DONALD!… ON E-I-T-H-E-R S-I-D-E OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM?
    .
    If I may!… I would like us to reflect on what’s really happened here!… and, on what really counts! Was this “democratic vote” more “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C”, than not?… and!… did the “T-R-U-E M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y” of the people of America find their “wills” reflected in this “democratic election”?… or!… were their “wills”– in fact, and in many cases!– N-O-W-H-E-R-E T-O B-E F-O-U-N-D?
    .
    Attention America!… newsflash!… Y-O-U D-O-N-‘-T A-C-T-U-A-L-L-Y V-O-T-E F-O-R Y-O-U-R P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T!! And “pseudodemocratizing” Presidential Elections has helped to MISLEAD you into believing that Presidential Elections are– PRIMARILY!– to reflect your WILL! Simply put!… T-H-E-Y D-O N-O-T!
    .
    A brief history of the Electoral College shows just how far the process of selecting the President of the United States has changed from the vision of the “Framers” of the U.S. Constitution… and, from the practices of the early years of the “REPUBLIC”! (For a Constitutional overview of the Electoral College, see, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html )
    .
    The Electoral College was inspired by the “College of Cardinals”!… which elects the Catholic Pope! Charles Carroll, of Carrollton… the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence!… is credited with its creation! He had authored a distinctive provision in Maryland’s first Constitution, in 1776, that established a body of “popularly elected” “Electors”, who selected the state’s Senators!
    .
    In 1787, the “Constitutional Convention” adapted a provision, based on Maryland’s, as the basis of the Constitutional method for selecting the President! A key difference between the two, under the Constitutional Principle of “Federalism”, is that the “Electors” do not meet as a whole body, but separately in each state (and the District of Columbia) out of respect for state sovereignty! The expression, “Electoral College”, DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION AS A NAME FOR THIS INSTITUTION!… and rightly so, as the Presidential Elections are the collective work of 51 INDIVIDUAL BODIES!
    .
    Because of current practices for selecting the President, those who recognize that Electoral Votes are more than a kind of “point-scoring system” that evens out the weight of the states, such often think that the Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors (the members of what popularly became known as the Electoral College!) “check” the people! However, the history of their Offices reveals that Electors were intended more as “REPRESENTATIVES” of the people, and the states!
    .
    Indeed!… it’s A-L-L A-B-O-U-T “REPRESENTING” the People, and the States!
    .
    In creating Electors as the method of selecting the President, the Framers chose neither DIRECT POPULAR ELECTION (through “One Voter, One Vote”!), nor ELECTION BY THE CONGRESS (both methods, some had favored!)!… but– instead!– established a method that was “REPRESENTATIVE” of the people, and the states! Except for the later provision of Electors for the District of Columbia, the allocation of these Electors matches that of the combined number of members of both Chambers of Congress!
    .
    The number of “REPRESENTATIVES” in the House is based upon POPULATION!… because they are elected to “REPRESENT” the PEOPLE!… while an equal number of Senators “REPRESENTS” each state, in the Senate! Therefore, the size of the Electoral College is the result of a C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E, that– like the Congress!– balances population with “state equality”!… and!… in keeping with Federalism!
    .
    Similarly, the composition of the Electoral College helps prevent (so said!) the larger states from dominating the smaller ones! Beyond the composition of the Electoral College, the role of the states in choosing the “Presider” over the union of the states (i.e., the President!), is preserved through the power of state legislatures!… who choose the Electors, by whatever means they decide (and, even by way of making the office of Elector, “Elective”!)!
    .
    The Framers O-P-P-O-S-E-D DEMOCRACY (i.e., D-I-R-E-C-T R-U-L-E of the P-E-O-P-L-E!)!… preferring, “REPRESENTATIVE” R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T! Membership in the House of Representatives was THE O-N-L-Y Constitutional Office the Framers established that was elected “P-O-P-U-L-A-R-L-Y”!… and the President, Vice President, and the Senators were, themselves, not DIRECTLY ELECTED under the original terms of the Constitution! Even the Offices of Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors were not necessarily “Elective”!… and!… could be “Appointive”!
    .
    Therefore, the only two Federal Offices the Framers established that c-o-u-l-d be Elective, were both “REPRESENTATIVE” in nature! Like Senators, state legislatures APPOINTED Electors to– primarily!– “REPRESENT” the states!… while “Elective Electors” are more “REPRESENTATIVE” of the people! Nevertheless, in both cases, the Electors (like Congress!… as a whole!) “REPRESENT” both the people, and the states!
    .
    In fact!… many Framers didn’t want a DEMOCRACY, A-T A-L-L!!
    .
    Like any “REPRESENTATIVES”, Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors are supposed to exercise their judgment (in good conscience!) about what is in the best interests of the Union, the states, and, the people! Since the method of selecting a President is not based– primarily!– on the “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”, an Elector who carries out one’s duty as a “REPRESENTATIVE”, is– thus!– not a “F-A-I-T-H-L-E-S-S E-L-E-C-T-O-R (as the longstanding expression goes!)”, but, a “F-A-I-T-H-F-U-L-L E-L-E-C-T-O-R”! That is to say!… one who has lived up to one’s “REPRESENTATIVE/ REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE”!
    .
    We can also observe this REPRESENTATIVE/ REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors, in the state laws of the early period of the REPUBLIC, re the selection of these Electors! Some state legislatures opted, at first, to APPOINT their Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors!… others, allowing these to be “Popularly Elected”! A few, even alternated between “Presidential Elections”, to “Presidential Appointments”! Gradually, all of the states adopted “Popular Elections”!… but!… and with South Carolina as the last holdout!… the first “Presidential Election” in which all of the Electors were “P-O-P-U-L-A-R-L-Y E-L-E-C-T-E-D”, was in 1868!
    .
    However!… and for extraordinary reasons!… Electors have been APPOINTED on subsequent occasions!
    .
    States retain the power to set aside Electors’ Elections, even after they have been Elected!… and can Appoint them instead! Even though the states exercise their discretion to allow the “people” to Elect the Electors to “REPRESENT” them, it is important to remember, that this “REPRESENTATION” occurs, ONLY THROUGH THE POWER OF THE STATES!
    .
    In the “Federal Period”, the “people” DIRECTLY ELECTED the Electors who were not “Appointed”!… unlike the current practice, in which voters Elect them INDIRECTLY by casting ballots for Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates, that count for an unnamed slate of Electors the Presidential Candidates have nominated! In some states… currently!… the ballot does not even mention that the Election is only for the Electors these Candidates have nominated!… which M-I-S-L-E-A-D-S people even more into believing they are voting DIRECTLY for the President, and the Vice President!
    .
    The REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE of the Electoral College was, thus, clearer in the ORIGINAL METHOD of DIRECT ELECTION, than today’s method (in which… today!… it is “popularly believed” that the Presidential Election is essentially a “democratic exercise”, and that the purpose of the Electors, is– mainly!– to even out the strength of the states!)!
    .
    Not only did these EARLY METHODS of selecting Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors emphasize their REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE, but common practices at the time, did as well! It is critical to understand, that in the first several decades of the American REPUBLIC, no one personally “Campaigned” for President, Vice President, or any other Political Office!… including, even Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors! The popular belief at the time, was that seeking Office would be arrogant!… as, “the Office seeks the man!… not the man, the office!”
    .
    The similarity between the Electoral College and the College of Cardinals was more noticeable back then!… as no one “publicly Campaigns” to be Elected Pope!… and the selection– today!– sometimes surprises the public, whenever a relatively less known person is selected! And there were especially no “Political Campaigns” in the early REPUBLIC, in the modern sense of this expression!… save, informal public debate through conversations among the population, and the Political invocation of the “expressive freedom” of the “print press”! And it was not until 1840, that anyone personally “Campaigned” for President, or Vice President, of the United States!
    .
    Before the rise of “political parties”, there were– originally!– NO NAMES ON BALLOTS FOR “OFFICES”! There were only “write-in votes”! Later!… “parties” united behind “Candidates”, whose names were placed onto “Election Ballots”!… through changes, to Election Laws! Similarly!… at the Electoral College!… there were only “write-in votes” for President, and Vice President!
    .
    A reaction against the REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE of the Electoral College contributed to the foundation of the Democratic Party! In 1824, the Elective Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors for Andrew Jackson, and his “runningmate”, respectively won the “popular vote” among the four main Candidates! None of the Presidential Candidates won a majority in the Electoral College!… although, Jackson earned a PLURALITY! The House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams!… whose Electors had earned the second most popular votes, and the second most votes in the Electoral College!
    .
    Jackson, and his supporters, believed that this deprived their Candidate of the Office that these believed that he had rightfully earned!… and so, the “Democratic Party”, was formed! As their party’s name implies, “Democrats” believed in making Elections more DEMOCRATIC, in various ways!… including, eliminating– or, at least, reducing!– the role of the Electoral College!
    .
    Although the “Democrats” did not eliminate the Electoral College altogether, after winning the 1828 Elections, they “democratized” Elections in other ways!… and advanced the trend away from the Framers’ original vision for Presidential and Vice Presidential Electors!… and especially, by– increasingly!– blurring the distinction between electing Electors, and electing the President and Vice President! The trends which have weakened the Electoral College’s REPRESENTATIONAL ROLE, were maintained when states made the “Office of Elector” ELECTIVE!… and BOUND Electors nominated by the Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates, to vote for those Candidates (instead, of allowing the Electors to be “FREE” to exercise their OWN JUDGEMENT!)!
    .
    However!… this “democratization” only helped to MISLEAD the people into believing that Presidential Elections were– PRIMARILY!– supposed to reflect their WILL (and, because, many people perceived they were voting DIRECTLY for the Candidates for President and Vice President whose names appeared on the ballots!… but, instead, were only casting ballots for electors!)! Others!… who had at least some awareness of the Electoral College!… believed that they were INDIRECTLY ELECTING the President and Vice President by voting for the Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates, who, would then– necessarily!– win the votes of the Electors from their states (since the Electors were nominated by the Presidential Candidates!), and were often bound to vote for them by state law!
    .
    However, contrary to common parlance and belief, unless one is an Elector, or U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, N-O O-N-E V-O-T-E-S F-O-R P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T A-N-D V-I-C-E P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T! No “Presidential ticket” receives any “POPULAR VOTES”! As envisioned by the Framers, a person need not personally Campaign!… be named on any ballot!… and receive any “popular votes”, for members of the Electoral College to elect him, or her, President of the United States! These Electoral College members, themselves, are not– necessarily!– ELECTED!… or!… even if they were, these need not have personally Campaigned for Office… and!… these need not have appeared on any ballot!
    .
    Although the Electoral College is “PERCEIVED” nowadays as a “check” on the “popular will”, the origin and early history of this institution suggests the Presidential Election was never intended to be, primarily, a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C E-X-E-R-C-I-S-E”!… but, rather, an exercise in REPRESENTATIVE/ REPRESENTATIONAL R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N G-O-V-E-R-N-A-N-C-E! And so… restoring the role of the Electors as REPRESENTATIVES of the states, and the people, would NOT usurp the HISTORIC VIEW of the WILL of the people!… but, instead, would return Americans to the “vision” of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution! The problem, though, is that such a move would be W-H-O-L-L-Y U-N-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C!… AND!… W-O-U-L-D P-E-R-P-E-T-U-A-T-E T-H-E P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-B-U-S-E O-F T-H-E E-L-E-C-T-O-R-A-T-E, B-Y “R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N_M-I-N-D-E-D O-L-I-G-A-R-C-H-S”!
    .
    But!… however DIABOLIC one might perceive the present Electoral College to be to the “Principals of Democracy”, none of this compares to the DIABOLIC nature inhere within “democracies (so-called!)” which adhere to DIRECT ELECTIONS, and which have adopted a “One Voter, One Vote” system to elect Candidates into Office! And I’ll demonstrate this, by revealing the I-N-S-A-N-I-T-Y that was, the Brexit vs Bremain referendum!
    .
    How is it “DEMOCRATIC”– e.g.!– when the Brexit Referendum “win” of Thursday, June 23rd, 2016, was “won” W-I-T-H-O-U-T the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS’ VOTES?… AND!… NOT JUST, BY WAY OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO’VE DECIDED TO CAST A VOTE! In other words, how can L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of eligible British voters’ votes, constitute a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”? It is– de facto!– I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E (i.e., without God!)! And thus, the Brexit vote is a further example of a “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-S-E-U-D-O-P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” “winning the day”!
    .
    To compare the Brexit Referendum to an election of a Candidate within a Electoral District… if fifty thousand eligible voters decide not to vote in a District that is composed/ comprised of one hundred thousand eligible voters… and five Candidates are running!… the math would suggest, that no Candidate could possibly obtain a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” from the remaining fifty thousand eligible voters who have cast a vote! Unless!… and of course!… A H-I-J-A-C-K-E-D, AND E-L-I-T-I-S-T P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L P-R-O-C-E-S-S SIMPLY MARGINALIZES THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SHOWN UP TO VOTE; AND, THEN, DICTATES THAT THEIR “NO SHOW”/ ABSENCE, CANNOT– AND SHOULD NOT!– BE HELD “B-I-N-D-I-N-G” IN SOME FASHION, OR FORM (AND SOME “NO SHOWS” ARE AS SUCH, DUE TO DISABILITY, AND/ OR INFIRMITY!… NOT TO MENTION, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SYSTEMICALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, DUE TO THEIR Y-O-U-T-H!)! FOR!… OUT OF SIGHT, IS OUT OF MIND!
    .
    Simply put!… and to return to the Brexit Referendum!… the said total of 17,410,742. “winning” “pro Brexit” British voters, plus the said total of 16,141,242. “losing” “pro Bremain” eligible British voters, who– together!– showed up at the “Referendum ballot boxes (i.e., 33,551,984 eligible British voters!)”, are in contrast to the ACTUAL TOTAL of 46,499,537 eligible British voters (see Google result, Electoral Commission | Provisional electorate figures published!… AND, LET ALONE, THE EVEN HIGHER ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS’ VOTES TO BE HAD, IF MANY OF THE DISABLED/ INFIRMED BRITISH CITIZENS WERE “ACCOMMODATED”!… AND!… IF MANY BRITISH YOUTH WEREN’T THE TARGETS OF “P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L P-A-T-E-R-N-A-L-I-S-T-I-C A-G-E-I-S-M”!)!… and reveals a deficit of 12,947,553. of the ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER of eligible British voters, and a deficit of 5,839,027. eligible British voters for even a “B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N (i.e., 46,499,537. ÷ 2 = 23,249,768.5… + .5 = [23,249,769.] – 17,410,742. = 5,839,027.!)”! AND THEREFORE, THE COMBINED “WINNERS” AND “LOSERS” TALLY OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E A-C-T-U-A-L T-O-T-A-L- N-U-M-B-E-R O-F E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E B-R-I-T-I-S-H V-O-T-E-R-S/ V-O-T-E-S!… AND!… THE “WINNING TALLY”, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E “M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-L-L” O-F T-H-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R-S O-F B-R-I-T-A-I-N! AND!… THEREFORE!… THE “WINNING TALLY” OF ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS– AT LEAST!– SHOULD BE MET WITH A C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L (AND TORT!) C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E (TO START!) FOR THE F-L-A-G-R-A-N-T B-R-E-A-C-H OF THE “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S” O-F D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y (I.E., AND E.G., IN THE F-A-I-L-U-R-E OF THE BREXIT REFERENDUM RESULT TOTAL, TO ACHIEVE EVEN A B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y T-A-L-L-Y, FOR A ‘M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N’!)”!
    .
    And so!… the Brexit “win”… like the “wins” seen so often in our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS (AND EVEN IN ELECTIONS WHEREIN “PLURALITY WINS”– E.G., IN AMERICA!– MIGHT BE FAVORED OVER ELECTORAL COLLEGE “WINS”!)!… I-S A S-H-A-M!! And!… it escapes me, why “plurality-driven citizens” from respective “democracies (so-called!)” from around the world, haven’t challenged these scurrilous, and shameful “F-A-U-X P-U-B-L-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-A”!… AND PSEUDOELECTIONS!… AND!… haven’t brought civil proceedings against any and all institutions, which have allowed these G-L-O-B-A-L F-A-R-C-E-S to continue! And thus… re the Brexit Referendum result!… it’s my contention, that the Brexit Referendum is defeatable, due to it’s inherent S-Y-S-T-E-M-I-C V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of the “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”!
    .
    This horrendous situation involving our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS, has resulted in “winning Candidates” winning (if, indeed, Pluralities are recignized!) with as little as 1/5th of the total number of eligible voters’ votes!… AND!… THEN DARING, TO CALL SUCH RESPECTIVE “WINS”, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C! A-N-D W-O-R-S-E!… and in the case of the Brexit Referendum result (AND “PSEUDOWIN”!)!… such a “W-I-N” could– POTENTIALLY!– C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-Z-E T-H-E S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y O-F A-N E-N-T-I-R-E N-A-T-I-O-N! And so!… it’s no wonder why so many citizens within our respective “democracies (so-called!)” hate the elections process!… and!… hate, Public Referenda!
    .
    And!… to add Elections insult to Elections injury, there are “Parties” within countries… and again, composed of “winning Candidates” who have “won” with L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M needed for a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”!… whose leadership cannot be chosen D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y by the PEOPLE (e.g., in Canada!)!… and O-N-L-Y, by the Party (although, this is not to detract from the serious failings of the Elections Process in America, in the selection of America’s President!)! And further, rather than have the brightest!… the best!… “winning Candidates” from all across a country– and, from across a legislature’s floor!– forming Executive Cabinets (and in Canada– e.g.– composed of Ministers of Federal Departments, or Provincial Ministries!)!… A-N-D T-H-R-O-U-G-H A N-O-N P-A-R-T-Y_B-A-S-E-D L-E-G-I-S-L-A-T-U-R-E O-R P-A-R-L-I-A-M-E-N-T (and something, incidentally, that municipalities have been doing for generations!… A-N-D, W-O-R-L-D-W-I-D-E)!… our current “PARTY-BASED DEMOCRACIES” have chosen, instead– A-N-D V-I-R-T-U-A-L-L-Y!– GANGS, CLIQUES, AND “P-S-E-U-D-O-S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S”, TO ACT AS “GO-BETWEENS” FOR PARTY-BASED “OLIGARCHIC BACKROOM BOYZ”!
    .
    But!… if all of this wasn’t bad enough, there’s no “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option on millions of voters’ ballots (AND “B-I-N-D-I-N-G”!… AS A PREREQUISITE!)!… nor, an “AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION” of the “NO SHOWS (i.e., eligible voters who have NOT cast a vote!)” to “B-I-N-D-I-N-G” “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS (inasmuch, as such ‘NO SHOWS’, can’t be translated as being ‘F-O-R’, any Candidate!)”! (BUT!… PLEASE NOTE!… IF OUR “NO SHOWS” AS SUCH, ARE DUE TO OUR P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y– O-R, U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S!– TO ADDRESS THE VOTER NEEDS OF OUR DISABLED/ INFIRMED!… AND, OUR YOUTH!… THEN SUCH “INABLED”, OR “UNWILLING”, SHOULD BE “H-E-L-P-E-D” RE THEIR “I-N-A-B-I-L-T-Y”!… OR H-E-L-D T-O A-C-C-O-U-N-T FOR THEIR “U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S”!) And!… had the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” and the “TRANSLATED NO SHOW” provisions been addressed, many “NO SHOWS” would have shown up to vote (for fear of receiving a MANADATED “BINDING” “AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION”!)! And!… if combined “NO SHOW TRANSLATIONS”, together with directly cast “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS” were implemented (wherein– TOGETHER!– these OUTNUMBER the votes cast for any respective “running Candidate”!), this combined tally could have meant the introduction of “lottery lists” of Candidates within respective Districts (preselected!… and the members in which, would not be eligible to run as “running Candidates”!)!… from which, our “winners” could have then been chosen! And thereby!… E-F-F-E-C-T-I-N-G F-U-L-L R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N F-O-R E-V-E-R-Y S-I-N-G-L-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R, A-N-D V-O-T-E!
    .
    And!… to juxtapose the just aforesaid template onto Referenda!… and onto the Brexit Referendum, in particular!… if the directly cast “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS”, combined with the “TRANSLATED NO SHOWS”, OUTWEIGHED the votes cast for either the Brexit or Bremain scenarios, then NEITHER Brexit, nor Bremain, would be– DEMOCRATICALLY!– left on the table! And the MPs of the British Parliament, would then be forced to renew their respective individual approaches, and collective approach, re their “arrangement” with the EU!… and, their respective dialogues, and collective dialogue, with the citizens of Britain!
    .
    And given… and in contrast to the abovenoted!… in the light of the process that was implementated for the Brexit Referendum (though, yet to be revealed “officially”!)!… WELL!… you have the makings of a P-O-O-R E-X-C-U-S-E F-O-R A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M!… A-N-D A P-O-O-R “R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L B-A-S-I-S” F-O-R T-H-E R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-I-O-N O-F T-H-E F-U-T-U-R-E C-O-U-R-S-E F-O-R A-N E-N-T-I-R-E C-O-U-N-T-R-Y!!
    .
    And so… what we have, presently, are “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-I-E-S (IF EVEN THESE CAN BE ACHIEVED!… E.G., IN AMERICA!)” IN THE G-U-I-S-E OF “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y E-L-E-C-T-E-D” CANDIDATES! An intolerable situation!… and deserving of both Constitutional challenges, and Tort action! And!… A-N-Y O-T-H-E-R ACCEPTED PLURALITY OTHER THAN A “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” ACCEPTED BY A PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATE, AND/ OR BY A PROSPECTIVE VOTER (AND BASED UPON THE “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”, AS AFOREMENTIONED!… AND OTHER, THAN ONE INSTITUTED BY GOD!)!, IS A CANDIDATE, OR VOTER, WHO IS EITHER BLIND TO THE “LEGITIMATE” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”, OR WHO IS A TRAITOR TO THE “LEGITIMATE” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”! AND!… WHO IS EITHER BLIND, OR A TRAITOR, TO THE COMMON GOOD OF THE PEOPLE!
    .
    THEREFORE, THE “J-U-S-T ESTABLISHMENT” OF “T-R-U-E DEMOCRATIC PLURALITIES” WITHIN OUR RESPECTIVE REFERENDA, AND ELECTIONS PROCESSES, IS F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L TO THE VERY REALIZATION OF “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y”!… AND!… WITHOUT WHICH, WE ARE SUBJECT TO MERE OLIGARCHIC WHIM!
    .
    But moreover… and in a cursory examination the outrageous “tentative results” of this nigh past U.S. Election!… at the base of the present reality of the abysmal failure the U.S. “Electoral System” to achieve a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”, is its failure to facilitate the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C R-E-Q-U-I-R-E-M-E-N-T of a “D-I-R-E-C-T E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N”, through a “O-N-E V-O-T-E-R, O-N-E V-O-T-E” Elections System (LET ALONE, THE NEED TO FACILITATE– A-N-D T-O B-I-N-D!– “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOT OPTIONS”, AND TO TRANSLATE ALL “NO SHOWS” TO “NONE OF THE ABOVE”!)! Opting, instead, for an U-N-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C Electoral College!… with Electors, and INDIRECT Electoral Votes!
    .
    Consequently… and given the astounding and perverse “win” by Donald Trump– due to the Electoral College– in part!… numerous Petitions have now emerged online– at least!– to challenge, and to eliminate the Electoral College! To many– and I suggest, MOST!– Americans, Trump becoming the “President-elect” despite losing the “popular vote (AND!… MORE IMPORTANTLY!… DESPITE HAVING E-V-E-N L-E-S-S THAN HILLARY’S ‘U-N-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C N-O-N_P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y’!)”, was, A S-H-O-C-K T-O T-H-E C-O-R-E O-F D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y”!… A-N-D T-O R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L D-I-S-C-O-U-R-S-E! And the situation is reminiscent of the controversial 2000 Presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore!… in which Gore won the “popular vote”, but, Bush was elected President!
    .
    Under the U.S Constitution, until the designated Electors of the Electoral College assemble (and in this present process, on December 19th!) in their state capitals to place in their votes… followed by a meeting of Congress (and in this present process, on January 6th) to affirm the result!… things are still not fully settled! In most of the country, it’s a “winner-takes-all” system: whoever wins a state’s “popular vote” is awarded all the Electoral votes for that state! The catch is, that these votes are based on a state’s number of Senators and House Representatives!… so, they vary from state to state(i.e., such deny equal protections and equal benefits before, and under the law, by virtue of the very existence of this state-to-state apparatus!)! It’s more important to win states with a high proportion of Electoral Votes– like Trump taking Wisconsin, and Florida!– than to receive the most votes overall! November 8th’s U.S. vote was– technically!– not to make Trump the next President, but, basically, to determine who the 538 Electors in the various states across the country will be! It is those Electors who will bear the responsibility of casting the votes that will “legally elect” the next U.S. President (i.e…. and presently!… on December 19th!)! And it is the reason, why… SO MANY!… are up in arms!
    .
    And so… this “mysterious victory” by Trump has reawakened… of course!… interest in, and has revived tactical approaches to, the elimination of the much criticized Electoral College! And… VEHEMENT CRITICISMS!… which are not only rife today, but which have flurished for decades!
    .
    And for example, David Boise… a lawyer who represented Gore, in Bush v. Gore, in 2000!… told the New York Times, that he considers the Electoral College a “historical anomaly”! And a view that has been echoed by millions online– at least!– since 2000!… and, by millions more, since November 8th!
    .
    Challenging the Electoral College based on a “Constitutional imperative” to peg the Electoral College to the “Principles of Democracy”, is as an important a consideration for those desiring an end to the Electoral College, as it is for those desiring the beginning of DEMOCRATIC PLURALITIES! If the T-R-U-E “Principles of Democracy” are said (IN A SOUND COURT OF LAW!) to necessitate the B-I-N-D-I-N-G A-D-H-E-R-E-N-C-E of governments to the “popular decisions” of an electorate (re A-N-Y E-L-E-M-E-N-T that would portend an electorate’s governance!… e.g., the Electoral College!)”, then, a Constitutional Challenge (and Tort challenge!) against an ENTRENCHED MARGINALIZATION (e.g., by way of the Electoral College!) of an electorate’s “popular vote (BUT YEA, A ‘POPULAR VOTE’ THAT IS A ‘T-R-U-E PLURALITY’!)” through a “S-L-I-G-H-T O-F H-A-N-D” and “E-N-D R-U-N” around the “principles of Democracy”, would go a long way toward “EXPOSING” what these mechanisms have been– and are!– all about! And!… MOST IMPORTANTLY!… would reveal the veracity (or lack, thereof!) of the claims in support, of the Electoral College! The bottom line, is!… ANY ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE B-I-N-D-I-N-G OF THE “POPULAR EXPRESSION (YEA, ‘EXPRESSION OF PLURALITY’!)” TO A “POPULAR ELECTION”, BY WAY OF SOME “POLITICAL CIRCUMLOCUTORY OBFUSCATION (E.G., THE CLAIMS IN SUPPORT OF AN ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’!)”, SHOULD BE MADE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL (AND TORT!) “JUDICIOUS ADJUDICATION”! AND SUCH “COLLEG(e)AL CIRCUMLOCUTORY OBFUSCATION”, SHOULD NOT BE MADE SYNONYMOUS WITH A “REASONED DEFINITION” OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE T-R-U-E “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”!
    .
    And!… the SOLUTION to the evils inhere within this nigh completed U.S. Election, is not to place emphasis on changing the pending vote of Electors comprising the Electoral College!… as is currently the case with the Lady gaga supported Change.org Petition (among others!)… but, on challenging– as indicated!– Constitutionally (and through Tort!), the inherent violation of the “Principles of Democracy (i.e., those respective of one’s Democratic Right to a DIRECT ELECTION, and to ‘One Voter, One Vote’!)” by way of the present UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND TORTIOUS DEFERENCE to the Electoral College in the first place!… and, to its proffered final determination, of who becomes President!
    .
    In the face of the EVIDENCE that the U.S. Election System is a breach of the “Principles of Democracy”!… and that the process Americans have been about (i.e., involving the Electoral College– at least!) has been a SHAM!… a competent court of jurisdiction could just as easily turn around, and say:… “You know… you guys (Senators and Congressmen!) have been made WELL AWARE of the CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL BREACHES inhere within the Electoral College! And so!… YOU ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE!… AND YOU ARE N-O-W O-B-L-I-G-E-D TO AMEND THE PROCESS F-O-R-T-H-W-I-T-H (and the stated conventions of the Amending Formula, NOTWITHSTANDING!… and, the present legislated Electoral College’s Electoral Conventions, NOTWITHSTANDING!)!!… TO INSTITUTE WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED FOR BY COUNTLESS JUDICIAL ADVOCATES, AND, BY SOUND JURIPRUDENCE!!”
    .
    Of course, the legal machinations to be pursued, depend on what’s being argued before the court, and on how well this is presented!… and– ultimately!– before the US Supreme Court! But!… and for God’s sake– if for no one else’s!… Senators and Congressmen (and America’s top legal minds!) have been made FULLY AWARE of the “Principles of Democracy”!… and have been made FULLY AWARE of the need to UPHOLD THE “DEMOCRATIC WILL” of the Electorate! And so… it’s not as if these learned political souls would be “blindsided” by a court’s decision, that these act… AND ACT NOW!… to remedy a centuries-old injustice! Adherence to a Constitutional Amending Formula is of less importance… as is adhering to the present legislated Electoral College’s Electoral Convention!… than adherence to the CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS!… THE CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY! All a judge need say, is… “Cut the crap!… and get on with it!”
    .
    And thus!… concerned Americans– I believe!– must refocus their efforts… FULL EFFORTS!– AND FOREMOST!– ON SEEKING (N-O-W!) TO CONSTITUTIONALLY (AND THROUGH TORT!) TO UPHOLD THE “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”! And although Americans are free… of course!… to join in on the lesser Petitions, the “B-E-T-T-E-R R-E-T-U-R-N” will be from the suggested LEGAL ACTIONS, and the lesser efforts such as those of MoveOn.org!… and the like (i.e., on the “Abolitionist Petitions”!)! And!… inasmuch, as the present ILLEGAL DENIAL of DIRECT ELECTIONS, “One Voter, One Vote”, and the very existence of the Electoral College, I-S T-H-E C-E-N-T-R-A-L P-R-O-B-L-E-M!
    .
    To sum up… the “Equal Protection Clause” is part of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the United States Constitution! The clause… which took effect in 1868… provides, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws (and, I’ll add here, Equal Constitutional Protection re the application of the Constitution with respect to the state application of Electoral College Voting, and a state’s elections law that applies to a given Federal Election!)”!
    .
    A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the “equality provisions” contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that ALL PEOPLE (and, I’ll add here, ALL AMERICAN VOTERS!… AND REGARDLESS OF THE STATE IN WHICH A VOTER RESIDES!) would have rights equal to those of ALL CITIZENS (e.g., whatever is afforded in one state pertaining to Electoral College voting, and a state’s elections law that applies to a given Federal Election, SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO ALL ITS CITIZENS!)! As a whole, the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT marked a large shift in “American Constitutionalism”, BY APPLYING SUBSTANTIALLY MORE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AGAINST THE STATES THAN HAD APPLIED BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR!
    .
    The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase, “Equal Justice Under Law”! This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954)… the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation!… and also, the basis for many other decisions REJECTING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE BELONGING TO VARIOUS GROUPS (e.g., state discrimination in its application of Electoral College voting, and it’s application of its elections law that applies to a given Federal Election, in comparison to the creation and the application of such, within the remaining states!… AND, WITH RESPECT TO THOSE DESIRING DIRECT ELECTIONS, AND “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE”!)!
    .
    The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments (i.e., IT IS A SYSTEMIC STATE-TO-STATE BREACH OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTING, AND A STATE’S CREATION AND APPLICATION OF ITS ELECTIONS LAW THAT APPLIES TO A GIVEN FEDERAL ELECTION!… LET ALONE, DIRECT ELECTIONS, AND “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE” CONCERNS!)! However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements within the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT apply to the federal government through the “DUE PROCESS CLAUSE” of the FIFTH AMENDMENT (I.E., EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT REQUIREMENTS MUST APPLY STATE-TO-STATE!… BASED ON THE “DUE PROCESS CLAUSE” OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT!… RE ANY ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTING, THE CREATION AND APPLICATION OF ANY STATE ELECTION LAW THAT WOULD APPLY TO A GIVEN FEDERAL ELECTION, AND TO DIRECT ELECTIONS, AND “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE”!)! (See, Equal Protection Clause, Wikipedia)
    .
    To cut to the chase… ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTING, AND STATE ELECTION LAWS GOVERNING ANY GIVEN FEDERAL ELECTION BY WAY OF THE POWERS GRANTED STATES THROUGH ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (WHICH GIVES THE STATES EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER AWARDING THEIR RESPECTIVE ELECTORAL VOTES!), ARE PRESENTLY IN BREACH OF THE “DUE PROCESS CLAUSE” OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, IN THAT THESE D-E-N-Y EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT TO A-L-L C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S IN THE STATES’ SCRIPTED CREATION AND APPLICATION OF ELECTORAL VOTES AND THE SCRIPTED “EFFECTATION (THROUGH A STATE’S ELECTIONS LAW!)” OF A FEDERAL ELECTION ON THE ONE HAND, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE TO FACILITATE DIRECT ELECTIONS AND “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE”, ON THE OTHER! AND THEREFORE, THE O-N-L-Y S-O-L-U-T-I-O-N THAT WILL END THIS STATE-TO-STATE DISCRIMINATION IN THE APPLICATION OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTING, STATE ELECTION LAWS TO ANY GIVEN FEDERAL ELECTION, AND, DIRECT ELECTIONS AND “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE”, IS THE ABANDONMENT OF BOTH ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTING AND STATE ELECTIONS LAWS, IN FAVOR OF THE CREATION OF ONE FEDERAL DIRECT ELECTIONS “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE” LAW, AND ELECTIONS PROCESS!
    .
    Your courts!… and your learned legal minds!… await your calls! And the sooner, the better!
    .
    Please!!… no emails!

  6. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    How unkind of you not to censor Mayor’s 3:00 am rant. He may well have re-read it at noon that day and wished you had…

  7. pennagain

    I. swear. I. will. never. ever. in. my. life. use. upper. case. and. hyphens. between. letters. for. e. m. p. h. a. s.i.s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s