Macrobius
Megaphoron
Of course they can, since that's how the US Constitution is written and there is not and cannot be any case law to the contrary.
This particular twitter thread is obviously a feverish Democratic paranoia fantasy, and wouldn't matter anyway since the Dems and GOP are the Uniparty so it's not even a real contest at any level as 2020 definitively proved. However, he is by no means wrong about the legal outcome, which would come as a shock to most Americans, even those who pretend they support the Constitution of the 2nd Republic, but have never read it.
Before you run into the street because someone with the improbable porn name Blitz Wolfer told you to, consider the following:
H/T @Richard Swagger
nitter.net
The substantive historical points are:
1/ 'popular vote' was never more than a talking point first brought up by Andrew Jackson. Before Jackson's proapaganda, there was never an 'official tabulation' at the national level (and never has been one -- it's compiled via the media using arithmetic from certified state level tabulations. I doubt there is any 'official certified popular vote' reported to any branch of government, though deliberative bodies and agencies could certainly seek such information for their own advice if they wished.)
The purpose of state-wide popular vote tabulations is to advise the legislature in its duty to represent the people of the state. Non-binding. For example, if the state legislature has reason to believe that the 'party selected electors' will be faithless or are of poor character, they may substitute their own.
2/ all states tabulate and certify election results by a process that has been legally battle-hardened over the years and with well known dispute-resolution mechanisms. The outcome of this total is similar to a non-binding referendum to *advise* the legislature in its consitutional duty.
3/ faithless electors may be prosecuted in some states, because they are faithless to their principals, the state legislatures, not to 'the people of the state' (whose officially non-binding referendum to make their will in the matter clear is not how they are instructed -- they are selected and instructed by the legislatures). State legislatures cannot be faithless to the will of the people, or rather the recourse the population has is political, not legal: to recall them, impeach them, or simply voat the bastards out, as the case may warrant.
tl;dr - an elector who followed the certified total of the 'Secretary-can-she-type-of-State' rather than the constitutional instructions of his state legislature, would be by definition 'faithless' and prosecuted exactly for this reason. He would go to jail the the Supreme Court would affirm this on appeal, if it even bothered to take the case which it should not, because the matter is so clear.
4/ this is a good design and always has been -- it makes political matters political and legal matters legal. Proper recourse is allowed to all parties. It is more or less 'fraud proof' because if some reason there are credible claims of fraud that can be proven, and the executive branch, including the Secretary of State who 'certifies' elections, uses corrupt voting machines or is corrupt herself, the Legislature can investigate the evidence, and act on behalf of the People they represent, and substitute the People's Instructions for the faulty tabulation process.
Repeat after me: The Computer is not always right. Party hacks are even less often right.
5/ it would be courageous and an extreme personal political risk (to themselves and their sugar daddies) for any actual state legislature to do this, and I don't expect to see this feverish paranoia dream happen in my lifetime. However, it is more than possible -- it is constitutional and how the system is actually designed to work, and that for good reason.
6/ the real problem isn't fantasies about delegated legislatures not working (unless the 'correct' party is on power, it will be claimed, because you can't trust those evil agents of Emmanuel Goldstein), which is special pleading, a fallacy. Rather, it is the capability of the Schools and Media to teach the population they should prefer Marxist solutions to American solutions, when it comes to politics.
The design of the Constitution of the First Republic is clearly as follows:
- at the National level, the people are represented by the lower house
- the executives of each state (Governors were a bigger deal in the colonies than they are now, basically representing the crown and the monarchical principle of state, even if 'elected' to that position like some sort of elected Lord Protector) appointed two senators [ revised in the Second Republic by the 17th amendment, in the 'Progressive Era' ]
- the president represent the STATE LEGISLATURES, who have complete liberty to determine how they choose their electors
These three notions represent a 'mixed government' with, respectively, a Republican ('Democratic' is a slam word), an Aristocratic [the sovereign chooses the House of Lords], and an indirectly elected Monarchic principle.
States were given wide discretion to implement the above constitutional arrangements, subjected to a few limitations (the 'form of government' of the States had to be 'a Republic', though the historical understanding of a Republic includes the notion of a Dictator for specific purposes -- a matter advocated by Patrick Henry, the anti-Federalist, and urged without success on George Washington).
The Second Republic pretty much destroyed this design, which is why we are having persistent problems, but as I say, most of these are not political or even legal per se, but have to do with the corruption of public morals and intelligence.
The point that the State Legislatures can 'just pick the president if they want to' is a basic principle of something called 'Representative Democracy' -- the people chose their states legislators, so presumable this relatively small body of men (and women) can be trusted to choose the President, via specific electors expressing their decision, which must be concordant AT THE STATE LEVEL and represent the interest of the STATE as a whole, via careful political deliberation.
Voting Machines and AI algorithms are dangerous servants, and fearful masters. 'Just let the Secretary of State certify the election' and 'Let the courts decide the election for us' are naive, scheissekopf, political notions.
tl;dr - IngSoc is a bitch. We're at war with Eurasia, and we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Power. It's what Marxists crave.
This particular twitter thread is obviously a feverish Democratic paranoia fantasy, and wouldn't matter anyway since the Dems and GOP are the Uniparty so it's not even a real contest at any level as 2020 definitively proved. However, he is by no means wrong about the legal outcome, which would come as a shock to most Americans, even those who pretend they support the Constitution of the 2nd Republic, but have never read it.
Before you run into the street because someone with the improbable porn name Blitz Wolfer told you to, consider the following:
H/T @Richard Swagger
Thom Hartmann (@Thom_Hartmann)
12/ Wolf Blitzer announces that DeSantis has won the election, and millions of people pour into the streets to protest. They’re met with a hail of bullets as Republican-affiliated militias have been rehearsing for this exact moment.
The substantive historical points are:
1/ 'popular vote' was never more than a talking point first brought up by Andrew Jackson. Before Jackson's proapaganda, there was never an 'official tabulation' at the national level (and never has been one -- it's compiled via the media using arithmetic from certified state level tabulations. I doubt there is any 'official certified popular vote' reported to any branch of government, though deliberative bodies and agencies could certainly seek such information for their own advice if they wished.)
The purpose of state-wide popular vote tabulations is to advise the legislature in its duty to represent the people of the state. Non-binding. For example, if the state legislature has reason to believe that the 'party selected electors' will be faithless or are of poor character, they may substitute their own.
2/ all states tabulate and certify election results by a process that has been legally battle-hardened over the years and with well known dispute-resolution mechanisms. The outcome of this total is similar to a non-binding referendum to *advise* the legislature in its consitutional duty.
3/ faithless electors may be prosecuted in some states, because they are faithless to their principals, the state legislatures, not to 'the people of the state' (whose officially non-binding referendum to make their will in the matter clear is not how they are instructed -- they are selected and instructed by the legislatures). State legislatures cannot be faithless to the will of the people, or rather the recourse the population has is political, not legal: to recall them, impeach them, or simply voat the bastards out, as the case may warrant.
tl;dr - an elector who followed the certified total of the 'Secretary-can-she-type-of-State' rather than the constitutional instructions of his state legislature, would be by definition 'faithless' and prosecuted exactly for this reason. He would go to jail the the Supreme Court would affirm this on appeal, if it even bothered to take the case which it should not, because the matter is so clear.
4/ this is a good design and always has been -- it makes political matters political and legal matters legal. Proper recourse is allowed to all parties. It is more or less 'fraud proof' because if some reason there are credible claims of fraud that can be proven, and the executive branch, including the Secretary of State who 'certifies' elections, uses corrupt voting machines or is corrupt herself, the Legislature can investigate the evidence, and act on behalf of the People they represent, and substitute the People's Instructions for the faulty tabulation process.
Repeat after me: The Computer is not always right. Party hacks are even less often right.
5/ it would be courageous and an extreme personal political risk (to themselves and their sugar daddies) for any actual state legislature to do this, and I don't expect to see this feverish paranoia dream happen in my lifetime. However, it is more than possible -- it is constitutional and how the system is actually designed to work, and that for good reason.
6/ the real problem isn't fantasies about delegated legislatures not working (unless the 'correct' party is on power, it will be claimed, because you can't trust those evil agents of Emmanuel Goldstein), which is special pleading, a fallacy. Rather, it is the capability of the Schools and Media to teach the population they should prefer Marxist solutions to American solutions, when it comes to politics.
The design of the Constitution of the First Republic is clearly as follows:
- at the National level, the people are represented by the lower house
- the executives of each state (Governors were a bigger deal in the colonies than they are now, basically representing the crown and the monarchical principle of state, even if 'elected' to that position like some sort of elected Lord Protector) appointed two senators [ revised in the Second Republic by the 17th amendment, in the 'Progressive Era' ]
- the president represent the STATE LEGISLATURES, who have complete liberty to determine how they choose their electors
These three notions represent a 'mixed government' with, respectively, a Republican ('Democratic' is a slam word), an Aristocratic [the sovereign chooses the House of Lords], and an indirectly elected Monarchic principle.
States were given wide discretion to implement the above constitutional arrangements, subjected to a few limitations (the 'form of government' of the States had to be 'a Republic', though the historical understanding of a Republic includes the notion of a Dictator for specific purposes -- a matter advocated by Patrick Henry, the anti-Federalist, and urged without success on George Washington).
The Second Republic pretty much destroyed this design, which is why we are having persistent problems, but as I say, most of these are not political or even legal per se, but have to do with the corruption of public morals and intelligence.
The point that the State Legislatures can 'just pick the president if they want to' is a basic principle of something called 'Representative Democracy' -- the people chose their states legislators, so presumable this relatively small body of men (and women) can be trusted to choose the President, via specific electors expressing their decision, which must be concordant AT THE STATE LEVEL and represent the interest of the STATE as a whole, via careful political deliberation.
Voting Machines and AI algorithms are dangerous servants, and fearful masters. 'Just let the Secretary of State certify the election' and 'Let the courts decide the election for us' are naive, scheissekopf, political notions.
tl;dr - IngSoc is a bitch. We're at war with Eurasia, and we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Power. It's what Marxists crave.
Last edited: