Can the Electoral College Elect Clinton legally?

Talk about the potential to start a civil war.
I wonder which side is the most armed and stocked with ammunition? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Scary.....but in light of the fact that emotions are very, very, raw among some on both sides of the spectrum, and given the ability of social media to really amplify things whether they are right or wrong, I feel that it's a good question. All it take is just ONE seemingly simple mistake.......

Scary.....but in light of the fact that emotions are very, very, raw among some on both sides of the spectrum, and given the ability of social media to really amplify things whether they are right or wrong, I feel that it's a good question. All it take is just ONE seemingly simple mistake....... Originally Posted by vitameatavegamin

Why do you play games, 0zombie?

Soros eat your ass?

[QUOTE=IIFFOFRDB;1058884256]Why do you play games, 0zombie?

Soros eat your ass?[/QUOTE All I did was answer a valid question.....the name calling and insults were crude, uncalled for, and ignorant. I have never insulted an ECCIE member..and do not intend to so.

Scary..... All it take is just ONE seemingly simple mistake....... Originally Posted by vitameatavegamin

There were two "mistakes" and they have not been simple ...

.. one in 2008 and the second in 2012.

It cost the U.S. taxpayers and their grandchildren about $10 Billion.

Strangely enough some of those "grandchildren" are out in the streets "protesting" (which includes looting and destroying property), because they are "afraid"?

HillaryNoMore promised them free shit (well Sanders did too), and now they aren't gonna get "free shit." They had about eight years to get job training and/or an education for a job. They should have used their time wisely. They didn't. Life is a bitch, you know? Spoiled Brats!

heres what I posted

Any given state's legislature has the power to submit a new slate of electoral votes rather than remain with votes of faithless or, for that matter, faithful electors

And

There is an 1887 law authorizing congress to accept the slate it wishes Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I don't claim to be an expert as some and all I know is what I read and lexus lover wanted something not off readers digest

here goes

there was a contentious election in 1886 so....

In 1887, Congress, determined never again to delegate away to federal judges its Constitutional authority (shared with the States) to be the final arbiter in close Presidential elections, see Legislative History to 3 U.S.C §§ 1 et seq., passed a comprehensive, detailed code on Federal Elections that attempts to explicitly and exhaustively regulate every conceivable electoral anomaly. This 1887 Code, with few revisions, governs the substance and procedure of the Congressional role in Presidential Elections today.



GENERAL STATUTORY FRAMEWORK TO 1887 LAW
Congress may, by vote of both houses, entirely reject a state's electoral slate if the electoral vote has not been "regularly given" by state electors "lawfully certified." 3 U.S.C. § 15. § 15. Certification is only lawful if the ascertainment of votes cast for elections or the determination of elections contests is conducted pursuant to state law. 3 U.S.C. § 6.
Thus, if pre-existing state law is not followed in the counting of votes and the determination of elections contests, there can be no lawful certification under 3 U.S.C. § 6 and, under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress may reject the electoral votes under Section 15.

.



GENERAL STATUTORY FRAMEWORK TO 1887 LAW
Congress may, by vote of both houses, entirely reject a state's electoral slate if the electoral vote has not been "regularly given" by state electors "lawfully certified." 3 U.S.C. § 15. § 15. Certification is only lawful if the ascertainment of votes cast for elections or the determination of elections contests is conducted pursuant to state law. 3 U.S.C. § 6.
Thus, if pre-existing state law is not followed in the counting of votes and the determination of elections contests, there can be no lawful certification under 3 U.S.C. § 6 and, under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress may reject the electoral votes under Section 15. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

This law is current law. And actually it makes my points:
1. Selection of electors is by state law.
2. If existing state law is followed then the electors are legal.
3. If the electors are legal as "certified" their vote counts.
4. If the electors' votes count, Congress has nothing to do.

You stated erroneously:

"There is an 1887 law authorizing congress to accept the slate it wishes."

That is not even consistent with your quote of the digestion of the existing law, which you quoted as follows:

"Thus, if pre-existing state law is not followed in the counting of votes and the determination of elections contests, there can be no lawful certification under 3 U.S.C. § 6 and, under 3 U.S.C. § 15, Congress may reject the electoral votes under Section 15.

So actually, contrary to your conclusion, if the electors show up and don't follow their mandated (by state law) instructions as CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OFFICER TASKED BY STATE LAW WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY then Congress "may reject" those "electoral votes" that DID NOT FOLLOW the "pre-existing state law."

That doesn't say Congress can "accept the slate it wishes"!!!

It says the electors had better vote as they were certified to vote as consistent with state law by which they were certified. Simple terms: I give you $5 for a loaf of bread. Bring a loaf.

What the "hare-brain" advocates of a renegade-electoral college installing HillaryNoMore (I guess) postulate is that the electors show up in December and vote for her ... "because she got the most votes Nationally" .... and they are claiming that is legal ... like it is some sort of "most likely to succeed" contest in the student council in high school! Fuck the law!

If Bonnie and Clyde Clinton with their money bag friends are planning on bribing all of the electors showing up next month to vote for HillaryNoMore, then when the dust settles after Congress or the SCOTUS hand them their collective asses .... General Sessions (after he's affirmed) will put together criminal charges against the whole bunch of them. It will be tough to find a Judge or Jury who won't convict and pop their asses with bribery and conspiracy to bribe with sentences to discourage such shit until the "Republic" has been dissolved.

not sure of your point where you take issue with me

I typed

"There is an 1887 law authorizing congress to accept the slate it wishes."

and

GENERAL STATUTORY FRAMEWORK TO 1887 LAW
Congress may, by vote of both houses, entirely reject a state's electoral slate if the electoral vote has not been "regularly given" by state electors lawfully certified........certification is only lawful if the ascertainment of votes cast etc etc...is conducted pursuant to state law


where I typed "to accept the slate it wishes" pre-assumes a given state has presented an alternate slate

not sure of your point where you take issue with me

I typed

"There is an 1887 law authorizing congress to accept the slate it wishes." Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

That's what you posted.

That is an incorrect paraphrase of the law. That's were I "take issue"!

That's what you posted.

That is an incorrect paraphrase of the law. That's were I "take issue"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would have to say that is unapparent to me and leave it at that

I would have to say that is unapparent to me and leave it at that Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

And I would say that's a fair self-analysis, ...

.. "and leave it at that"!

The basic point that has not been talked about (I may have missed it) is that it is not one single federal election, it is 50 individual (forgetting DC, Guam, and Truk) elections. It doesn't matter how many votes Hillary got nation wide, it only matters how many votes each candidate got in each state. Now a case could be made that if Michigan determined that somehow (yes, we know how democrats work) Hillary actually won the popular vote in that state long after the official certification was made. They could make a case that the electors (actually the other slate) would be put forward to vote for Hillary but you know what would happen? The legal challenge about the new results.

Back following the Civil War in either 1866 or 1868 Louisiana turned in two different slates of electors; one from the votes and the other from the Klan approved votes. It may have happened in 1876 after reconstruction now that I think about it. We have had a history of strange election outcomes so we can't just laugh at the Hillary idiots. They must be taken seriously and we have to counter them. Imagine the protests if Hillary pulled off some kind of stunt.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

you just proved the wisdom of the founding fathers to create the electoral college. i hope that was your point?????

There were two "mistakes" and they have not been simple ...

.. one in 2008 and the second in 2012.

It cost the U.S. taxpayers and their grandchildren about $10 Billion.

Strangely enough some of those "grandchildren" are out in the streets "protesting" (which includes looting and destroying property), because they are "afraid"?

HillaryNoMore promised them free shit (well Sanders did too), and now they aren't gonna get "free shit." They had about eight years to get job training and/or an education for a job. They should have used their time wisely. They didn't. Life is a bitch, you know? Spoiled Brats! Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL is referencing the axon of "there ain't no free shit, libtards!"

everybody pays for everything.

Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’


http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-...-firing-squad/

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post.

“It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks.

“The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump Administration.