"The State ... can take back the power to appoint electors."

Quoting Bush v Gore. Continued shows of support for the eternal president are necessary to confront possible insurrection in the event legislatures are compelled to exercise their constitutional authority.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33.

The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: WildBillX

Very insightful thread, WildBillX!

Fox News correspondent John Roberts did a segment earlier in the week on how an increasing number of state legislatures are considering appointing TRUMP electors, even though Biden won their state, but just barely.

They know Democrats committed a huge amount in Fraud....meaning Biden is an illegitimate winner in their state.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: WildBillX

Very insightful thread, WildBillX!

Fox News correspondent John Roberts did a segment earlier in the week on how an increasing number of state legislatures are considering appointing TRUMP electors, even though Biden won their state, but just barely.

They know Democrats committed a huge amount in Fraud....meaning Biden is an illegitimate winner in their state.

Got a link to that?

I guess the real big red letter day will be January 6, when all it takes is for one member of the House and one meme Er of the Senate to reject or question the Electoral College Votes of a state or several states. The joint session breaks up to separate sessions to discuss the issue and then can rejoin or call it an impasse. In which case the House decides the President under one state = one vote and the Senate selects the Vice President. With Pence as his own tiebreaker if need be.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
I guess the real big red letter day will be January 6, when all it takes is for one member of the House and one meme Er of the Senate to reject or question the Electoral College Votes of a state or several states. The joint session breaks up to separate sessions to discuss the issue and then can rejoin or call it an impasse. In which case the House decides the President under one state = one vote and the Senate selects the Vice President. With Pence as his own tiebreaker if need be.

Good post. Just one minor correction.

The objection is only held to be valid if both chambers separately agree to it. If only one of the two chambers agree, the objection fails and the electoral votes from that state are counted.

fas.org...

originally posted by: WildBillX

originally posted by: Ahabstar
I guess the real big red letter day will be January 6, when all it takes is for one member of the House and one meme Er of the Senate to reject or question the Electoral College Votes of a state or several states. The joint session breaks up to separate sessions to discuss the issue and then can rejoin or call it an impasse. In which case the House decides the President under one state = one vote and the Senate selects the Vice President. With Pence as his own tiebreaker if need be.

Good post. Just one minor correction.

The objection is only held to be valid if both chambers separately agree to it. If only one of the two chambers agree, the objection fails and the electoral votes from that state are counted.

fas.org...

And one, not so minor comment. The Governors of the states must certify the electors. This could be an issue in the states in question since there are several instances where the governor is a democrat but the state legislature is republican majority.

Who wins under a one state one vote scenario? I can't find an easily searchable list of party majority by state for the U.S. House.

Also, this is only for the election of President and Vice President. The elections for the Senate and House races done at the same time are separate and are not in question. Am I correct?

I'm not holding my breath.

There's massive systemic failure thoughout this country that lead us here.

The courts didn't do the right thing.

The media hasn't done the right thing.

Don't expect electors to do the right thing.

first,second,fourth estates are corrupt as they come.

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman

originally posted by: WildBillX

originally posted by: Ahabstar
I guess the real big red letter day will be January 6, when all it takes is for one member of the House and one meme Er of the Senate to reject or question the Electoral College Votes of a state or several states. The joint session breaks up to separate sessions to discuss the issue and then can rejoin or call it an impasse. In which case the House decides the President under one state = one vote and the Senate selects the Vice President. With Pence as his own tiebreaker if need be.

Good post. Just one minor correction.

The objection is only held to be valid if both chambers separately agree to it. If only one of the two chambers agree, the objection fails and the electoral votes from that state are counted.

fas.org...

And one, not so minor comment. The Governors of the states must certify the electors. This could be an issue in the states in question since there are several instances where the governor is a democrat but the state legislature is republican majority.

Who wins under a one state one vote scenario? I can't find an easily searchable list of party majority by state for the U.S. House.

Also, this is only for the election of President and Vice President. The elections for the Senate and House races done at the same time are separate and are not in question. Am I correct?

Correct. The Governor must certify the selection of electors, keeping in mind that "to certify" means only to affirm the validity of, not to appoint.

If a slate of electors reaches Congress and one Representative and one Senator objects to it, in writing, then the Congress splits into its two chambers to decide if the objection is warranted. If both chambers concur, then the electors are invalidated, otherwise they are upheld.

However, if two or more slates of electors from the same state reach Congress, it's not clear what happens due to the ambiguous way in which the law is written. There are two semi-competing theories (crsreports.congress.gov...):

• Option 1: Two competing slates are received, each claiming to be authorized according to the laws of the state from which they originate. One is certified by the Governor, the other not. Congress must accept whichever is certified by the Governor.
  
• Option 2: Two competing slates are received, each claiming to be authorized according to the laws of the state from which they originate. One may be certified by the Governor, the other not; or, neither may be certified by the Governor; or, both may be certified by the Governor. The Senate and the House separate and decide which slate of electors came from the entity of the state legally authorized to designate electors. If both chambers agree on one slate, then it is accepted. If they fail to agree on a slate, then all votes from that state are rejected.
  

originally posted by: Iamonlyhuman
Also, this is only for the election of President and Vice President. The elections for the Senate and House races done at the same time are separate and are not in question. Am I correct?

Correct.

In the seating of members to either chamber of Congress, the objection is raised by one current member of the chamber at the time the entering member is to be sworn in. If an incoming Senator (or Representative) were about to take the oath of office, a current member of the Senate (or House) could object on the grounds that person is constitutionally unqualified. The Senate (or House) would then decide, by majority vote, if the incoming Senator (or Representative) were qualified or not. The determination is made only by the chamber involved, the second chamber has no input.

If the Senate (or House), by majority vote, determined he were unqualified then he would not be seated. However, the Senate (or House) would not have the authority to appoint a replacement, only to exclude the candidate from being seated.

In making this determination, the Senate (or House) must limit its decision to a good faith reading of the incoming member's potential disqualification based on one of five factors: age, citizenship, inhabitancy of the state from which he was elected, validity of the credentials issued by the incoming member's state, validity of the election results. If the incoming member sues to compel the Senate (or House) to seat him, he could only sue on the basis that the Senate (or House)excluded him for some reason other than those five, or that it cited one of those five reasons in a merely perfunctory way without any good faith reason to believe he was actually unqualified (e.g. if the Democratic caucus publicly declares an incoming Republican Representative is "too pro-Trump and is, therefore, racist and should not be seated" but formally says "we question the validity of the election results" that would not be sufficient; they would have to demonstrate they seriously questioned the election results - in this case the court would not rule on whether or not the election results were valid or invalid, only that the House was seriously questioning them and not using it as a ruse).

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

Correct. Senate and House elections are direct elections. Although the Senate didn’t used to be, but that is another discussion on how States lost power to the Federal government.

And as much as some people hate the indirect election by the Electors, changes were made as they were once all appointed by the State. And was also a hedge against the populace being hoodwinked. Understandable if you think how effective sayings like Tippacanoe and Tyler Too, O.K., Stay Cool With Coolidge, I Like Ike and Hope and Change have remained part of the lexicon...even some are calling the votes for Biden a vote for Change...47 years in politics a change...

But seriously, the last time the Democrats were this worked up about keeping a person out was 1860.

originally posted by: Ahabstar

But seriously, the last time the Democrats were this worked up about keeping a person out was 1860.