Republican Elector from Texas will not vote for Trump

[The Conservative]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opini ... &smtyp=cur

Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.

Seriously?

So what will this mean ultimately if enough don't say yes?

[Speaker to Animals]

Interesting quote. By defying the Constitution and election law of his state, he makes himself an enemy of those who took that oath.

[adwinistrator]

Just to add a quote on what he states is his rationale for his choice:

The United States was set up as a republic. Alexander Hamilton provided a blueprint for states’ votes. Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence. Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards. Given his own public statements, it isn’t clear how the Electoral College can ignore these issues, and so it should reject him.

I have poured countless hours into serving the party of Lincoln and electing its candidates. I will pour many more into being more faithful to my party than some in its leadership. But I owe no debt to a party. I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.

I haven't read Federalist 68, could anyone contribute to the discussion on the arguments made within it?

[Atherzon]

Federalist 68: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

"Faithless" Electors are not violating the Constitution, but they could be violating their State's laws or constitution, and I would assume that there will be consequences from the state party leaders that nominated him to position of Elector (or whoever chooses Republican Electors in Texas).

He may be misguided on why he thinks that he should not vote for Trump, but he seems to be correct in his interpretation of Federalist 68. Electors were designed to removed from the passions of the people and to prevent foreign powers from having undue influence on the election of the POTUS.

It is going to take 35ish "Faithless" Electors for it to matter? Has anyone else publicly announced a plan to not vote for Trump?

[Ex-California]

The Federalist Papers are commentaries and opinions. Not law.

This guy should be thrown in prison.

[clubgop]

The Federalist Papers are commentaries and opinions. Not law.

This guy should be thrown in prison.

But there is no law where that is the penalty. Whoever was your middle civics teacher did you a great disservice. The federalist papers are valuable insights and interpretations of constitutional principles. Where the Constitution is the Torah, The Federalist papers are the Talmud.

[clubgop]

Federalist 68: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

"Faithless" Electors are not violating the Constitution, but they could be violating their State's laws or constitution, and I would assume that there will be consequences from the state party leaders that nominated him to position of Elector (or whoever chooses Republican Electors in Texas).

He may be misguided on why he thinks that he should not vote for Trump, but he seems to be correct in his interpretation of Federalist 68. Electors were designed to removed from the passions of the people and to prevent foreign powers from having undue influence on the election of the POTUS.

It is going to take 35ish "Faithless" Electors for it to matter? Has anyone else publicly announced a plan to not vote for Trump?

I keep seeing number 15 pop up. Some hillary electors may not vote for her but some other Republican, not Donald Trump.

[Atherzon]

The Federalist Papers are commentaries and opinions. Not law.

This guy should be thrown in prison.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated or even implied that Electors are required to vote for a certain person. The Elector may be violating Texas law (I doubt it), but he is not violating the Constitution.

[Ex-California]

The Federalist Papers are commentaries and opinions. Not law.

This guy should be thrown in prison.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated or even implied that Electors are required to vote for a certain person. The Elector may be violating Texas law (I doubt it), but he is not violating the Constitution.

I know all of this. I was just toning down from my normal rhetoric that he should get the Munster Anabaptist treatment.

The fact that the Electors ARE NOT required to vote for a certain person is the #1 reason why the Electoral College must be destroyed. #2 is needless added complexity.

[Atherzon]

The Federalist Papers are commentaries and opinions. Not law.

This guy should be thrown in prison.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated or even implied that Electors are required to vote for a certain person. The Elector may be violating Texas law (I doubt it), but he is not violating the Constitution.

I know all of this. I was just toning down from my normal rhetoric that he should get the Munster Anabaptist treatment.

The fact that the Electors ARE NOT required to vote for a certain person is the #1 reason why the Electoral College must be destroyed. #2 is needless added complexity.

Noted, but you've discussed that at length in another thread, so I won't continue that discussion here.