The Supreme Court Is Wrong

Signing of the Constitution

Well, here we go, nine of the most respected legal minds in the country (okay, not Kavanaugh, Thomas or Alito, but whatever) agreeing on something, and Green Eagle, who spent as much time in law school as he did in the Turkish parliament, is about to tell you that all nine of them were dead wrong about the electoral college when they decided that States have a right to force electors to cast their votes in line with the way the people in their States voted.  And yes, this decision is likely to be a boon for Democrats, because it is Republicans that are likely to give in to corruption and vote the way they want.  But it is still absolutely contrary to the intent of the writers of the Constitution, as they made perfectly clear.


It is enough to see why this is true to read Federalist Paper no. 68, which deals with the rationale behind the electoral college.  For those who may have forgotten, the Federalist Papers were a series of short documents produced by the writers of the Constitution, to explain what its contents meant.  It should be obvious that, when there is alleged confusion about the intent of the Constitution, this is the first place that people should look, but somehow, what it says is constantly ignored.  I want to consider here some of what Federalist Paper no. 68 had to say about the electoral college:

"It was...desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

It is absurd to suggest that the electors enter into "investigations" related to the qualifications of Presidential candidates, if they are not then free to make their own minds up about who to vote for.

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture."

Again, it is up to the electors to make their choice.  They are not to be forced to cast their votes in a predetermined way.

"This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice."

It is the electors who are to make their choice, not to be mindless place holders.  I don't think that the framers of the Constitution could be any clearer about their intent.  The nine justices of the current Supreme Court ignored this clear direction in making their decision.  They were all wrong.


I do not want to stop here; I also want to state that the electors who placed Donald Trump in the Presidency actually violated their Constitutional duty by voting as the voters in their States did.  Again, I turn to Federalist Paper No. 68, which makes the duty of the electors clear, and lays out clearly what they are there to prevent.  Here are two more quotations from this document:

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment."

"...chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"  Note that it is the intent of the framers of the Constitution to prevent this from happening; this requires the freedom of electors to act independently.  And consider this:

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."

Now, here is what seems more than obvious to me:  When you consider "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" which they might achieve "by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union,"  and the warning about a man with "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity," you have a virtual description of Donald Trump (okay, minus the prostitutes and stealing from kids with cancer, but whatever.  The founders could not even imagine that.)

The intent of the founding fathers was that the electors make up their own minds about who they should vote for, but note that they explicitly crafted this system to prevent someone exactly like Donald Trump from becoming President.  It was the failure of the Republican electors to carry out their Constitutional duty, and not the system itself, that gave us the nightmare in which we now live.



For those who wish to read Federalist Paper no. 68 themselves, to assure themselves that I have not misrepresented its contents, it can be found here.