Update from the
Heartland
No.782
5.12.16 – 11.12.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
It
was bound to happen eventually . . . after 14 consecutive wins. The cadets of the Military Academy
finally defeated the midshipmen of the Naval Academy – 21-17. Not a good start . . . two turnovers in
short order, 14-0 by halftime and Army controlled the clock. To say the least, Army dominated the
field this year – double the time of possession, nearly double total yards, and
triple the number of first downs.
There were far too many turnovers in the game, 4-3 to Navy’s favor. It was an ugly game. My sincere congratulations go to the
Black Knights of West Point. A win
is a win, however it is accomplished.
Well done, I must say! And
the soon-to-be president-elect showed up for some face time. Go Navy, Beat Army!
A contributor asked: “You have more/better resources than I.
Do the electors have a duty to determine fitness for office? (Question, not
assertion).” Technically, there
are no rules in the Constitution in that the instructions to electors are
established by each state respectively.
However, each state has distinct rules that govern who can become an
elector and what instructions they must follow. The applicable federal law is contained in AN ACT To codify and enact into law Title 3 of the United
States Code, entitled “The President”
[PL 80-771; H.R. 6412; Chap. 644, p.672, Sess. II; public law 771; 62 Stat. 672;
25.June.1948]. The Supreme Court
addressed and validated the authority of the states to regulate, as they deemed
appropriate, the qualifications, selection and conduct of electors in Ray
v. Blair [343 U.S. 214 (1952)]; yet, the Court has never ruled on the
constitutionality of punishing “faithless electors.” A “faithless elector” is one who does not vote as expected
in accordance with their respective state’s rules. As of this moment, I believe there are 29 states plus the
District of Columbia that imposed various punitive actions upon “faithless
electors,” and thus 21 states that have no penalty for “faithless
electors.” To answer your original
question: To my understanding of the applicable law, I believe electors have
the latitude to make such a determination, e.g., fitness for office. However, taking such an action – to
countermand the votes of state residents – is a monumental step to take and
rather audacious, if you ask me. Various
reports peg the number of known “faithless electors” for this year’s Electoral
College at seven (7) on both sides of this election. One from Texas was interviewed on CNN this week. Given the extreme emotional content of
this year’s presidential election, I suspect we may see more than seven when
the ballots of the Electoral College are cast on Monday, 19.December.2016, and
counted in a joint session of Congress on Friday, 6.January.2017. By the popular vote in each state and
the respective states rules, Donald Trump holds a 36-vote margin, so seven
“faithless elector” votes will not alter the outcome. I shudder to think what might happen if there might be more
than 36 “faithless electors.” As
always, time shall tell the tale.
Numerous
news sources reflected this supposedly secret CIA report on possible external
interference in the 2016 election.
President Obama has also ordered an official federal executive branch
investigation to determine whether Russian actions affected the election
results, and he reportedly wanted the investigation completed before the inauguration
(20th January). I would be shocked
if there was physical evidence of actual vote count manipulations. Conversely, there is little doubt in my
little pea-brain that Russia executed a concerted program to influence the
election. There is no coincidence
that the only internal campaign eMail messages released to the public via
WikiLeaks were Democratic Party messages.
Personally, I think the same machinations occurred within the Republican
Party and probably much worse in that they were dealing with convulsions induced
by the Trump campaign.
They
were celebrating in Moscow after the election . . . job well done.
I
will say, the Russian hacking of the Democratic Party campaign files was not
materially different from the myriad of ridiculous fake news stories,
misinformation, and outright erroneous propaganda designed to play to emotions
and the penchant for so many to “believe.” The Russians had nothing to do with that reality.
The
consequences of what the Russians have done will undoubtedly be felt for many
years. It says a lot that they
wanted Trump that much and respected the United States that little to risk
being exposed. We shall see how
this plays out, but the deed is done.
They were successful. They
got what they wanted. They have
sown the wind; they shall reap the whirlwind.
No comments or contributions from Update no.781. Apparently, my screw up in
transmission last week missed a narrow window. C’est la vie! I shall endeavor to improve my performance henceforth.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
One more comment on the Electoral College: I have seen several references this week to "Federalist 68," presumably part of the Federalist Papers, wherein Hamilton argues for the purpose of the Electoral College being specifically to weed out the likes of Trump. I assume that "strict construction" Supreme Court Justices might see fit to ignore that, but we have no way to know yet.
It would be willful blindness to ignore the chance of international meddling in our election, and Russia is as good a candidate as any, except possibly Israel. Manipulating the affairs of other nations has a long history, even if we only count those who were caught. You make a good point that only Democratic Party emails were released. In ascending order of likelihood, direct changes in vote counts by outsiders are unlikely but nowadays are possible; influence on state or local officials' handling of precinct changes, allowed or disallowed votes, etc., are a bit more likely due to the Electoral College; controlling Wikileaks' choice of materials to release could have occurred, based on results; and intense pressure on FBI Director Comey to re-open his investigation in such a public way, thus influencing voters' choices, seems almost likely.
Given both of these issues plus the conflicts of interest with Trump and his office, with Trump's appointments of campaign contributors, and among the appointees with their offices, all I can say is, "Fasten your safety belts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
Calvin,
Correct. Federalist no.68 was written by Alexander Hamilton and titled: “The Mode of Electing the President.” While the Federalist Papers are not law, they are a reflection of the Framers’ thinking. Hamilton used words like: “. . . as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.” Further, Hamilton stated: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” He refers in generality to the electoral process; there are two strongly implied points. 1.) A deliberate, independent process was necessary to achieve the objectives noted above. 2.) Electors have the higher purpose of ensuring the person to be elected is eminently qualified to be president. Yet, the fallacy is Hamilton’s logic is, what are those qualifications and how are they measured? Thus, it is left to judgment of the electors, which means there is the theoretical potential of just 535 citizens defying the popular vote and electing the next president.
I can agree with your observations regarding the potential for foreign interference in our elections. In this instance, the voters have to be susceptible to the calculated leaks, but such selection is grotesquely unfair. Imagine, if you will, what reaction would there be if the exact same shoe was on the other foot?
I absolutely concur with your conclusion. This is going to be a rough ride.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment