Author Topic: Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig wants Electoral College to go rogue for Hillary  (Read 629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig wants Electoral College to go rogue for Hillary
Comments
Permalink
 
 
Posted by William A. Jacobson      Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:30am

Bill Buckley warned us about the Harvard faculty.


Lawrence Lessing, professor at Harvard Law School, wants the Electors in the Electoral College to go rogue and vote for Clinton regardless of the election results the led to the Electors ability to vote.

    Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions  — most important, the electors themselves….

    In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/11/harvard-law-prof-lawrence-lessig-wants-electoral-college-to-go-rogue-for-hillary/
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 09:07:02 pm by rangerrebew »

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
While I don't think they should nor will they in numbers great enough to matter, the term "going rogue" is wild hyperbole.

The simple fact is that its completely legal for elected officials to vote against the will of the voters.  That standard goes back to the earliest days of our nation when continental delegates voted in favor of independence in some cases against the wishes of their constituents. My ancestor Lyman Hall changed his vote to yes and the British with the help of Hall's loyalist constituents burned his house to the ground. Pro colonial MP Edmund Burk wrote "A representative owes the people not only his industry, but his judgement, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.

The individual states have their own requirements for delegates/electors and they have their own sanctions for unbound or faithless representatives but none can be criminally charged or criminally punished for good reason. If our elected representatives are to be little more than rubber stamps of our wishes, we cease to be a representative constitutional republic and become a democracy and our final days are on the horizon.

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,949
    • I try my best ...

"A representative owes the people not only his industry, but his judgement, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.

That quote made me laugh outloud. It is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. It is a self contradictory statement, an oxymoron if you will.


If a "representative" rejects the will of the people and goes rogue, then he is not a 'representative' at all. He only represents his own will and his own desires. At that point he is no longer a representative at all. He becomes simply a single voter betraying and overriding the vote of thousands.

You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.
If they kill their own with no conscience, there is nothing to stop them from killing you.
Rational fear and anger at vicious murderous Islamic terrorists is the same as irrational antisemitism, according to the Leftists.