Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters

Their power to chose the electors is plenary; this includes to the power to ensure they electors behave as intended by the state.

 

SCOTUS says otherwise. It was a 9-0 decision. Take it up with them.

Here's a tip, though - whenever SCOTUS agrees 9-0, it's a damn good bet that they are spot-on.

 

But you know what the word "vote" means, right?

 

Does it include the power to deny them the power to cast a vote?

 

I defer to the SCOTUS judges.

"Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so," Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

 

Electors are appointed so that they can vote, right?

 

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

Then why are electors appointed by the states if they are not supposed to elect?

 

I'm sorry your not like the fact the states can require, under penalty of law, their electors to vote for the candidate they were slated for.
But, they can.

 

So then, contrary to the constitution, they're not actually electors.

 

I'm sorry your not like the fact the states can require, under penalty of law, their electors to vote for the candidate they were slated for.
But, they can.

 

But the constitution says that they will cast a vote.

 

Some states were going to deny the electors that, and award the votes to the national popular vote (which we don't have).

 

But this is what the treaty says: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;"

 

The constitution says the states, in their plenary power to determine the method of choosing the electors, can require, under penalty of law, their electors to vote for the candidate they were slated for.
You may not like thus, but that doesn't matter.

 

It says that? Really? Can you quote the particular clause to which you're referring?

 

~ Likely another hissy fit is coming at Trump's star on Hollywood Walk Of Fame ... ´

 

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion (joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch) in which he agreed with the rest of his colleagues that the faithless elector laws are constitutional, even if he did not agree with the majority’s reasoning. Because Thomas believes that the Constitution does not say anything about whether the states have the power to require electors to vote for the candidates they pledged to support, he would uphold the laws on the ground that any powers that the Constitution does not specifically either give to the federal government or take away from the states belong to the states.

Your answer, therefore, is found in the 10th Amendment.

 

Election reform needs to be one of the priorities of the next President. This has to be part of it.

 

I disagree with you, but I've known your for a long time and know you to be reasonable. What end is served, in your opinion, in making electors be unable to elect?

 

So that would take 38 states to pass an amendment to reduce their political influence. Do you have a preliminary list of the 38 states you think will choose to change the treaty in such a manner?

 

Because?

The requirement for the elected to vote as slated serves the compelling state interest to protect the will of the people of that state, as reflected by the state election result.

 

~ They can start with eliminating election fraud, require voter ID, and return to paper ballots ✔

 

Why do you think that the states, when they established the constitution between them, even made a system of electors, rather than just having each state have a number of votes equal in number to its congressional delegation. Why the whole elector thing?

 

Irrelevant to my response, above.
When a state puts its slate of electors up to a vote, it has a compelling interest to protect the will of the people, so expressed.
How am I wrong?