The Constitution for the United States of America is very specific about the Electoral College, what it is, who mans it, where it’s to be held, when it’s to be held, and how it’s to be conducted and votes counted and apportioned.
Since the State of Colorado just royally screwed its voters by passing horrendously un-Constitutional legislation depriving all voters in the minority throughout the entire state of their vote, I’m going to use Colorado as my case example. I may be wrong. I may be right. But as God is my witness, I’m going to walk us through each and every step of the Constitutionally-mandated process to find out!
Step 1: Review the Constitution
No, we don’t start with Colorado legislation, much less case law. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Article. VI. of the U.S. Constitution)
Before we continue, let’s explore the term “notwithstanding,” as I think many state legislators think it means their state constitutions and legislation prevails over the U.S. Constitution.
That is not at all what it means.
It means, quite literally, “despite,” as in “notwithstanding their inexperience, they were an immediate success.” Furthermore, also according to Merriam-Webster, it is often used after its object, as in, “The motion passed, our objection notwithstanding.” As it says right there on it’s website, Merriam-Webster has been around since 1828, just 41 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the only U.S. dictionary around at the time, and very largely reflecting the precise meaning of all the words in the Constitution. Specifically, “Webster’s Dictionary is any of the dictionaries edited by Noah Webster in the early nineteenth century, and numerous related or unrelated dictionaries that have adopted the Webster’s name. “Webster’s” has become a genericized trademark in the U.S. for dictionaries of the English language, and is widely used in English dictionary titles. Merriam-Webster is the corporate heir to Noah Webster’s original works, which are in the public domain.”
Thus, when it comes to the precise meaning of terms in the U.S. Constitution, Merriam-Webster is pretty darn accurate. In fact, I’ve found nothing comes close because no other dictionary used the Constitution and it’s precise usage of words as a template. Indeed, as “a strong supporter of the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution, Webster hoped his educational works would provide an intellectual foundation for American nationalism ” (Source)
Thus, Article. VI. of the U.S. Constitution is saying, quite literally, that it is indeed the supreme Law of the Land, and that all judges are bound by it, meaning if their opinions rendered in case law contract with the U.S. Constitution, they’re wrong, no matter how much precedence (the opinions of other judges) they think they’re standing on. In fact, higher judges often overturn lower ones because the lower ones are just flat out wrong. That’s their job; it’s why we have a system of appeals. And this doesn’t mean the U.S. Supreme Court always gets it right, either. They’ve explicitly overruled themselves, in part or in whole, by a subsequent decision of the Court, on many occasions. On quick inspection, it appears to me to be about 122 times.
But it’s not merely judges who are bound to the U.S. Constitution. The President is also bound (Article. II. Section. 1.), as are all… Well, just about everyone charged with executive, legislative, and judicial oversight: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” (Article. VI.)
In fact, Article. V. states that all amendments “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”
Finally, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.” (Article. IV. Section. 4.)
Thus, we’re a Republic, not a “democracy,” and as for a well protecting our Southern borders? Totally legal.
When each state joined the Union, it do so with the express written understanding, contained in their own state constitutions submitted for approval by the Union, that they agreed to and accepted the U.S. Constitution.
All of it.
Thus, whenever a state starts operating outside the Constitution, they’re not only violating the U.S. Constitution, but they’re also violating Constitutional rights of all people within their state, not to mention their own state constitutions.
In short, they’re screwing over their entire state, including themselves, as in California Governor Gavin Newsom’s upcoming trip “to El Salvador in April to discuss the poverty and violence that’s causing waves of migrants to seek asylum in the United States.” (Source) Read the article and you’ll see that clearly, Governor Newsome is violating the supreme Law of the Land.
Sorry, Governor Newsome, but the California State Constitution is a charter, a covenant relationship, not merely between California and the federal government, but between California and all other states which comprise our Union… And the federal government. You do not get to dictate terms to the rest of us who’re greatly and adversely affected by your blitheringly idiotic decisions.
Naturally, this brings us right back to what the Colorado State legislature just did with SB 19-042, the un-Constitutionally titled “National Popular Vote” bill. But, hey! We’re not looking at the bill. If we did that, all the Democrat rhetoric (propaganda) surrounding the bill might just cloud our minds, and when it comes to being an American citizen and following the U.S. Constitution as ALL American citizens are required by law to do, including naturalized citizens, we really do NOT want our heads clouded by Democrat propaganda, do we? With that in mind, let’s examine the 5 Principles Embodied in the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America:
Sitting here reading the Oath and its Principles, it appears to me many state legislators, not to mention about half the executive, legislative, and judical members in local, county, state, and federal government are violating our Constitution, AREN’T THEY???
So, let’s stick to the U.S. Constitution, and Lord willing, let’s continue, namely, with the verbiage concerning the Electoral College:
First, Article. I. Section. 2. mentions “Electors” twice. However, it’s in reference to electing members of the House.
Second, the other six times either Elector or Electors are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution occurs in Article. II. Section. 1., specifically:
That’s quite a chunk of change, there, isn’t it? In fact, it’s one of the more complicated, if not the most complicated, sections in the U.S. Constitution.
And yet, we WILL soon break it down, word, line, phrase, sentence, and paragraph. But for the moment, I will call it a work in progress and get back to it after Governor Polis provides his input. Let’s see if he signs it like a big, fat, grinning Democrat buffoon, or if he looks intently into the law, realizes it totally violates the rights of We the People of the State of Colorado, and stamps it with a VETO, as ll governors SHOULD.