Tuesday, November 08, 2016

The Electoral College May SAVE America




hillary & The FBI  and DOJ....... Corruption and  FBI problems at end of email.................??????







.......SEEMS scary (article at end) .....but believe it or not......our forefathers designed a "checks and balances" to prevent such a problem...THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.   The delegates of each state are pledged but NOT obligated by law to vote for the states winner. The winner of tonight's election is NOT President Elect UNTIL the Electoral College  holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election.  It is at this time we have a "President Elect."  



The following quote reveals the "checks and balances" in the electoral system......(Entire article on the Electoral College is below the quote and comment.......)



"Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially 'reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person.' The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past."



With the FBI changing it's mind every week and more WikiLeaks coming and the statements made by the New York Police Department.....no matter who is elected tonight.....there is plenty of time for ANYTHING TO HAPPEN TO CLINTON AND OR TRUMP! (Trump may also be under investigation)





Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote



America’s presidential election system was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass

Commentary By




Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett.

The Electoral College remains in place over two centuries after the framers of the Constitution empowered it to select presidents. Though occasionally maligned, this system of electing a chief executive has been incredibly successful for the American people.

Many modern voters might be surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are casting a vote for fellow Americans called electors. These electors, appointed by the states, are pledged to support the presidential candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

Some see the Electoral College as a peculiar and mystifying institution that ensures only a few, select individuals will ever cast a direct vote for president in the United States. Others complain that the system rewards smaller states with more proportional power than the large ones.

Every four years, around election time, there are murmurs about revamping the system and moving toward a direct, national popular vote.

The Founders’ College

As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past.

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “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.”

Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.

The Constitution states:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.

In addition to balancing the protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founding Fathers attempted to create a “federalist” system that would keep most of policymaking power reserved to states and localities. America’s presidential election system also was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass.

The total number of electors and thus electoral votes across all states and the District of Columbia—included after the passage of the 23rd Amendment—adds up to 538. The winner must receive a majority, or 270, of these votes to become president.

The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account.

The states are free to select the method in which they choose their electors. In the early days of the republic, most states chose to have their legislatures pick electors, rather than the people. But, over time, the states shifted to choosing electors via the state’s popular vote instead. Every state has opted for popular election at least since the Civil War.

Calls to Abolish

Modern opponents of the Electoral College argue against what they call antidemocratic aspects of the institution, criticizing both the intermediary electors and the state-by-state system of voting.

Calls to fundamentally change the Electoral College reached a peak after Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the national popular vote, and many of his supporters howled that the system—even without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.

One organization, National Popular Vote, has worked toward eliminating the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a state compact. National Popular Vote argues that the current system encourages presidential candidates to spend most of their time in “swing states” rather than campaigning for votes across the entire country.

This plan for a national popular vote has received a moderate level of support, but Heritage’s von Spakovsky has called it bad policy, based on mistaken assumptions. Swing states, he wrote, “can change from election to election, and many states that are today considered to be reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’ in the presidential race were recently unpredictable.”

Many states have signed on to a bill that essentially would tie a state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote. Those states will pledge to swing all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote.

But this is because the incentives would be to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Swing states change over time, and the 2016 election could be a prime example of swing-state unpredictability and erosion of the traditional partisan political map.

Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

Over 200 Years of Success

Unneeded tinkering with a process that is over two centuries old could destabilize one on the steadiest political systems in the world.

As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross wrote in a Heritage Foundation memorandum:

America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America’s presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned, and carefully designed system—and it works.

On Election Day, Americans should appreciate the great and long-lasting constitutional tradition bequeathed to them—including the quirky Electoral College system created by the nation’s Founders.



SCARY ARTICLE...........................



  Some truth, some speculation.  The first paragraph is pure speculation and a guess as to why Comey caved to the Clintons.

 

There is no question that the game is rigged, but it isn’t easy to prove it.  The players are too good at it. 

America is now like a third world country, the government is corrupt and in full control.  There is no two party system and no checks and balances.











Just passing this on... quite likely our next President!  







Lynch and Obama made it clear to Comey that, if he pressed for an indictment, he would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election. If he failed to get a conviction, then he would be facing charges of tampering with and changing the outcome of a federal election, to which he would be facing the rest of his life in prison, and Obama and Lynch, as well as others, would see to it that he did. Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for an indictment. 

Hillary's statement to the FBI was intentionally given without a court reporter present or without any recording of her testimony to prevent her from having any further exposure to legal charges such as perjury. If she lied to Congress, they have no written FBI deposition to confront Hillary with. This was set up to let her walk without fear of being charged with giving False Testimony or being charged with Obstruction of Justice. This is what those in the "legalese world" call a "Straw Man" legal charge. (It is a charge designed to make someone, especially lawyers, appear innocent of the charges!) 



EXAMPLE: Bill beats up Shirley at their home. Bill is arrested for "Felony Spousal Abuse" . Bill's lawyer gets the charges dismissed because Bill is not married to Shirley! (They are only "live-in boyfriend and girlfriend".) Bill walks out of court totally exonerated of the charges––thanks to a technicality! The twist in the case is the arresting officer knew all along Bill was not married to Shirley, because the officer and Bill are old fraternity brothers. The officer intentionally charged Bill with something he knew would not stick. Bill would easily have been convicted of Assault and Battery, but he was not charged with that! This is what is known as the "STRAW MAN" charge. It is how you make a guilty person appear innocent. This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! 

If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent! I think citizens are finally fed up with the Clintons and the cesspool of corruption that is our current government. Real Americans are ready to take our country back. All of these years of corruption have taken a toll on American lives. Citizens' opinions of a lying White House, a corrupt Congress, the "pay to play" politicians, the legalese lawyers and lobbyists, big overspending "welfare mentality" government, the "looking for a loop hole" justice system, the lying media, and our censored educational system with an agenda to dumb down the next generation, is at its lowest point ever. Hillary is on the wrong side of every issue. 

The British Exit from the EU (Brexit) is just a small sign that real citizens of civilized nations are ready to take their country back. They are sick of the results of open borders and globalization led by power-hungry elitists. Hillary Clinton has no character or integrity. She is an arrogant, condescending political elite who is only interested in lining the Clinton pockets with donations to the Clinton Foundation (wink, wink) from PACs, lobbyists, and foreign nations that buy access and favors.



The Clinton Foundation is nothing more than an operation used to launder money for the Clintons and other politicians involved in illegal activities. The Clintons are able to use the information of those participating to obtain cover for their activities, or blackmail those who are laundering money through them. Just count the number of politicians who arrive in Washington with nothing, but then leave as millionaires and billionaires. Did their votes serve in the best interest of their constituents or did they only benefit themselves? If the representatives of your state fall in this category, then I suggest an investigation be launched.

FYI....It has come to light that Comey was (or still is) on the Board of Directors of the HSBC Bank where the Clinton Foundation has holdings.



ED KLEIN who wrote the book on the Clintons, now published and available -- said Hillary was called to the office of Valerie Jarrett and Obama back in 2009 and told her she had to stop sending emails thru her personal server ––– OBVIOUSLY SHE DIDN'T LISTEN TO THEM. So, YES, Obama knew and Jarrett knew and Huma knew, ... along with how many others!!!!

"FBI Director James Comey basically delivered a coded message to the American People and the world. He said...she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly should not be president, and should be brought to justice ... However, our country has been infiltrated and is basically corrupt.



Another key point is in what Comey said:  There were 80 email chains, which means an exchange between people, ... Hillary sending AND RECEIVING, ... so if he charges Hillary, he has to charge the others in the chain. What if the exchange is with Obama? It is not a stretch to think the Sec of State would be in email contact with PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES).

Let's just say...Bill went to Loretta and said shut this down...or else if Hillary is charged she will tell under oath that some of the emails were with the President...so he is also guilty of a felony...THAT is IMPEACHABLE .




The law firm Kahn worked for is also the law firm for the royal court of Saudi Arabia and the tax lawyers for the Clintons and for the Clinton Foundation. It is also the firm Loretta Lynch worked for. They also represent a small Tech firm in Denver Colorado. which so happens to be the same Tech firm that managed Hillary's private server. Coincidence?

|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home