[ExI] trump

[Kelly Anderson]

That's very interesting.

I know most of us here are old enough to remember the debacle of Bush
v. Gore where the Supreme Court picked the president. So while the
Supreme Court might not have the right to do certain things, they have
done them before, and who's to say that they are wrong? The
Constitution definitely gives them some rights, and if you'll recall:

"Marbury v. Madison is a landmark Supreme Court case in United States
law with significant implications for the balance of power between the
branches of government. In 1803, the Supreme Court ruled that it had
the power of judicial review, meaning it could declare acts of
Congress unconstitutional. This decision established the principle of
judicial review in the United States, empowering the judiciary as a
check on the legislative and executive branches. It solidified the
role of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the
Constitution, shaping the system of checks and balances within the
government. This case is often cited as a cornerstone of American
constitutional law and has had a profound impact on the development of
the U.S. legal system."

Or so says ChatGPT, which is correct in this case. That was one of the
greatest power grabs in the history of these United States, and it was
a big oversight of the writers of the Constitution not to give SCOTUS
this right out of the gate.

-Kelly

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 9:12 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, 7:56 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
>>
>> Adrian, my point is that the constitution predates printed ballots and predates political parties for the most part.  It doesn’t tell us what happens if states or counties leave off one qualifying party’s candidate or the other, or both, or some of them or all of them.  If a state or some counties do that, we don’t really know who won that state’s election.  If several states and counties do that, we could have an election in which we really don’t know who won.
>
> No, it's pretty clear.  A given state doesn't have to have a presidential election at all: it would be legal, if the state passed laws to this effect, for the governor or legislature to just say who that state's electors go to with no input from the rest of the state.  Certain states such as Arizona have threatened to do just that.
>
> It is the case that, currently, no state's laws allow that, and all states' laws require that all qualifying candidates appear on the ballot.  If Arizona's legislature pulled that after the election with Arizona's laws as they are now, they could be prosecuted under Arizona's laws, quite probably resulting in the elected result winning out.  This just requires some foresight by the relevant legislature and governor, though to a degree that the parties threatening to do this have generally not demonstrated yet.  (There are published plans for this sort of thing, but notice that despite those plans existing, no state presently actually has those laws at this time.  If they had the necessary foresight, they'd be passing those laws now.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat