Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

Regardless of your opinion about faithless Electors, there is a dangerous precedent in this opinion from July 2020. (not sure if they have done this before, maybe this isn't unprecedented but it is dangerous none the less) The ruling was 9-0 in favor of State "binding" laws. 2 opinions were written. 1 by Kagan concurred with by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Kavanaugh and Alito. The other written by Thomas concurred with by Gorsuch. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

The danger is in the Kagan opinion. She redefined the word "Manner" in the Constitution. Thomas would not agree to this practice instead calling "binding" laws a 10th amendment State power. This is ridiculous on its own but not my purpose to address here. My purpose is to point out the danger of scotus redefining the intended meaning of the words in the Constitution. If by new definition of "Manner" it is ok for State to force an Elector to vote a certain way then look at article 1 sec. 4- States can prescribe the "Manner" of Electing Senators and Representatives. So can States use the "Manner" to tell us Electors how we must vote for those offices? Or can they tell those Offices how they must vote after being elected? What happens if "Manner" has 2 separate definitions? What if scotus redefines other words like "people" or "right" depending on their location in the Constitution? We in deep doo doo kemosabe's.

Regardless of your opinion about faithless Electors, there is a dangerous precedent in this opinion from July 2020. (not sure if they have done this before, maybe this isn't unprecedented but it is dangerous none the less) The ruling was 9-0 in favor of State "binding" laws. 2 opinions were written. 1 by Kagan concurred with by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Kavanaugh and Alito. The other written by Thomas concurred with by Gorsuch. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf The danger is in the Kagan opinion. She redefined the word "Manner" in the Constitution. Thomas would not agree to this practice instead calling "binding" laws a 10th amendment State power. This is ridiculous on its own but not my purpose to address here. My purpose is to point out the danger of scotus redefining the intended meaning of the words in the Constitution. If by new definition of "Manner" it is ok for State to force an Elector to vote a certain way then look at article 1 sec. 4- States can prescribe the "Manner" of Electing Senators and Representatives. So can States use the "Manner" to tell us Electors how we must vote for those offices? Or can they tell those Offices how they must vote after being elected? What happens if "Manner" has 2 separate definitions? What if scotus redefines other words like "people" or "right" depending on their location in the Constitution? We in deep doo doo kemosabe's.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (9).
[–] • 1 pt

SCOTUS has already redefined "person" to include entities such as 'corporations'. If you research and compare the early editions of Blacks Law dictionary to the present, which is indeed the defacto 'legal' dictionary used by all lawyers, you will see how the legal definitions are 'miraculously' changed and even eliminated. It is true, in fact that the legal definition of 'person' has long included labor organizations, partnerships, associations, and corporations. It was several years ago that our 'wonderful' SCOTUS ruled that these same 'persons' have the same rights as flesh-and-blood individuals. This makes a corporation having ALL the rights as an individual has.

People must wake up to the fact that ALL law schools teach 'Positive Law' (also known as 'Law Positive') that is in opposition to, and has REPLACED 'Natural Law'.

What is 'Positive Law'? The concept of Positive Law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.

Why is this important? It's because 'Natural Law' is precisely the underlying foundation to the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Natural Law holds that our Rights come from the Creator and it is recognized by our government as stated in our Constitution. Positive Law negates the existence of the Creator and sets the government as the supreme being. Now, you can easily see why the SCOTUS is increasingly ruling against the Bill of Rights.

[–] • 0 pt

Excellant tyvm. Looks like a little reading is in order.