quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.
What Michael Moore did was quite different.
All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.
I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

We actually agree!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


18 U.S. Code � 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

The U.S. Code disagrees, Bama:

quote:


(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

I think he deserves some D.O.J. attention, based upon this law.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Michael Moore tweeted:

quote:


Republican electors - my offer remains: If u vote your conscience & u are fined 4 doing this, I will pay your fine. U should not be punished

Traitor? Potential felon? Patriot?



Michael

He is an idiot who deserves no attention.

well IMO that idiot published in 1 movie more facts than u have the entire time u've been on this site.... so by ur logic we should pay u even less attention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Michael Moore tweeted:

quote:


Republican electors - my offer remains: If u vote your conscience & u are fined 4 doing this, I will pay your fine. U should not be punished

Traitor? Potential felon? Patriot?
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Worse. The states are refusing to accept their vote, replacing them with someone on the spot who will do the state's bidding.

Isn't that unconstitutional and a massive breach of the state rights thing the Republicans are queer for if they think they can use it to undermine Federal law on a state by state basis?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

I consider him to be an anti American POS who should have his assets confiscated an shipped of to live in Cuba, but I hate to give him the attention.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.

While true in general, I don't believe there is any Federal laws regarding how electors of a State must vote.

So, in general, yes, but in this specific case, I don't think there is anything unConstitutional about a State making it's own rules up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
When those rules go against the Constitution, yes. That's what un-Constitutional means.

While true in general, I don't believe there is any Federal laws regarding how electors of a State must vote.

So, in general, yes, but in this specific case, I don't think there is anything unConstitutional about a State making it's own rules up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I consider him to be an anti American POS who should have his assets confiscated an shipped of to live in Cuba, but I hate to give him the attention.

Don't you just love how the folks who harp on about how the love and revere the Constitution the most, are always the first to attack anybody who exercised the rights guaranteed under that Constitution for anything they don't happen to approve of.

One would almost be led to think that either they were total hypocrites, or they didn't really understand the document they claim to honour. Personally I am of the opinion that it is a particularly toxic combination of the two.