NATURAL LAW AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN THE US

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LET ME ANSWER (again) a question that some have asked me regarding the Electoral College.

Briefly:
The Electoral College was created out of the philosophy studied by the Founding Fathers and their strong belief in the Natural Law.

The Natural Law is the law of morality and ethics. Its most fundamental expression of principle is that "All men ought to act according to their true conscience." This is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas in his work, Summa Theologica and earlier expressed by Plato in his works on "Metaphysics." The term Meta means "beyond." The term Physics means "the physical world."
Metaphysics is the study beyond the physical world that we live in.

The Founding Fathers believed that an essential function of a democracy is to express the will of an "informed" majority in the interest of the Public Good.
The Founding Fathers foresaw that their might arise a situation where the will of the majority contravenes the public good or may be an expression of an act against Ethics.
An example might be where the majority (plurality) of voters have voted to abolish their democracy and vote in a tyrannical government.

To address that potential dysfunction of a democracy, the Founding Fathers created an Electoral College that casts the votes to elect the President and Vice President.
Members of the Electoral College are each state's members of the House of Representatives and their two Senators.

It is tradition for them to cast their votes for the winner of the plurality of votes in their states.

HOWEVER, as instilled by the Founding Fathers, these members of the Electoral College are NOT mandated to cast their votes for the majority winner of their state.

The members of the Electoral College are dictated by their conscience to cast their votes on behalf of their state's constituency.

IF A MEMBER of the Electoral College's true conscience does not allow them to cast their vote for the majority winner of their state, then they OUGHT to act only according to their true conscience and cast their vote accordingly.

THEREFORE, a member of the Electoral College is NOT obligated to cast their votes, except according to their "true conscience."

Theoretically, the members of the Electoral College may cast their votes for Hillary Clinton or even for a third party candidate, without regard to the majority vote winner in their state.
Whether these electoral college members will cast their votes for a candidate other than their state's winning candidate is extremely unlikely. The members will vote for their state's winner, unless a catastrophic event occurs which allows them to be guided by their conscience when casting their votes.

There is no chance of the electoral college viewing the election of Donald Trump as a conscience shaking event. There is no chance that Hillary Clinton will be given the electoral votes from the states where she lost the plurality of the votes.

The Natural Law, which supercedes any laws made by man, does not apply to or favor Hillary Clinton when the Electoral College casts their votes.
(c)oliver2016
---------------
RAY OLIVER
contact info at 862.276.1505

INSTITUTIONAL MORALITY

INSTITUTIONAL MORALITY:  responsible government in conflict zones

News reports of the Palestinian gunman who killed four Israelis in Hebron today, highlight the higher duty to protect innocent people that "conflict zone governments" have.

The crazed Palestinian gunman's actions are reprehensible.

Hamas' reported "support of the gunman" is equally reprehensible.

Although Hamas has not announced responsibility for the murders, Hamas' reported public statement of support places Hamas in the shoes of the gunman.

All rational people acknowledge that the incomprehensible inhumanity of Israelis against Palestinians and Palestinians against Israelis is an insane cycle of each state's subjugation of human dignity to the level of stepped on weeds.

This insane cycle of immorality and murder must stop.

Where one conflict zone government inflicts thousands of deaths on the other and the other inflicts tens of deaths, each government is equally responsible and condemned for causing the death of a single person.

All governments which are politically institutionalized in a conflict zone have a higher and global duty to protect innocent lives from the criminals within their state's boundaries.

Like principles of physics, every political event, condition and incident of national rage is a mixture of right and wrong reasons which led to a catastrophic event.

But make no mistake about it. 

When a conflict zone government fails to protect and punish for murderous, recalcitrant behavior by their citizens, no reason will absolve that government from responsibility.

The mixture of seemingly right reasons and apparent justifiable rage, dissolves into the shadows of the monumental guilt for the death of innocent lives.

At this point Hamas stands as that monument of guilt.

Moral governments do not view the murder of four innocent people as a "tiny" event in a decades-long continuum of murder and destruction by each state.

Moral governments do not kill innocent people as a public statement of opposition to another government's actions.

The killing of four Israelis today is a single catastrophic event.

It is not part of a continuum. 

Self deception does not make it part of a continuum either.

The killings are irrelevant to past, present or future events.  The killings cannot be rationalized as a statement of revenge or condemnation of past or present actions.

The killing of four Israelis today, stands alone as a single murderous event.

And the Hamas conflict zone institutionalized government is now responsible for those actions.

Although Hamas is recognized by its electorate as their representative tool against oppression and opposition to a foreign government's aggrandizement of their liberty and property, Hamas is reduced to a tool of international terror.

Today's event legitimizes the world community's stigma that Hamas is "exclusively" a terrorist organization.

The international stigma is unfortunate.

But, today's murders and announced public support, evidences that the stigma is well earned.

Ray Oliver, Esq.
(c)copyright oliver 2010