NATURAL LAW AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

NATURAL LAW AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 equal in number to 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.  Some states have enacted party rules or state statutes which attempt to mandate loyal voting or disqualify disloyal voting.  These statutes or rules are of no consequence when contemplating the historical backdrop to the formation of the Electoral College and their ethical duty to act according to true conscience. 

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 conventional laws made by man, does not apply to or favor Hillary Clinton when the Electoral College casts their votes.
(c)oliver2016
-----------------------------
UPDATED: See comment below in answer to point raised on Trump's "fitness to serve."

*** [ An unfit person, is only one potential event, which can lead the EC to elect a candidate, other than the plurality winner of their state.

As I explained above, the EC is based on Natural Law principles studied by Thomas Jefferson and others. (Because we were only permitted to study primary sources, I was required to read the same original, rare text book on Natural and Politic Law, by J.J. Burlamaqui, that Jefferson studied from, in addition to studying the Letters of Thomas Jefferson.)

Any time a member of EC votes, they are duty-bound to vote their true conscience. The reality is that the EC will cast their votes for the plurality winner of their state. There is nothing in this past election that would change the minds of enough EC college members to vote otherwise. ...

BUT, a person  raised a valid point.
The  issue of whether Trump is the type of candidate that should not receive the EC vote, is problematic.

In Ethics, Trump could be deemed to be unfit to serve as president. The statement of Pope Francis that Trump "lacks the moral qualifications to lead a country," raises an ethical dilemma for the EC. Although Ethics does not arise from religious principles, the Pope clearly is an authority on ethics and morality.

In Ethics, the Pope's assessment of Trump is conclusive in recognizing that ethics dictates that  in order to act morally, "one ought not to vote for Trump." This moral dictate applies to the members of the electoral college.

Therefore, it is correct, that in Ethics, members of the EC "ought" not to vote for Trump, in order to act morally.]
(c)oliver2016
-----------------:
Note: For further study, SEE: Fagothy, Austin. "Right & Reason."
Austin Fagothy was a modern day, world-renowned philosopher who taught at the University of Santa Clara. Prof. Fagothy's text is highly recommended. It is a concise statement of argument of the pros and cons on major ethical issues, written with incomparable clarity

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT "SCANNING AND PROBING" OF US ELECTION ROLLS

FOREIGN "SCANNING AND PROBING" OF US ELECTION ROLLS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS THE signal. There may be a clue here to the surprising results of the election. The results contradict the empirical data and computer calculated prediction. Having had a personal experience around 1994 at a remote, isolated lake near the border of Rhode Island and Connecticut, I have this continuing sense of suspicion, which I cannot shake off. My Washington Bureau Chief friend's advice to me when I was in the District, still rings in my head, "Mr. Ray. You have to be careful in this world. Everything is possible. Nothing is too crazy."

Let's assume as a hypothetical that there was foreign interference with the reporting of numbers or computer programming in this election.

There are only two foreign countries that have motive and opportunity to interfere with election results and reporting false numbers. One is Russia. The other is not China, but maybe as Donald Trump said when he dismissed Obama's accusation of Russia, that it could be
“somebody sitting on their (China's) bed that weighs 400 pounds.” (Source: New York Times Oct. 7, 2016)

Here is an excerpt of the New York Times, Oct. 7, 2016 article.

   

"The statement from Mr. Clapper and the Department of Homeland Security, which is primarily responsible for defending the country against sophisticated cyberattacks, said the intelligence agencies were less certain who was responsible for “scanning and probing” online election rolls in states around the country. It said that those “in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company,” but stopped short of alleging the Russian government was responsible for those probes.

...

as recently as Wednesday the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, refused to publicly accuse Moscow."  NYT Oct. 7, 2016

There is a clue here. I cannot shake off my suspicion. There is one country that has absolutely no reservation in acting against the US on "every level," in doing whatever it deems in its own best interest.

I will look further into this. As I mentioned earlier, there are people in NY's Diamond District who can provide reliable and credible information relating to US-Russia events. During the 1980s, there was a direct link on Canal Street, New York. That link no longer exists. In the early 1980s, I was told by a client that while he was in a foreign country, he was instructed by his business negotiators, "not to take that flight out of the country." He changed his flight ticket. That flight was carrying government officials and crashed.

The point is that there are highly credible sources which can lend insight into what happened with our election model. Why was every analytical calculation wrong?

The answer to the election result mystery lies somewhere. That place might be found in the operations center of a foreign intelligence organization that interfered with our elections to snatch their Holy Grail. Edited 11/10/16
(c)oliver2016
---------------------------
RAY OLIVER
to reach the author call or text 862.276.1505

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted source: http://www.nytimes.com/…/us-formally-accuses-russia-of-stea…

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT "SCANNING AND PROBING" OF US ELECTION ROLLS

FOREIGN "SCANNING AND PROBING" OF US ELECTION ROLLS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS THE signal. There may be a clue here to the surprising results of the election. The results contradict the empirical data and computer calculated prediction. Having had a personal experience around 1994 at a remote, isolated lake near the border of Rhode Island and Connecticut, I have this continuing sense of suspicion, which I cannot shake off. My Washington Bureau Chief friend's advice to me when I was in the District, still rings in my head, "Mr. Ray. You have to be careful in this world. Everything is possible. Nothing is too crazy."

Let's assume as a hypothetical that there was foreign interference with the reporting of numbers or computer programming in this election.

There are only two foreign countries that have motive and opportunity to interfere with election results and reporting false numbers. One is Russia. The other is not China, but maybe as Donald Trump said when he dismissed Obama's accusation of Russia, that it could be
“somebody sitting on their (China's) bed that weighs 400 pounds.” (Source: New York Times Oct. 7, 2016)

Here is an excerpt of the New York Times, Oct. 7, 2016 article.
"The statement from Mr. Clapper and the Department of Homeland Security, which is primarily responsible for defending the country against sophisticated cyberattacks, said the intelligence agencies were less certain who was responsible for “scanning and probing” online election rolls in states around the country. It said that those “in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company,” but stopped short of alleging the Russian government was responsible for those probes.
...
as recently as Wednesday the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael Rogers, refused to publicly accuse Moscow."  NYT Oct. 7, 2016


There is a clue here. I cannot shake off my suspicion. There is one country that has absolutely no reservation in acting against the US on "every level," in doing whatever it deems in its own best interest.

I will look further into this. As I mentioned earlier, there are people in NY's Diamond District who can provide reliable and credible information relating to US-Russia events. During the 1980s, there was a direct link on Canal Street, New York. That link no longer exists. In the early 1980s, I was told by a client that while he was in a foreign country, he was instructed by his business negotiators, "not to take that flight out of the country." He changed his flight ticket. That flight was carrying government officials and crashed.

The point is that there are highly credible sources which can lend insight into what happened with our election model. Why was every analytical calculation wrong?

The answer to the election result mystery lies somewhere. That place might be found in the operations center of a foreign intelligence organization that interfered with our elections to snatch their Holy Grail. Edited 11/10/16
(c)oliver2016
---------------------------
RAY OLIVER
call or text 862.276.1505

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted source: http://www.nytimes.com/…/us-formally-accuses-russia-of-stea…