Colorado Electoral College lawsuit set for 3 p.m. Monday in Denver

Colorado Electoral College lawsuit set for 3 p.m. Monday in Denver

 

UPDATE: The state of Colorado responded Friday afternoon in legal filings that argue the electors must follow state law. “This Court should not countenance Plaintiffs’ attempt to dismantle the Electoral College from within,” the response reads. Find the whole thing here13-20161209-response-to-motion-for-preliminary-injunction

On Monday, two members of Colorado’s Electoral College will face a federal judge in Denver for their first hearing in a lawsuit against the state. They are suing for the ability to cast their votes on Dec. 19 for someone other than Hillary Clinton, who won Colorado.

The electors, former State Sen. Polly Baca of Denver and Colorado Springs math teacher Bob Nemanich, are both Democrats. But they hope they can persuade enough of the 538 Electoral College members to rally behind an alternative to Trump. Just one hitch: Colorado — along with more than half the states in the U.S. — has a law on its books saying electors must vote for whomever won the popular vote in the state on Election Day.

Related: The Electoral College plan to stop Trump explained

The lawsuit in Colorado is the first of its kind challenging the constitutionality of state laws that bind electors. The hearing is at 3 p.m. Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver. Judge Wiley Daniel, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, will hear the case.  

The lawsuit names Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, Republican Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and Republican Secretary of State Wayne Williams as defendants.

On Dec. 19, all of Colorado’s nine national electors are scheduled to attend a ceremony at the state Capitol in which they cast their official votes.

“It’s my understanding that the Secretary of State will ‘remove the elector’ who fails to ‘vote for the presidential/vice-presidential ticket that receives the most votes in the state’ and would ‘seat a replacement elector,’” Baca wrote in an affidavit filed with the court. “It’s my understanding that the Attorney General or the Secretary of State, at the direction of the Governor, would conduct this removal and replacement.” 

Accompanied by a motion for a temporary restraining order, the lawsuit aims to block these state officials from stopping the electors from casting a vote for for whomever they want.

Twenty-eight other states have laws on the books binding Electoral College members to the presidential candidate who won their state’s popular vote.

But Jason Wesoky, a Denver attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Colorado’s two electors, says the  U.S Supreme Court has left open the question of whether it is constitutional to enforce those state laws.

“We believe it is not, under Article II and the 12th Amendment and how it is discussed by [Alexander] Hamilton in the Federalist Papers,” Wesoky says.

From the lawsuit:

The purpose of the Electoral College, which is made up of electors such as Plaintiffs, is to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits or requires electors to vote the same as the popular vote in their states. For the first 100 years of our history, the majority of states did not hold popular votes for the election of president and vice president and, instead, the states themselves appointed the electors who voted for president and vice president.

Responding to the suit, Secretary Williams lashed out at the electors in a statement, using uncharacteristically harsh language. He called the suit and its broader strategy “evil,” “odious,” “arrogant” and part of an “illegal conspiracy.”

Not all of the Colorado’s nine electors are on record in support of the lawsuit, either.

Pueblo County Democratic Chairwoman Marybeth Corsentino told her local newspaper on Dec. 8 that she doesn’t think much of the effort.

“My plan right now is to follow through and vote for Hillary Clinton,” she said. “But if there was truly a way to keep Donald Trump from being president . . . but I don’t know.”

Another elector, Boulder Sen. Rollie Heath, says he is taking a wait-and-see approach until his Dec. 19 deadline. He was recently pictured with Williams at an event for Gov. Hickenlooper.

In the post-election landscape, in which Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.5 million and Trump won the Electoral College by a projected 306 to 232, the Colorado lawsuit fits into a larger legal context.

Since Nov. 8, lawyers around the country have been filing motions in courts that attack parts of the Electoral College system, reported Slate.com.

Last month, California lawyer John Birke sought a restraining order to block any of 538 national electors from casting a vote for Trump. He argued that the Electoral College system was antithetical to the principle of one person, one vote.

From Slate:

Birke’s complaint was dismissed at the federal district court, on the theory that the Constitution itself specifies the Electoral College as a method of selecting the president and that there is no freestanding constitutional right of individual voters to elect the president. Birke has appealed that decision. He is not interested in flipping electors; he wants to get rid of the whole system.

Another lawsuit in Florida seeks to unbind the state’s 29 electors there from having to vote for Trump, who won the state. Electors in California and Washington state have also filed similar lawsuits. 

Meanwhile, two separate legal groups have sprouted up to offer advice or to defend any of the 538 national electors if they wish to file lawsuits or otherwise challenge the system.

One of them is Electors Trust, created by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.  

Another is Hamilton Defenders, made up of attorneys in Colorado, Texas and the Washington, D.C. area. Wesoky, the attorney for Colorado’s two electors in the lawsuit, is a founder of Hamilton Defenders. His clients refer to themselves as Hamilton Electors. They believe the Founding Father meant for the Electoral College to act as a deliberative body and stop someone unqualified from becoming president.

Nemanich, one of the plaintiffs in the Colorado suit, says he is not sure how he will vote if his lawsuit is successful but the plan to unite behind an alternative to Trump through the Electoral College falls through.

 

Like this story? Steal it! Feel free to republish it in part or in full, just please give credit to The Colorado Independent and add a link to the original.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.



About the Author

Corey Hutchins

is a journalist in Colorado, and Columbia Journalism Review's Rocky Mountain correspondent for the United States Project. Follow him on Twitter @CoreyHutchins and email him at CoreyHutchins [at] gmail [dot] com.

6 Comments

  1. Sue G. on said:

    The Constitution says a “…small group of educated elders…” cast this ballot. The entanglement of state laws or party traditions have come afterward, and would not stand up in court. Let them vote their conscience, as was the intent of the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written. This is the safety net Alexander Hamilton knew we would need if an uninformed majority voted for huckster, who could put us all in harm’s way.

  2. JOHN MAYOR on said:

    THE POLITICS OF TRUE PLURALITIES
    .
    Millions have “tentatively lost” the yet to be completed Election, because the Electoral College is in systemic breach of a DIRECT ELECTION, and ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE!… and because some OLIGARCHS have decided many years ago to “R-I-G” the outcome of a U.S. Federal Election, by instituting a mechanism to undermine a DEMOCRATIC PLURALITY! And that process… as this site has revealed!… is currently in the midst of a V-E-R-Y R-E-A-L F-I-R-E-S-T-O-R-M of “judicious judicial judicare”!
    .
    However!… however DIABOLIC one might perceive the present Electoral College to be to the “Principals of Democracy”, none of this compares to the DIABOLIC nature inhere within “democracies (so-called!)” which a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y a-d-h-e-r-e to DIRECT ELECTIONS (so-called!), and which have adopted a “ONE VOTER, ONE VOTE (so-called!)” system to elect Candidates into Office! And I’ll demonstrate this, by revealing the I-N-S-A-N-I-T-Y that was– and is!– the Brexit vs Bremain referendum!
    .
    How is it “DEMOCRATIC”– e.g.!– when the Brexit Referendum “win” of Thursday, June 23rd, 2016, was “won” W-I-T-H-O-U-T the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS’ VOTES?… AND!… NOT JUST, BY WAY OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO’VE DECIDED TO CAST A VOTE! In other words, how can L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of eligible British voters’ votes, constitute a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”? It is– de facto!– I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E (i.e., without God!)! And thus, the Brexit vote is a further example of a “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-S-E-U-D-O-P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” “winning the day”!
    .
    To compare the Brexit Referendum to an election of a Candidate within a Electoral District… if fifty thousand eligible voters decide not to vote in a District that is composed/ comprised of one hundred thousand eligible voters… and five Candidates are running!… the math would suggest, that no Candidate could possibly obtain a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” from the remaining fifty thousand eligible voters who have cast a vote! Unless!… and of course!… A H-I-J-A-C-K-E-D, AND E-L-I-T-I-S-T P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L P-R-O-C-E-S-S SIMPLY MARGINALIZES THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SHOWN UP TO VOTE; AND, THEN, DICTATES THAT THEIR “NO SHOW”/ ABSENCE, CANNOT– AND SHOULD NOT!– BE HELD “B-I-N-D-I-N-G” IN SOME FASHION, OR FORM (AND SOME “NO SHOWS” ARE AS SUCH, DUE TO DISABILITY, AND/ OR INFIRMITY!… NOT TO MENTION, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SYSTEMICALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, DUE TO THEIR Y-O-U-T-H!)! FOR!… OUT OF SIGHT, IS OUT OF MIND!
    .
    Simply put!… and to return to the Brexit Referendum!… the said total of 17,410,742. “winning” “pro Brexit” British voters, plus the said total of 16,141,242. “losing” “pro Bremain” eligible British voters, who– together!– showed up at the “Referendum ballot boxes (i.e., 33,551,984 eligible British voters!)”, are in contrast to the ACTUAL TOTAL of 46,499,537 eligible British voters (see Google result, Electoral Commission | Provisional electorate figures published!… AND, LET ALONE, THE EVEN HIGHER ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS’ VOTES TO BE HAD, IF MANY OF THE DISABLED/ INFIRMED BRITISH CITIZENS WERE “ACCOMMODATED”!… AND!… IF MANY BRITISH YOUTH WEREN’T THE TARGETS OF “P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L P-A-T-E-R-N-A-L-I-S-T-I-C A-G-E-I-S-M”!)!… and reveals a deficit of 12,947,553. of the ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER of eligible British voters, and a deficit of 5,839,027. eligible British voters for even a “B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N (i.e., 46,499,537. ÷ 2 = 23,249,768.5… + .5 = [23,249,769.] – 17,410,742. = 5,839,027.!)”! AND THEREFORE, THE COMBINED “WINNERS” AND “LOSERS” TALLY OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E A-C-T-U-A-L T-O-T-A-L- N-U-M-B-E-R O-F E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E B-R-I-T-I-S-H V-O-T-E-R-S/ V-O-T-E-S!… AND!… THE “WINNING TALLY”, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E “M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-L-L” O-F T-H-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R-S O-F B-R-I-T-A-I-N! AND!… THEREFORE!… THE “WINNING TALLY” OF ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS– AT LEAST!– SHOULD BE MET WITH A C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L (AND TORT!) C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E (TO START!) FOR THE F-L-A-G-R-A-N-T B-R-E-A-C-H OF THE “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S O-F D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y (I.E., AND E.G., IN THE F-A-I-L-U-R-E OF THE BREXIT REFERENDUM RESULT TOTAL, TO ACHIEVE EVEN A B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y T-A-L-L-Y, FOR A ‘M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N’!)”!
    .
    And so!… the Brexit “win”… like the “wins” seen so often in our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS (AND EVEN IN ELECTIONS WHEREIN “PLURALITY WINS”– E.G., IN AMERICA!– MIGHT BE FAVORED OVER ELECTORAL COLLEGE “WINS”!)!… I-S A S-H-A-M!! And!… it escapes me, why “plurality-driven citizens” from respective “democracies (so-called!)” from around the world, haven’t challenged these scurrilous, and shameful “F-A-U-X P-U-B-L-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-A”!… AND PSEUDOELECTIONS!… AND!… haven’t brought civil proceedings against any and all institutions, which have allowed these G-L-O-B-A-L F-A-R-C-E-S to continue! And thus… re the Brexit Referendum result!… it’s my contention, that the Brexit Referendum is defeatable, due to it’s inherent S-Y-S-T-E-M-I-C V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of the “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”!
    .
    This horrendous situation involving our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS, has resulted in “winning Candidates” winning (if, indeed, Pluralities are recognized!) with as little as 1/5th of the total number of eligible voters’ votes!… AND!… THEN DARING, TO CALL SUCH RESPECTIVE “WINS”, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C! A-N-D W-O-R-S-E!… and in the case of the Brexit Referendum result (AND “PSEUDOWIN”!)!… such a “W-I-N” could– POTENTIALLY!– C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-Z-E T-H-E S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y O-F A-N E-N-T-I-R-E N-A-T-I-O-N! And so!… it’s no wonder why so many citizens within our respective “democracies (so-called!)” hate the elections process!… and!… hate Public Referenda!
    .
    And!… to add Elections insult to Elections injury, there are “Parties” within countries… and again, composed of “winning Candidates” who have “won” with L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M needed for a “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y”!… whose leadership cannot be chosen D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y by the PEOPLE (e.g., in Canada!)!… and O-N-L-Y, by the Party (although, this is not to detract from the serious failings of the Elections Process in America, in the selection of America’s President!)! And further, rather than have the brightest!… the best!… “winning Candidates” from all across a country– and, from across a legislature’s floor!– forming Executive Cabinets (and in Canada– e.g.– composed of Ministers of Federal Departments, or Provincial Ministries!)!… A-N-D T-H-R-O-U-G-H A N-O-N P-A-R-T-Y_B-A-S-E-D L-E-G-I-S-L-A-T-U-R-E O-R P-A-R-L-I-A-M-E-N-T (and something, incidentally, that municipalities have been doing for generations!… A-N-D, W-O-R-L-D-W-I-D-E)!… our current “PARTY-BASED DEMOCRACIES” have chosen, instead– A-N-D V-I-R-T-U-A-L-L-Y!– GANGS, CLIQUES, AND “P-S-E-U-D-O-S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S”, TO ACT AS “GO-BETWEENS” FOR PARTY-BASED “OLIGARCHIC BACKROOM BOYZ”!
    .
    But!… if all of this wasn’t bad enough, there’s no “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option on millions of voters’ ballots (AND “B-I-N-D-I-N-G”!… AS A PREREQUISITE!)!… nor, an “AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION” of the “NO SHOWS (i.e., eligible voters who have NOT cast a vote!)” to “B-I-N-D-I-N-G” “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS (inasmuch, as such ‘NO SHOWS’, can’t be translated as being ‘F-O-R’, any Candidate!)”! (BUT!… PLEASE NOTE!… IF OUR “NO SHOWS” AS SUCH, ARE DUE TO OUR P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y– O-R, U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S!– TO ADDRESS THE VOTER NEEDS OF OUR DISABLED/ INFIRMED!… AND, OUR YOUTH!… THEN SUCH “INABLED”, OR “UNWILLING”, SHOULD BE “H-E-L-P-E-D” RE THEIR “I-N-A-B-I-L-T-Y”!… OR H-E-L-D T-O A-C-C-O-U-N-T FOR THEIR “U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S”!) And!… had the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” and the “TRANSLATED NO SHOW” provisions been addressed, many “NO SHOWS” would have shown up to vote (for fear of receiving a MANADATED “BINDING” “AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION”!)! And!… if combined “NO SHOW TRANSLATIONS”, together with directly cast “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS” were implemented (wherein– TOGETHER!– these OUTNUMBER the votes cast for any respective “running Candidate”!), this combined tally could have meant the introduction of “lottery lists” of Candidates within respective Districts (preselected!… and the members in which, would not be eligible to run as “running Candidates”!)!… from which, our “winners” could have then been chosen! And thereby!… E-F-F-E-C-T-I-N-G F-U-L-L R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N F-O-R E-V-E-R-Y S-I-N-G-L-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R, A-N-D V-O-T-E!
    .
    And so… and given the “politcal fair” we’ve received from every major “Party”, I ask you:… Should we be fearful of a “lottery list”, if a TRUE PLURALITY (i.e., with respect to my hypothetic model!) has denied all “running Candidates”?
    .
    All one need ensure in the establishment of a “lottery list”, is the institution of PROPER SECURITY BACKGROUND CHECKS for “listed Candidates”, and the institution of PROPER “LISTED PREQUALIFICATIONS”!
    .
    To return again to Brexit!… to juxtapose the just aforenoted “plurality template” onto Referenda!… and onto the Brexit Referendum, in particular!… if the directly cast “NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS”, combined with the “TRANSLATED NO SHOWS”, OUTWEIGHED the votes cast for either the Brexit or Bremain scenarios, then NEITHER Brexit, nor Bremain, would be– DEMOCRATICALLY!– left on the table! And the MPs of the British Parliament would then be forced to renew their respective individual approaches, and collective approach, re their “arrangement” with the EU!… and, their respective dialogues, and collective dialogue, with the citizens of Britain!
    .
    And given… and in contrast to the abovenoted!… in the light of the process that was implementated for the Brexit Referendum (though, yet to be revealed “officially”!)!… WELL!… you have the makings of a P-O-O-R E-X-C-U-S-E F-O-R A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M!… A-N-D A P-O-O-R “R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L B-A-S-I-S” F-O-R T-H-E R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-I-O-N O-F T-H-E F-U-T-U-R-E C-O-U-R-S-E F-O-R A-N E-N-T-I-R-E C-O-U-N-T-R-Y!!
    .
    And so… and to sum up!… what we have, presently, are “P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-I-E-S (IF EVEN THESE CAN BE ACHIEVED!… E.G., IN AMERICA!)” IN THE G-U-I-S-E OF “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y E-L-E-C-T-E-D” CANDIDATES! An intolerable situation!… and deserving of both CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES, and TORT ACTION! And!… A-N-Y O-T-H-E-R ACCEPTED PLURALITY OTHER THAN A “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y” ACCEPTED BY A PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATE, AND/ OR BY A PROSPECTIVE VOTER (AND BASED UPON THE “L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”, AS AFOREMENTIONED!… AND OTHER, THAN ONE INSTITUTED BY GOD!)!, IS A CANDIDATE, OR VOTER, WHO IS EITHER BLIND TO THE “LEGITIMATE” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”, OR WHO IS A TRAITOR TO THE “LEGITIMATE” “PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY”! AND!… WHO IS EITHER BLIND, OR A TRAITOR, TO THE COMMON GOOD OF THE PEOPLE!
    .
    THEREFORE, THE “J-U-S-T ESTABLISHMENT” OF “T-R-U-E DEMOCRATIC PLURALITIES” WITHIN OUR RESPECTIVE REFERENDA, AND ELECTIONS PROCESSES, IS F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L TO THE VERY REALIZATION OF “D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y”!… AND!… WITHOUT WHICH, WE ARE SUBJECT TO MERE OLIGARCHIC WHIM!
    .
    Please!… no emails!

  3. JOHN MAYOR on said:

    The ensuing “bracketed notice” was meant to Preface the abovenoted, THE POLITICS OF TRUE PLURALITIES!… but!… and however the site’s “Character Cap” came to be!… the Comment Window refused to receive same (indicating, that the overall size of my comment, was too large!)! And so… and as you are now herewith apprised!… I have split this Preface, from the body of the aforementioned text, and have Posted this separately! This is unfortunate!… ridiculous!… and unnecessary (i.e., inasmuch, as sites have the ability to collapse a “larger than average comment”… and due to fears of “taxing readers”, with “burdensome scrolling” between Comment Logs/ Clogs!… with currently available software!)!
    .
    (ATTENTION!:… LARGE LETTERING IN A “PASSIVE TEXTUAL COMMENT” D-O-E-S N-O-T TRANSLATE TO “S-C-R-E-A-M-I-N-G”!… AND THE COVERT AND OVERT CONDEMNATION OF THOSE WHO USE LARGE LETTERING BY “GRAMMATIC CLIQUES”, IS N-O-T-H-I-N-G L-E-S-S THAN “G-R-A-M-M-A-T-I-C B-U-L-L-Y-I-N-G”!
    .
    LARGE LETTERING, IS USED TO E-M-B-O-L-D-E-N T-H-E E-M-P-H-A-S-I-S OF U-N-E-M-B-O-L-D-E-N-E-D REGULAR/ NORMAL SIZED TEXT!… AND IN A FASHION, SIMILAR TO QUOTATION MARKS!… AND!… HAS N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH S-O-U-N-D!
    .
    HYPHENS!… WHETHER USED BETWEEN REGULAR/ NORMAL SIZED TEXT IN AN EXPRESSION, OR BETWEEN EMBOLDENED/ LARGER SIZED TEXT IN AN EXPRESSION, ARE USED TO EFFECT AN A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N OF A GIVEN “T-E-X-T-U-A-L E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N”!… AND!… TO DELIBERATELY “R-E-L-A-X”/ S-L-O-W D-O-W-N THE READING OF AN EXPRESSION, IN ORDER TO A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-E “H-E-I-G-H-T-E-N-E-D A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N” TO PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS THAT ARE DEEMED I-N-T-E-G-R-A-L TO A MESSAGE/ CONCEPT BEING COMMUNICATED! AND AGAIN!… THE USE OF HYPHENS H-A-V-E N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH S-O-U-N-D!
    .
    ELLIPSES!… ARE USED TO EFFECT A DELIBERATE BREAK IN WHAT WOULD– OTHERWISE– BE A “QUICKENED” CONTIGUOUS SENTENCE, USING “CONVENTIONAL” SENTENCE STRUCTURE, AND PUNCTUATION! THEY ARE USED TO ARTICULATE A SENTENCE, IN THE SAME MANNER A HYPHEN MIGHT BE USED TO A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-E A WORD!… AND, TO “R-E-L-A-X”/ S-L-O-W D-O-W-N THE MESSAGE BEING COMMUNICATED, IN WHAT WOULD– OTHERWISE– BE A MORE “HURRIED” CONVENTIONAL SENTENCE STRUCTURE! AND!… IS COMPARABLE– I’LL SUGGEST!– TO S-A-V-O-U-R-I-N-G AN AFFORDABLE FINE WINE!… AS APPOSED, TO “GULPING IT DOWN”!
    .
    LASTLY!… EXCLAMATION MARKS– FOR ME!– ARE PREFERRED OVER PERIODS, AS I DESIRE “L-U-C-I-D A-T-T-E-N-T-A-T-I-V-E-N-E-S-S” TO THE IDEAS/ NOTIONS/ CONCEPTS BEING COMMUNICATED! AND ONCE AGAIN!… THEIR USE HAS N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH S-O-U-N-D!… N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH “M-A-N-I-C S-Y-N-T-A-X”!… OR “M-A-N-I-C S-E-L-F E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N”! THE “M-A-N-I-A” WITHIN THE MINDS OF SOME READERS, IS SIMPLY THE “LEARNED ASSOCIATION” OF LARGE LETTERING, WITH SOUND! AND SO… THESE POINTS BEING MADE!… ENJOY!)
    .
    Please!… no emails!

  4. JOHN MAYOR > keith allen on said:

    Yes, keith allen!… but the site and/ or its blog hosting service has denied my oportunity to Post my answer? First, through the stipulation of a “Character Cap” restriction!… and then (and despite my delimiting the size of my comment!… and thereby, my otherwise intended Free Expression!), my edited version of my original comment!
    .
    And!… as my comment was WHOLLY ON THE MARK re the topic up for discussion, I can ONLY CONCLUDE that the site’s moderator (if such be the culprit who has denied my DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to FREE EXPRESSION!), ISN’T SERIOUS about FREE EXPRESSION!… and, C-E-R-T-A-I-N-L-Y N-O-T about the subject at hand!
    .
    Please!… no emails!

  5. Peter on said:

    The constitution is quite clear :Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

    Nothing about educated elders. The die has been cast.

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.