Understanding the U.S. Constitution is a somewhat rare thing today. There is no “National Election” there are only state elections and everything starts from there. Trust me we all learn something on this broadcast.
Understanding the U.S. Constitution is a somewhat rare thing today. There is no “National Election” there are only state elections and everything starts from there. Trust me we all learn something on this broadcast.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2017-2024 | Powered by WordPress | Theme by TheBootstrapThemes
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/americanstatesman/2019/09/25/american-freedom-watch-radio–the-electoral-college–dr-charles-tolbert
—
Mr. Engel,
Please listen to this teaching by Dr. Charles Tolbert on the error of the Electoral College that is not in the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments. I asked Mr. Tolbert and was given liberty to pass Dr. Tolbert’s contact information. Dr. Tolbert teaches the Document as it is written.
—
Dr. Charles Tolbert
[email protected]
561-398-9025
Things are a little busy right now, but I will listen to the episode and get back to you.
I am currently listening to the broadcast. My first impressions is, the teacher is rather disjointed and somewhat confusing. He appears to jump to a new topic before he closes out the topic was discussions. I’ve already heard several metaphors that I think would confuse rather than enlighten someone unfamiliar with the presidential election process.
Around 14:30 into the discussion, he goes on some rambling description about what happens no one gets a majority of the votes of the electors. It appears he is saying that the vote goes to Congress. This is FALSE, the decision for President goes to the House of Representatives. (FYI, if none of the candidates for Vice-President receives a majority, the decision goes to the Senate.)
Around 21:20 he states that if there is a tie, the House of Representatives chooses the top three vote getters, then votes on them. Actually, the House does not get to choose who the top three are, only which of them becomes President. He then claims the states will choose the President by 2/3rds vote. Again, this is false. The representatives of the people, which is the purpose of the House of Representatives, choose the President by state delegation. The state governments have no say in the matter.
Around 23:30 he starts talk about the 13th & 14th Amendments. He also appears to keep referring to the House & Senate when referring to electors. Members of the House and Senate are specifically prohibited from being presidential electors.
Around 25:00 he goes though a meandering discussion of the winner take all process of appointing electors. He doesn’t appear to mention that it is the state legislatures that have made that determination. He appears to claim that if some number of electors do not vote according to the popular vote, and he doesn’t really explain if he means the popular vote in the state or the national popular vote, then we are not acting constitutionally. He seems to have missed that the manner of appointing electors rest solely in the hands of the states legislatures. There is no right or requirement in the Constitution of the United States for the people to vote for President.
Around 28:30 he claims that Article III, Section 3 discusses how the justices of the Supreme Court “how they get chosen and they they get voted for”. There is nothing in Article III that discusses how justice are appointed. Furthermore, he claims it includes the right “that you have a right right to go to the Supreme Court without going to the state.” According to Section 2, unless you are an ambassador, public minister, or suing a state, the Supreme Court does NOT have original jurisdiction, only appellate jurisdiction. And no where does it say anyone has a right to have a case heard, only what the jurisdiction of the federal courts are. And his point about “faithless electors” misses the very important point that it is the state legislature that determines how electors are appointed, (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2) I personally would love to choose people as electors rather than anonymous party officials, but that is a state issue not a legal one.
At this point, (30 minutes in), I had to stop listening. Not only does this person appear to be reading his personal preferences into the Constitution, but he ignores the parts that disagree with him. Add to that a confusing and erratic teaching style, and I could not spend another 90 minutes of my life listening to his fiction. I would suggest you keep an eye out for my upcoming class on Presidential Elections and the Electoral College. I think you will get a much better understanding of the process from that.