Categorized | News

Two Observations on the Trump Virginia Delegate Suit: Correll can Resign and the Con-Con is still a Bad Idea!

I just read the Trump campaign statement reported by an email from the John Fredericks show on the decision by the Federal Court that the Virginia delegates are to vote in proportion to their percentages of the vote won on March 1.

But the statute that criminalizes a faithless elector was held to be unconstitutional so there is no fear that the dissenting delegate (Correll) would be prosecuted.

My take on this:  Mr. Correll does have one honorable option:  Resign as delegate.  That way he would have no part of what he sees as a Trump train wreck.  An alternative would take his place.

Also my second take on this is:  No way for the people through their elected officials to effectively police the VA delegates to any constitutional convention if one were called by the states.  This increases the chances of a runaway convention.  Time to continue to say NO to any sort of con-con even for something innocuous as a balanced budget amendment.  Again, as I have said before, what we need is elect good solid persons to Congress and statehouses who will follow the Constitution we have – that sacred gift from the Founders, surely inspired by God, that has given liberty or the promise of liberty for over 200 years.

The Constitution next to the Bible most dear!

So, Mr. Correll may resign honorably and a con-con is bad news.  Signing off until tomorrow!

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

4 Responses to “Two Observations on the Trump Virginia Delegate Suit: Correll can Resign and the Con-Con is still a Bad Idea!”

  1. How in the world you can conflate these two seperate issues is beyond me. There is no connection between a nominating convention delegate and one sent by the state legislature to an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. They both happen to be called “delegates,” so apparently that makes them the same in your eyes. An aircraft carrier and a rowboat are both boats, is that enough for to consider them as equals? The “good solid persons” we have already elected are indeed following the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and look where that has put us. What you perfer is just more of the same “be all you can be” federal government that adds nearly $1 Trillion to our debt each year. You’re a fanciful dreamer if you think electing “good solid persons” is going to fix the mess the Court has made of the Constitution. Stick to what you know Sandy.
    Gary Porter recently posted…The Constitution’s Week in Review – 9 July 16My Profile

  2. David Dietrich says:

    Mr Sanders,

    You sometimes write good material, but in this case you are seriously misguided. An Article V Convention for proposing Amendments is equal in stature (but more responsive to the Peoples’ will) to congressionally proposed amendments. In both cases, the States must ratify proposed Amendments. So, stop conflating the Article V option with a so-called Constitutional Convention. They are completely different and not for the same purpose. If you wish to show your true colors, just tell everyone that you oppose the US Constitution. Otherwise, educate yourself!

    • Let me respond to both of you – thanks for coming by Gary and David – first try not to get so personal especially to one who I suspect is usually on the same side you are.

      I simply restate – 1787 – the original Con Con was called by the states to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation and they exceeded their brief and came up with a secret Constitution. Thank The Lord (and I mean it literally) that those men loved their nation and for the most part loved liberty, too. That would not happen today. It is far more likely we would get a “Constitution” with global exceptions and no general right to bear arms and freedom of speech would be limited to PC speech.

      No I am afraid it requires good men and women to stand for office and do the right. And to pray to the Lord of Hosts that He will bring revival to our land again.


  3. Sandy,

    I’m sure you are correct that there is much more we agree on than disagree on. But I respectfully submit, and I make this point in my seminars as forcefully as I can, that Supreme Court decisions, particularly over the last 80 years or so, and Amendments like #17, have structurally damaged the Constitution beyond what “good men and women” can repair. Even if you were able to find enough of these mythical creatures around the country and magically obtain their election, they cannot by statute law fix what the court has broken. Repealing the 17th is imperative and the Congress will never do it. Restoring the Commerce Clause to its original meaning is imperative and Congress will never propose an amendment to do so. Restoring the General Welfare Clause to Madison’s and Jefferson’s understanding is imperative and Congress will never propose the amendment necessary to effect that change. In short, Congress, even if populated with the mythical “good men and women,” will never move to reduce the enormous power the courts have given them.

    We face the likely prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency that will replace enough justices and judges, not just on the high court but in the lower courts as well, that the liberal bias we face in the justice system will become fixed, at least in my remaining lifetime.

    You infer that an Article V convention today would be 1787 all over again, and I (and others) say that is both unsubstantiated and blatant fear-mongering.

    I don’t wish to discount the efficacy of prayer, but neither am I willing to put all my eggs in that basket.

    Good luck in finding and electing your “good men and women,” I vote (with Jefferson) for binding them down with the (restored) chains of the Constitution.
    Gary Porter recently posted…Constitutional Corner – Right of PetitionMy Profile


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!