IF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT, THEN WHO ARE YOU VOTING FOR?

IF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT, THEN WHO ARE YOU VOTING FOR?

 

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.

Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.

The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.

Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.

After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainment’s are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials, the Office of the Federal Register and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Congress in the Electoral College process.

The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process.

Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election.

 

DONALD TRUMP “PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE” TO BE, OR NOT TO BE…THAT IS THE QUESTION!

DONALD TRUMP “PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE”

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Thursday that his plans to improve the economy for black Americans is why he is leading in the polls with black voters, though at least one recent poll disputes Trump’s claim.

“I lead with almost every group, including with the African-American groups,” Trump told reporters at an event in Greenville, South Carolina. “I have tremendous support.”

Quinnipiac University released a national poll Thursday showing that while Trump is leading the Republican Party nationally, he is polling poorly with black Americans in the general election.

The poll found:

• When asked “Would you say that Donald Trump cares about the needs and problems of people like you or not?” 92% of black people said no.

• 52% of black people said Trump does not have strong leadership qualities.

• 73% of black people said Trump is not strong or trustworthy.

• 79% of black people said they have an unfavorable view of Trump.

When asked “If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?” 3% percent said they’d vote for Trump.

When asked “If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat, Jeb Bush the Republican, and Donald Trump running as an independent, for whom would you vote?” 5% of black people said they’d vote for Trump.

When asked “If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden the Democrat and Donald Trump the Republican, for whom would you vote?” 2% said they’d vote for Trump.

At the press conference, Trump said he will focus on improving employment rates for African-Americans.

“I’ve had great friendships in the African-American community as you know. They’re suffering. They’ve never had bad job numbers like they do right now — especially African-American youth. It’s terrible what’s happening,” he said.

Trump said he will be meeting with African-American small business leaders in South Carolina in September.

“I do great in the African-American community and one of the reasons is because they know I’m going to create jobs,” he said.

Trump said race relations are tense in the U.S. and President Barack Obama has made them worse.

“Race relations problems are almost at an all-time worst,” he said. “And President Obama — I really thought he’d be a unifier. But I thought one thing he’d be is a unifier certainly between African-American and white, and I will tell you that’s turned out not to be so. He has not been a unifier. He’s been a divider.”

POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! IS TECHNOLOGY EXPOSING THE UGLY TRUTH OF WHAT BLACKS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING ALL ALONG?

Shocking footage of police officer assaulting a family.

Trigger happy cops putting in work!

More police brutality caught on tape. The question is, “IS THERE MORE POLICE BRUTALITY OCCURRING OR IS TECHNOLOGY EXPOSING THE UGLY UNDER BELLY OF WHAT BLACKS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING ALL ALONG?

POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! The sad fact that there isn’t enough time in a day for

ANOTHER LIFE TAKEN BY THE MEN APPOINTED TO SERVE

me to post ALL of the Police Brutality cases popping up all over the country is a damn shame!  For lack of a better word, I am PISSED OFF! We have criminals wearing police uniforms terrorizing the streets. With your permission I am going to free-style on this one. So please excuse me if I don’t use references or draw on statistics. This is raw footage and want to play it unedited. This is Maestro and I pray this post is not taken out of context. But with the way things are unfolding in this country, IT IS WHAT IT IS! For a long time in the early 80’s after the “War on Drugs” was declared, any young African American male driving an expensive car fit the description of a “Drug Dealer”. I remember friends and family members being pulled over in the hood for “Driving Black”. Law enforcement were debriefed and told what to look for as suspicious activity and the 4th Amendment was tossed out the window. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young black African Americans were illegally targets and no one cared.

After the horrific events of 911 unfolded, politicians worked diligently to find someone to point the blame and make public enemy number one. No long thereafter “HOME LAND SECURITY” was sanctioned and with it, profiling Middle Easterners traveling in and out of the United States. One thing the United States is good at is creating a monster to justify implementing their force and domination. What good is having the best arsenal and not having a cause to engage?  There is a saying, Not all Arab’s are terrorist but all known terrorist are Middle Easterners. This is the mentality that has festered in our society for too damn long and it’s time for reform.

POLICE BRUTALITY MUST END!

Your probably asking yourself, “Maestro what does any of this have to do with all of the Police Brutality going on in our cities?” PROFILING, that’s what. This is to demonstrate how prejudice our system is and that it is in serious need of an overhaul. Police are attacking citizens in practically every state and the first thing the media says is, “You can’t judge all cops by the action of a few.” I beg to differ. What we have here is a double standard. If a citizen breaks the law, he/she has a target on their backs along with studies to support recidivism.  In our current society a felon can’t catch a break, yet the cops who go out of their way to wrongfully convict individuals make it extremely difficult to have any confidence in law enforcement.

 

Here in American we live in a civil society. The populace in general are law abiding citizens. Most of the people residing in

WHO IS LEFT TO PROTECT US?

the boarders of the United States would stop if a police car signals to them and cooperate to the fullest with authorities. So why then are cops so pissed off and abusive? Is it that they are over worked and under paid? If that be the case, they should quit and find new employment. But the simple fact the office which vest the power in these unstable men, won’t handle these cases swiftly and impartially gives these offender cops a pass to act out on emotions rather than experience.

What if the citizens follow suit and start profiling officers? What would we look for…Officer’s wearing a police uniform? Guys dressed up and cruising around in police cars? Regardless of how bias this system is I am not stupid enough to think ALL police officers are bad people. But what do you think about if you’re pulled over one night on a dark and lonely road and out of nowhere police lights appear in your rear-view mirror?  With the current state of emergency at hand, the coin appears to have heads on both sides.

PEOPLE INCARCERATED ON NON-VIOLENT DRUG CHARGES ARE A BIT CLOSER TO GETTING OUT OF FEDERAL PRISON YEARS EARLY. CLEMENCY IS NOW ON THE TABLE FOR SOME DRUG OFFENDERS

Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced that the department would broaden the criteria for clemency, a move that is expected to lead to thousands of prisoners — most serving drug sentences — filing applications to President Barack Obama seeking to commute their sentences.

The changes are part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to modify sentencing laws, allowing for use of rehabilitation and other alternatives to deal with non-violent drug offenders and those who previously faced tough mandatory minimum sentences.

Attorney General Eric Holder previewed some of the changes Monday by announcing plans to assign more lawyers to handle an anticipated flood of clemency requests.

Clemency changes to free drug offenders

Obama commutes 8 crack cocaine cases

Obama commutes 8 crack sentences

Crack cocaine at heart of once-common sentencing disparity

“We are launching this clemency initiative in order to quickly and effectively identify appropriate candidates, candidates who have a clean prison record, do not present a threat to public safety, and were sentenced under out-of-date laws that have since been changed, and are no longer seen as appropriate,” Cole said at a news conference.

The clemency changes would be open to prisoners who have met a set of specific conditions: they must be low-level, non-violent offenders without a significant criminal history and must be serving a federal sentence that would likely be shorter if they were convicted today. They must have served at least 10 years of their sentence and have demonstrated good conduct in prison, with no history of violence before or during their prison term.

The pending changes are the latest step in an ongoing effort Holder calls “Smart on Crime,” which also seeks to remedy the once-common wide disparity in sentences handed down over powder versus crack cocaine, based on guidelines first enacted by Congress more than 25 years ago.

Earlier: Eric Holder seeks to cut mandatory minimum drug sentences

Of the more than 200,000 inmates in the federal prison system, some estimates show the new clemency criteria could apply to about 2,000 prisoners. But the number is likely to fall to perhaps hundreds after government lawyers review the applications.

The Justice Department says it doesn’t know how many people will end up qualifying because it depends on the applications and how they fit the new criteria. The President has final authority to decide who gets clemency.

Obama has been criticized by some civil rights groups for being stingy with his pardons and commutations. But many praised the Justice Department’s decision as a good initial step, including a coalition of groups working on sentencing guidelines.

The announcement “marks the beginning of the end of the age of mass incarceration,” said Jerry Cox, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “We must seize this historic opportunity to start the process of remedying decades of cruel and unnecessarily harsh sentencing policies.”

Cole also announced the appointment of Deborah Leff to lead the department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which has come under fire for being slow to review a backlog of applications.

Cole said the department was setting up an online application system and working with pro-bono attorneys who will assist prisoners in their applications.

Mary Price, general counsel for the group Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which advocates for changes to drug sentencing laws, welcomed Cole’s announcement. “The doors of the Office of the Pardon Attorney have been closed to petitioners for too long. This announcement signals a truly welcome change; the culture of ‘no’ that has dominated that office is being transformed,” she said.

The push to relax sentencing laws has the support of some conservative Republican lawmakers, who believe it is a way to reduce spending on federal prisons and to use alternatives to incarceration to deal with drug problems. However, lawmakers want the changes to be made through Congress rather than through the president’s executive power.

“I hope President Obama is not seeking to change sentencing policy unilaterally. Congress, not the President, has authority to make sentencing policy. He should continue to work with Congress rather than once again going it alone, and I’m willing to work with the President on these issues.” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said this week.

Cole, in his remarks Wednesday, said the issue is one of fairness. “Older, stringent punishments that are out of line with sentences imposed under today’s laws erode people’s confidence in our criminal justice system, and I am confident that this initiative will go far to promote the most fundamental of American ideals — equal justice under law,” Cole said.

Three years ago, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act to address the larger issue of drug sentencing disparities. Sentencing guidelines provided for a 100-to-1 ratio between the penalties for crack cocaine offenses versus those for powdered cocaine, but the fair sentencing law reduced the disparity to 18-to-1.

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently voted to apply reduced drug penalties retroactively to over 46,000 people serving excessive sentences for federal drug offenses — potentially reducing average prison terms by two years.

The vote reflects a historic shift in the nation’s approach to substance abuse. There’s an emerging consensus among both Republicans and Democrats that using the criminal justice system to address substance abuse is both too expensive and doesn’t work in terms of promoting public safety.  Policymakers of both parties are increasingly recognizing that the war on drugs has come at a ruinous cost for all Americans, but particularly for communities of color.

THE LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS

Neither the surge of influx of children crossing the border into the United States nor the legislation to do something about the immigration minors is enough for our government to rely on bi-partisan politics as a solution to the problem . Under current law a child apprehended entering into this Country will not be sent back to their respective country until they have had a hearing. In most instances, the children will be given the opportunity to acquire authorization to stay in the country. The origins of illegal immigration date to the late nineteenth century. In 1875, a federal law was passed which prohibited entry of convicts and prostitutes. In 1882 President Chester A. Arthur banned almost all Chinese immigration to the United States, and shortly thereafter barred paupers, criminals and the mentally ill from entering. Although this affected only a small percentage of immigrants, there were now distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. Before this, immigration was barely regulated. So what is “THE LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS?”

Before we look further into the anatomy of “Immigration Reform”, I want you to view this matter objectively without the spin of politics. Because as I see it, both parties are equally responsible for the current laws on the books. It’s amazing how after shit blows up in their faces, each party tries their best to cover up the smell with some off brand fragrance. Everybody always wants to adopt the quick fix prowess as a solution. Which in essence merely delays the inevitable because at the end of the day, “the smell is still lingering.” So lets be clear, the immigration laws; as a whole, have been yet another failed policy for this country. Now in my honest opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trial and error. But what irks me is none of the politician are willing to accept RESPONSIBILITY. At some point this country with have another progressive spurt like the one embodied in the “DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE” and see through the smoking mirrors.

The fact is children have arrived in the United States without their parents for decades, but over the past two years the flow has become a veritable flood of youths — mostly from Central America — crossing the border in groups and sometimes with the help of adult migrant-smugglers. Their numbers are so large that earlier this month President Barack Obama called the situation a humanitarian crisis. Since 2009, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended crossing the U.S. border has sharply increased. The journey for these children is long, expensive, and dangerous. So is President Obama soft on matters related to immigration & foreign policies or is his administration following the laws passed by Congress when he steps up and tries to an issue that has  been a part of this country dating back to the late nineteenth century. So what does the actual law on Immigration say about the “Immigration of Minors?”

THE CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA)

The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was signed into law on August 6, 2002. CSPA was enacted to address the problem of minor children losing their eligibility for immigration benefits because they had aged-out or turned 21 years old as a result of processing delays on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Department of State. It was not intended to benefit an applicant who aged-out due to the unavailability of a visa number.

Now you know how we do it here at STREET JUSTICE, I have no intentions on trying to spoon feed you with the tracking language hiding in plain site. All you have to do is GOOGLE the CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA) and you’ll see for yourself this has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama Administration, but it falls on the ENTIRE system of government. Because in order for the legislation to have passed into to law, Democrats as well as Republicans would have had to vote on it. Basically, the LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS is another magic trick; or misdirection, performed by the media and we as the audience have to simply keep our eyes on the cards. In this case the law.

Well, all of this talk about Milk & Honey has got me on edge. I think I’ll go out into my backyard take off my pants and scream at top of my lungs…And hope the entire fiasco’s not captured on tape by a flying DRONE!  Freedom, you’ve got to love it! This is Maestro.

NEW LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS (“GUNS AND DRUGS”) CONTINUE TO BE THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

If you know the lyrics to this youtube video, chances are we are around the same age. On the other hand, if it’s your first time seeing it take out a few minutes to listen to the lyrics and learn something about how bills are turned into laws.

Thousands of bills are introduced during each Congress. Vanishingly few of them end up becoming law — fewer each year, as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction worsen. Out of 7,207 bills and joint resolutions introduced during this Congress, only 103 have become law — fewer, by this point, than in any other Congress since at least the 1970s.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA is an issue building up a lot of momentum. There are currently 21 medical marijuana states and several waiting for bills to be passed through. Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value.

Conflict between State and Federal Law

As of this printing, the federal government claims that marijuana is not medicine and in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. Thus, federal law enforcement officials may prosecute medical marijuana patients, even if they grow their own medicine and even if they reside in a state where medical marijuana use is protected under state law. The Court indicated that Congress and the Food and Drug Administration should work to resolve this issue.

The Raich decision does not say that the laws of California (or any other medical marijuana state) are unconstitutional; nor does it invalidate them in any way. Also, it does not say that federal officials must prosecute patients. Decisions about prosecution are still left to the discretion of the federal government.

TRACKING NEW STATE GUN LAWS–

In April of this year, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 60, a bill which expands the ability to carry firearms in public spaces such as bars and airports. The media was quick to report that this bill is evidence of a backlash against the many significant gun violence prevention laws enacted in the states last year, despite the media’s predominant narrative from last year that, after Newtown, more states weakened gun laws and the gun lobby “won”. The truth is that the recent media narratives are far from accurate.

Despite popular belief, in the last sixteen months since Newtown, the media has incorrectly portrayed the complicated and nuanced activity in fifty different state legislative bodies. The new laws have been tallied, and often, have been inappropriately equalized. Small bills which keep concealed weapons permit holders’ information private have been categorized as having equal weight to sweeping new laws that require background checks and ban assault weapons. The stories proclaiming the Georgia bill to be a pro-gun backlash make little of the fact that it was the NRA’s top priority in Georgia for two years and, after failing last year, barely scraped by this year and only in a watered-down version. The backlash stories also fail to mention the groundswell of activism that rose in opposition to the bill and succeeded in forcing the gun lobby to strip provision after provision from the measure.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/21/5738438/what-schoolhouse-rock-left-out#ooid=g3MXZ5bTpZX-SEJOfARtv-wSRo_bZd7h

Maestro Speaks