I don't see how. Constitution says states can pick electors as they see fit, not that electors have to follow the state's internal discussions otherwise.
If a judge rules in a way against the opinion of whoever appointed him, is it a breach of trust?
When someone is appointed in the constitution in every other case, they can do as they see fit, except if their decisions itself violates some other law. They are not beholden to their appointer.
Originally when US Senators were chosen directly by the state, whatever vote they made was binding, they did not have to check back with their state. A state might recall them later, but their previous vote still stands.
The constitution was clever about giving each level its own discretion. But now, this is just being eroded little by little.
I don't see how. Constitution says states can pick electors as they see fit, not that electors have to follow the state's internal discussions otherwise.
If a judge rules in a way against the opinion of whoever appointed him, is it a breach of trust?
When someone is appointed in the constitution in every other case, they can do as they see fit, except if their decisions itself violates some other law. They are not beholden to their appointer.
Originally when US Senators were chosen directly by the state, whatever vote they made was binding, they did not have to check back with their state. A state might recall them later, but their previous vote still stands.
The constitution was clever about giving each level its own discretion. But now, this is just being eroded little by little.