Why? Our system is based on the most honored premise of them all: One person, one vote. Hillary Clinton won the election fair and square with a 2.2 million vote plurality. The final tally will likely give her 2.5 million more votes than Donald Trump.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires you to vote for Donald Trump. It merely sets forth the procedures that circumscribe the way 538 electors are apportioned. You are free to choose the one that your mind, your intuition, your heart, and your judgment tell you is right for America,

Hillary Clinton is eminently better qualified to become President than is Donald Trump.  He wants to build walls, she wants to build bridges. He wants to enlarge the bank accounts of the ultra rich, she wants to expand the economy for everyone.  She has 30 years of experience in the public arena, he has no experience at all in public service. While that limitation has elements of appeal to some, the interrelatedness of economies, of geo-political systems, of relative military strengths, of a good understanding of our commitments to all our allies; and first-hand knowledge of and relationships with nearly all the world’s leaders give Clinton a huge advantage over Trump’s inexperience. Conversely, his vulgarity, his bluster, his utter disrespect for honesty, for fair disclosure of his income sources, or his tax history, and his wanton use of bankruptcy to mask his business failures gives us all pause.

Hillary Clinton is firmly grounded in legal training, and in the art of interpersonal communication; she is a staunch supporter of our core values; she speaks with a calm, reassuring voice, without rancor, bombast, or bluster; she has a demonstrated coolness under fire; she acts with maturity and with purpose. Donald Trump is deficient in all these traits and skills. He apparently believes that rudeness is a virtue. He has already declared that as President, he would be above the laws relating to conflicts of interest. In spite of his pronouncements, his business dealings here and abroad are ready-made for conflicts of interest. His failure to create a blind trust while he seeks Top Secret access to our nation’s secrets for his children while they run his businesses, itself, has already set him up for a lengthy and tiring investigation into multiple conflicts of interest that could have far-reaching implications in all we do as a country.

Donald Trump’s moral fitness to hold high office is questionable, at best. While we may all be sinners, we do not believe “genital grabbing” is a virtue or a trait to be emulated by our children. His propensity to shout obscenities, to demean others, and to insult women, minorities, and potential immigrants are insulting to all who reside here, and to all those who look to us for guidance, fulfillment, and a chance to find a small part of that “shining city on the hill. We owe more to all those who seek freedom, “the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Our heritage demands it; our better angels expect it; our destiny and the right side of history all point to Hillary Clinton.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 25, 2016

Mr. Anthony Romero
ACLU                                                      Cc: DNC
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York NY 10004

Re: Emergency Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court

Dear Mr. Romero:

Many legal scholars have opined that the Constitution’s method for determining the Electoral College’s delegate allocations was a compromise between the actual vote by all, and the perceived need to give a higher representation to those states with large expanses of land and many slaves who were not counted in the Census. This notion violates the “one person, one vote” premise on its face. We also know that 13 US Presidents were slave owners (including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others), and also such notables as Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, and John Hancock. Suffice to say, these men were not evil power seekers; rather they were wrongheaded about slavery in their times, and just plain wrong by history and by contemporary standards. You might clear their good names as well as the present disparity between the actual votes cast and the impending Electoral College projections via an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

It looks to me like the 13th Amendment (ratified on December 6, 1865) that abolished slavery also abolished the underlying premise behind the disproportionate allocations granted to the Electoral College. Since there is a conflict between two provisions of the Constitution (Article ll, Section I, Clause 3 and the 12th Amendment v Amendment 13, Section 1); namely, if slavery is illegal in the United States, by what authority can slavery be a factor in misapplying the vote of the people for reasons that are illegally based on slavery?

Why could that conflict not be resolved by a simple ruling from the Supreme Court today that simply strikes down that part of the Constitution that allows for a misappropriated vote? Such a ruling would make Hillary Clinton’s 2 million vote total plurality over Donald Trump a victory for her, and she could then assume the Presidency without further legal action.

Are you able to make such an appeal directly to the Supreme Court? I was inspired to write this letter after reading an article by Lawrence Lessig, professor at Harvard Law School:
"The Constitution lets the Electoral College choose the winner. They should choose Clinton" that appeared in the Huffington Post today.

Sincerely,

Edward D. Phillips