Despite the basically accurate title of this question, the full question is a bit complicated so I am going to start with some background and then ask an expanded version of the above title. I am curious on how/if this would work in the context of Constitutional Law.
“is strictly a ceremonial function, and I hope people remember that.”
My understanding of Federalist Paper #68 is that electors are supposed to perform their duties in a manner which is decidedly not a ceremonial function. Note the following excerpt with certain keywords I have highlighted in bold...
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
I believe (though I may be in error) the courts have in the past looked to the Federalist Papers, along with the minutes and other writings from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to determine the Framer's intent.
(sub question) Is anyone here familiar with details of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 enough to know if there is any corroboration with the purpose of the electors as described in F.P. #68 ?
THE FULL QUESTION
So, here is the full question. If the founding fathers indeed wanted us to have an electoral college that was an active, reasoning, and deliberative body, could it be submitted to a court that any electors who affirm they believe that they were appointed to perform "strictly a ceremonial function" and that they intend to do just that are not qualified for and/or not fulfilling the obligations of the office to which they were elected?
PS: I believe this is called "non-feasance" in legal terms.