Posted on 11/10/2008 12:19:47 PM PST by pissant
“they were casting their ballot for a slate of electors”
In fact that is true, but how many people (say , you or I) showed up to the poll to vote for electors?
If it were not for the candidate, the electors may not have got the vote. My Question was aimed at the intent of the voter who thought their choices were McCain or Obama. If they chose obama (and obviously his electors) and were found ineligible, why should his electors still have the pass. seems to me, if the candidate of choice is out of the question, so should the electors representing that candidate.
I know some have mention a line of succession, but does that (or should that) hold true prior to the electors meeting. No body elected Joe Biden, he’s appointed by Obama to be his running mate. so, My question remains, if obama were to be found unqualified/ineligible prior to the electoral college vote taking place, would his electors still be credible as far as the voter is concerned, or would we see the electors pick a president that nobody voted for.
noted,
I went an read your post,
thanks for pointing me to it.
there are many question that will likely be ignored and remain unanswered. I bet Bush wishes he got have the slack obama will get. He claims he can unite us, perhaps he will do as good as the soon to be former POTUS who is about to take long awaited vec/break.
To whom (besides us)? The media and American sheeple gave Bill and Hillary a pass on crimes big and small. Why would they do otherwise for their Messiah?
They would just minimize this scandal and brand anyone who attempted to raise the issue as "racist."
Obama lied. The country died.
I think you’re making a great case for amending the constitution. The founders’ intent was that electors would be using their own judgment. Until now, that hasn’t been a practical issue. In the 1960 election, to give an example, several Kennedy electors from Mississippi and Alabama cast their votes for Harry F. Byrd. “Rogue electors.” There was no constitutional impediment to their doing so. It didn’t affect the outcome of the election, since Kennedy had electoral votes to spare. But imagine if he hadn’t!
I need to correct myself factually in my post 224. The electors who voted for Harry F. Byrd in 1960 were actually never “pledged” to Kennedy. They were unpledged. Here’s a better example. In 1968, one of Nixon’s “pledged” electors from North Carolina “went rogue” and voted for Wallace. He had a right to do so, not morally maybe, but constitutionally. The “pledge” had no consitutional significance.
Interesting: In 1960, a Nixon elector from Oklahoma, Henry D. Irwin, also voted for Harry F. Byrd. He had even tried to get other Republican electors to join him. He explained later that he “couldn’t stomach Nixon.”
Per the Constitution, each Elector is technically able to cast a vote for anyone they want.
However, under the current system, 24 states have “faithless elector” laws that punish electors for NOT voting for whom they have pledged and SCOTUS has ruled these laws to be legal ... at least on the first ballot.
1. Presumbaly, if SCOTUS DQ’d Obama prior to the Electoral College, his slate of electors would be DQ’d and replaced with the slate of the runner-up (McCain). McCain would be POTUS.
SCOTUS would then have to rule if Biden’s electors (the same ones that were DQ’d for Obama) were qualified. They MIGHT do that. If so, Biden would LIKELY be VP.
If not, Biden’s electors would be DQ’d (like Obama’s), his slate of electors would be DQ’d and replaced with the slate of the runner-up (Palin). Palin would be VP.
Or, SCOTUS could order a new election.
2. Presumably, if Obama was DQ’d AFTER the Electoral College, Biden would become POTUS-Elect per the 20th Amendment and remain so until a qualifed POTUS could be chosen. If Jan. 20th came and went. Biden would be POTUS - at least for a while.
If SCOTUS ruled that the election was null and void, based upon a perpetration of a fraud, scenario #1 (above) would likely come into play.
Or a new election could be ordered.
3. If Obama was sworn in, and then DQ’d, Biden would become POTUS per the 25th Amendment. He would then install his own VP (with Senate confirmation, of course). However, if SCOTUS ruled the election null and void, scenario #1 COULD come into play again.
Or a new election could be ordered.
AND, lets NOT forget Hillary ... She MIGHT be able to get a new election ordered at any time in this process - claiming that her 14th Amendment rights were violated on the basis of fraud. She WOULD have been the DEM nominee, if not for Obama.
My concern about a voided election is two-fold:
#1 The dems would put up Hillary and she would likely win,
#2 It is the most constitutionally correct procedure that the Speaker would become acting President after the expiration of the President’s second term. Having that nut-job with the reigns of power for even 10 mins is a sobering and frightening thought.
Plausible, I guess. It wouldn’t be the first time the SCOTUS improvised an answer for a question not addressed in the Constitution.
IF (and that is a BIG IF) Biden became PERMANENT POTUS, he would be able to get a VP nominated and confirmed. Ford got Rockefeller (25th Amendment).
As for PERMANENT status, the 20th Amendment provides for the VP-Elect to act as POTUS until a new POTUS shall have qualified.
See Post #227.
Yup - BIG TIME CONCERN !!!
That is all fine and dandy but this is boiled down to two simple things.
1) Show a vault COB showing BO is truely a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution Of The United States.
2) If Kenya has sealed records on BO, what are those records if he is a US citizen.
Thats what SCOTUS is there for - taking the Constitution, the law, the concept of “original intent”, and common sense to hammer out the isssues arising from flaws in the Constitution.
Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not.
These were decided without clear stiipulation from the Constitution:
Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona (rights must be read to suspects)
United States v. Nixon (limits on executive privilege)
Roe v. Wade (implied right to privacy)
In this case, the Founding Fathers CLEARLY DID NOT WANT a non natural born POTUS AND they WOULD have demanded Obama’s Birth Certificate (”original intent” and common sense).
Yep...It should be clearer than mud.
You might also be interested in this petition against Obama requiring him to prove his citizenship (displayed at the enclosed site):
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
HA HA HA, YEP. So true and he’s retarded too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.