Posted on 11/30/2008 7:24:51 AM PST by ckilmer
I do the same thing when typing, but not when writing by hand- I have always wondered why.
We do live in interesting times...
5.56mm
Tomorrow is Obama’s deadline. If he doesn’t answer the Writ, the “Conference” of the Justices on December 5 will be very interesting.
If they rule that Obama is ineligible before the Electoral College meets, it would be as though he didn’t run at all and McCain would be awarded the Presidency 538 - 0 (since he had the next most votes).
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
Yes they might split their votes, but I really expect none of the votes for President to be for Biden, if he had that much support, he'd have been a viable candidate himself, which he clearly was not. Hillary was, and few others. Possibly some one who has a significant support, but chose not to run against Hillary.
But regardless, as long as one elector votes for someone other than The One, "just in case" rather than the more usual "protest" vote, then the House could pick that person, or from those persons who got "rogue" votes. If there was one Democrat among the group of eligible people who got electoral votes, the House would vote that person in so fast it will make our head spin. Not a good outcome, but a Constitutional one.
Yes, exactly. It's a wonder that any of the people's business ever gets done. Our government is at war with itself.
As to your statement that "the establishment knows that Barry is going down"... it's disheartening to know that Washington insiders are so detached from the people, and their sworn oaths, that they're perfectly willing to conduct a secret order of political gamesmanship. These people are engaged in a game which affects the fate of millions, yet they feel no obligation whatsoever to inform us of the battle at hand.
It's not just Obama who is arrogant. They all are. This is the level of their disdain for us, that some in their number know the full truth of current events, yet use that information only to advance themselves. It's just jaw-dropping.
You're right about the political positioning frenzy, though. I'm sure this goes on at every changing of the guard.
His supporters, and of course the adoring legions of Obama boosters in the MSM, keep touting that this is a historic election. It may well turn out to be just that, but not the kind they were hoping for. It would be poetic justice to see the MSM having to report that their candidate who, as you put it, had commited a fraud of monumental proportions. There's no way they could cover it up, or escape their own culpability for their complete failure to conduct due diligence on this guy.
No it would not be the same. The 20th amendment makes a distinction for a Presidential candidate failing to qualify and the death of a such a candidate.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
They are not generally meaningless. But if were revealed, authoritatively, that the candidate they were pledged to was not eligible to the Office, who would enforce them against those who refused to vote for a person who was not eligible? Many may have "outs", such as one for the case where the person they were pledged to dies before their vote or otherwise become unable to fulfill the duties of the office, which could certainly be argued to include being ineligible. In other cases, such as California, the electors are pledged not to an individual, but rather to the candidate of a party, and if the party wanted to survive, it would instruct it's electors to vote for some person other than the ineligible one.
Meaning that they are free to vote for the candidate they feel would be best for both the people that elected them, and for the country. If they were restricted to voting as the popular vote in their states went, why bother meeting in their respective states to cast their votes? The Secretary of State, or other election official of the state could just as well send the electoral votes to Congress, or just a report of the popular vote. Of course their is no Constitutional requirement that they be elected by the people of the several states at all. The Constitution says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
They were supposed to have some judgment and freedom of action. In fact they were supposed to form a buffer between the masses, with their predilection for "Snake oil salesmen", and the office of the Presidency.
Decades of "Democracy" at the expense of the Republic created by the Constitution, has gotten us that snake oil salesman. One with many personal foreign entanglements, far more than any previous President.
Can you imagine the depths of depression they're going to sink to? Those psychologists in Florida thought they were swamped with BDS in 2000, but they ain't seen nothin' yet.
The spectre of Obama will haunt the Democrat brand for a generation after this. It'll shake every liberal assumption to its roots, and make that entire way of thinking radioactive.
And yes, the liberal MSM will cease to exist as we've known them. Books will be written about how they dug their own graves starting in the 1960's, and put the gun to their heads in 2008.
There's no doubt they would make some Democrat President. If there was one to choose from. Biden will likely have gotten no votes for President. If no one but Obama and McCain get any Presidential electoral votes, they will be restricted to voting for McCain, which is why I think there will be at least one "faithless elector", just in case. Of course if McCain were the only one with electoral votes, then one would expect the Democrats to challenge his eligibility. I believe he would be found to be eligible, but if not, we have a mess, since Section 4 of the XXth amendment only covers the death of those from whom Congress may choose President and Vice President.
Everyone needs to barrage snopes with the newspaper ad and ask them to verify if it is really being posted. In yahoo, their proObama explainations and BC discreditation wraps around the forgeries and a supposed birth announcement posted in a newspaper.
It's not impossible at all. If there were no "faithless" Democrat electors, and only Obama and McCain got electoral votes, the House would have to select McCain. No eligible candidate having gotten a majority of the electoral college votes, the House would have to select the President, per the XIIth amendment.
...The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
Nothing in the XXth amendment changes any of that.
The House is not nearly so divided by states as it is by sheer numbers. So voting by states makes that selection less "painfull" than it otherwise might be. But as I've said repeatedly, I expect at least one "faithless" elector, to provide a Democrat candidate for the House to chose,"just in case".
Why do you keep fighting this so heavily? If I remember correctly, from the old days, you used to be down for the struggle. Don’t you think it is amazing that he won’t release his records and won’t let his lawyers use the documents his campaign released to factcheck and KOS?
That's after the electors vote, the question posed was about before they vote.
Actually the main purpose for the 12th amendment was to separate the voting for President and Vice President. In the first "Non George Washington" election, the election of 1800, where Thomas Jefferson, was elected President, while Aaron Burr, his vice Presidential candidate, was elected Vice President. The electoral vote was tied and the election went to the House. There was some thought that a single federalist elector could have voted for Burr, making him the President instead of Jefferson. (Each elector cast two votes then, both for President, the one with the second highest number of votes would become VP). I suspect that got them to thinking about the various permutations of mischief that could and likely would occur should the electoral college be more evenly split.
Unfortunately the original authors of the Constitution, those of the 12th amendment (many of the same men) and the 20th amendment, never thought that someone not eligible to the Office would get as far as winning a majority of the Electoral college delegates.
But the electors are free to vote based on what they think it means. If, as I would expect, the electors take an oath to support the Constitution, as the Constitution requires for all "and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States", then they would bound by that oath to vote only for someone "eligible to the office of President".
Not in most cases, there are "outs" for the cases of a candidate who dies, or becomes unable to take office. California's law for example. Look it up.
All it would take would be for one unfaithful/rogue elector to vote for She Who Must Be Obeyed. Then if Obama were adjudicated to be ineligible, if after the electors vote, the House would be able to pick her. If before, then the electors could pick her.
One reason for such a gambit would be the fear, or political judgment, that Hillary had too many negatives to beat McCain, or whomever. But once the electors are chosen on the Basis of Hope and Change, I'm not Bush, and very little else.. well, time to pull the switch part of "bait and switch".
But that of course is pure speculation. Informed speculation perhaps, but still just speculation.
My theory is that typing is simple enough, that it becomes pure trained reflex. That is, it gets done without conscious thought, just like talking, or walking. You don't have to think Writing is harder, and slower, allowing your conscious brain a chance to "look" at what you are composing. This is especially true if you want someone else to be able to read it. :)
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.