Replies

I have addressed this a couple of times however Sham has done a good job of summarizing a part of the technical and I am going to summarize the end game as I see it.

It is first important to recognize that in accordance with the Constitution, a Vice President elect was certified and is eligible.

Then, the significant language of Amendment 20, Section 3 is: [I]f the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified . . . .

So where we are today is pretty clear--we have an eligible person certified as Vice President--Joe is and has been since January of 2009, Acting President.

The succession provisions, getting Joe out and a legitimate person in as a result of the 2008 election is also very tight. To get the Vice President in as President under the 25th amendment, you need to have removal, death, or resignation of a President. You can never get that with Zero because he isn't President--he wasn't eligible.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is also pretty tight--there are actually three qualifications to hold the office of President: Age 35; 14 year resident; and natural born citizen. Suppose a person who was only 34 years old was certified as elected? Any doubt that he would not be eligible and could not hold the office? Not likely.

And the process of choosing the person from the electoral college vote is also pretty tight. To get an elected candidate, you need to get an individual who is on the list of having received the most votes. In the case of 2008, that question is pretty simple--the only other person who got votes is John McCain and he isn't eligible to hold the office either (for the reason that he was born in Colon Panama which is not now and never has been a part of the Untied States).

Where you get from here is a significant question of Constitutional Law.

My own opinion is that the Court would infer from the last two clauses of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, a power in Congress to decide how to choose the President. And that view is in part supported by an informal opinion from one of the DC law firms to the leadership of the Dem Congress in the 111th Congress.

The possibilities discussed were: Simply elevate the VP; move to the line of succession; or look further back to Dem primary votes. Each of those possibilities identifies a different person and there was no consensus. Although my own view is that if that had ever come to fruition, we would have had our first woman President and her name would have been Nancy. Didn't happen. Too late to reconvene the 111th Congress at this point. Who knows what the Republican's would do today if asked.

There are several messages in this--one of which is that in any election in which the President is decided by more than one electoral vote, an elector who is not in a state that mandates his vote with criminal penalties should be encourage to cast his one vote for the VP on the winning ticket for president.

. . . . Important article, and David's comment at # 21. Other important discussion throughout the thread.

Thanks, David.

I have addressed this a couple of times however Sham has done a good job of summarizing a part of the technical and I am going to summarize the end game as I see it.
It is first important to recognize that in accordance with the Constitution, a Vice President elect was certified and is eligible.

Then, the significant language of Amendment 20, Section 3 is: [I]f the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified . . . .

So where we are today is pretty clear—we have an eligible person certified as Vice President—Joe is and has been since January of 2009, Acting President.

The succession provisions, getting Joe out and a legitimate person in as a result of the 2008 election is also very tight. To get the Vice President in as President under the 25th amendment, you need to have removal, death, or resignation of a President. You can never get that with Zero because he isn’t President—he wasn’t eligible.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is also pretty tight—there are actually three qualifications to hold the office of President: Age 35; 14 year resident; and natural born citizen. Suppose a person who was only 34 years old was certified as elected? Any doubt that he would not be eligible and could not hold the office? Not likely.

And the process of choosing the person from the electoral college vote is also pretty tight. To get an elected candidate, you need to get an individual who is on the list of having received the most votes. In the case of 2008, that question is pretty simple—the only other person who got votes is John McCain and he isn’t eligible to hold the office either (for the reason that he was born in Colon Panama which is not now and never has been a part of the Untied States).

Where you get from here is a significant question of Constitutional Law.

My own opinion is that the Court would infer from the last two clauses of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, a power in Congress to decide how to choose the President. And that view is in part supported by an informal opinion from one of the DC law firms to the leadership of the Dem Congress in the 111th Congress.

The possibilities discussed were: Simply elevate the VP; move to the line of succession; or look further back to Dem primary votes. Each of those possibilities identifies a different person and there was no consensus. Although my own view is that if that had ever come to fruition, we would have had our first woman President and her name would have been Nancy. Didn’t happen. Too late to reconvene the 111th Congress at this point. Who knows what the Republican’s would do today if asked.

There are several messages in this—one of which is that in any election in which the President is decided by more than one electoral vote, an elector who is not in a state that mandates his vote with criminal penalties should be encourage to cast his one vote for the VP on the winning ticket for president.

A federal judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit sees it differently: “There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the Presidential Oath and was sworn in, he became the President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—removal for any reason—is within the purview of Congress, not the Courts.—U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett et. al. v Obama, et. al., 10/29/09

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is also pretty tight--there are actually three qualifications to hold the office of President: Age 35; 14 year resident; and natural born citizen. Suppose a person who was only 34 years old was certified as elected? Any doubt that he would not be eligible and could not hold the office? Not likely.

Eldrige Cleaver was tossed off the ballot in California. He was running for president in that state at least but was only 33 years old. So he got on the ballot (via signatures I suppose) but was later thrown off

To get an elected candidate, you need to get an individual who is on the list of having received the most votes. In the case of 2008, that question is pretty simple--the only other person who got votes is John McCain and he isn't eligible to hold the office either (for the reason that he was born in Colon Panama which is not now and never has been a part of the Untied States).

McLame was ineligible from day one and the GOP knew it. The RATS knew it. Everyone knew it - just as they knew Hussein is/was/and always will be ineligible. That's just one more point of proof showing to what lengths the GOP went to to throw the election in order to distance themselves from the economic disaster that was looming.

There is another course. Presidents and VPs are elected on the same ticket. If one party is determined ineligible, then that voids the entire ticket. If the elector submits in ineligible vote, then he wasted it. They, imo, have no other option than to go back to the general election to see what "eligible" ticket recieved the most votes. The ticket recieving the most votes after McCain/Palin was Nader/Gonzales but iirc, Gonzales doesn't meet the NBC (two US citizen parents) requirement. Next down the list was Barr/Root.

Smells like Barr should have standing in an eligibility case.