Posted on 02/19/2012 5:11:45 AM PST by Kaslin
“Worried about small mouth Bass losing to that mop haired witch that almost got him in ‘10? It would be shame if we were reduced to one seat in New England instead of the much more respectable 2 (...).”
Chazz should pull it out.
“Chazz should pull it out.”
In my post #41 5 days ago, I wrote that “every schoolboy knows (or at least should know) that Jefferson had been tied in the Electoral College with his own VP candidate, Aaron Burr.”
Well, this morning, I received an e-mail from National Review with a link to a 1964 NR article by James Jackson Kilpatrick on how the Constitution would not prohibit Dwight Eisenhower from running for VP that year (NR’s website features articles from a different, old edition every week), and the article included this explanation for what prompted the adoption of the 12th Amendment (which, inter alia, requires that electors cast separate votes for president and VP):
“Jefferson and Burr, as every schoolboy knows, wound up with equal votes. The election was thrown into the House, where with Hamilton’s help Jefferson was chosen.”
I swear that I had not read that article until this morning, and that my use of the phrase “as every schoolboy knows” was due to the notoriety of the House vote to settle the 1800 presidential election, which was an important part of history and has traditionally been covered in high school U.S. history courses. So I believe that Mr. Kilpatrick would be just as shocked as I was to find out that someone writing on Townhall about the post-1800-election House vote could believe that the House vote was between Jefferson and Adams.
We’ve talked about that former 2 term President as VP thing, I forget what your position was.
Could you send me that link? (if the content is free, I’m cheap ;) ). I love old political articles. I once strained to try and read the text of the “Dewey Defeats Truman” front page articles from an image of it. From what I could make out they were figuring we’d keep Congress as well so those early returns were sure crap.
I remember when I was a teen my mom had a “Human Events” subscription and they occasionally had “Classic” articles, they used to be online I don’t think they are anymore. One was an analysis of the 1952 Senate landscape, the author wanted “Nationalist” Kennedy to beat the “Internationalist” Lodge. I’m sure Lodge would compare to the worst DIABLOS of today but to stop Kennedy I would have voted for him with enthusiasm and then put on a fake beard and pretended to be a neighbor so I could vote for him again.
Here’s the link to the article: http://www.nationalreview.com/nroriginals/?q=YTA1NGE3ZjFkM2MyZjU4YWNmZWY2M2UwY2JmZjYyN2U=&w=MA
My position is that, indeed, a two-term president may run for vice president.
BTW, this fascinating book about potential constitutional crises involving the presidency has a chapter regarding what would happen if a two-term president runs for VP: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/constitutional-cliffhangers-brian-c-kalt/1102711854
Thank you.
Which kind of illustrates the difference you'll get between a true conservative reformer like Newt and the go-along-to-get-along crowd (Rick going along with GOP elites, Mitt going along with any liberal coalition available). If anything would remotely upset the apple cart of the establishment, you won't see it coming from Rick or Mitt.
I’m surprised libs haven’t brought back the Equal Rights Amendment. It came really close to passing in the ‘80s, didn’t it? In these far more politically correct times it would probably pass in a landslide. And as Schlafly said, it would serve as a stealth method to getting the courts to institute gay marriage.
I concur!
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.