Posted on 09/19/2018 4:20:32 PM PDT by kevcol
Father was one, he’s named for one, stepfather was one, stepsister, sent to a madrassa, bankrolled by them, expressed open admiration for them and cited he would stand with them against their enemies, etc., etc.
He’s absolutely one.
RE Algore
Anybody else sick of these psychopath liberals threatening OUR President yet?
I’m sick and fed up with these people not being arrested for the threats. If you had people openly threatening Emperor Zero the way they have with Trump, the FBI, “Just-Us” and the Secret Service would be working 24/7 to put them behind bars.
OBunghole’s Nazis destroyed a rodeo clown just for a wearing a mask.
I never considered a scenario along the lines of 266-264-4-4 or 238-100-100-100, I agree that all 4 being considered is the logical answer, the alternative being weird and lame.
I was entirely unsure on the question of a whether a plurality or majority of House delegation is needed to cast it’s vote. There were abstentions when Jefferson was elected but abstaining may be different that voting for a third candidate. You are of the mind the House can stipulate the rules for this situation?
I was gonna ask you about VPs being able to break ties in contingent election or not. I agree that since the VP is a “Senator” that the answer is no.
This came up in fiction recently. A couple years ago on HBO’s “Veep” the election ended in a 269/269 tie between incumbent President Selina Meyer (D) and her GOP Opponent, she wins the popular vote but then loses it after a recount she pushes for in Nevada increases rather than overturns the Republican’s lead there (LOL).
There’s some less than realistic wheeling and dealing to insert doubt into what the House would do. Meyer’s running mate Tom James actively encourages a deadlock, wanting the White House for himself (the fact that new VP would only be acting President and that House could choose to vote again at any time, including after the midterms potentially changes it’s composition, is ignored). A deadlock appears certain, Meyer begs James to make her his SOS and he snidely offers her VP, a job she had and hated. (she was the titular “Veep” before ascending on the President’s resignation). The Republican is stuck at 25 votes, Meyer 22, 3 deadlocked. Meyer orders her toady, a Congressman from NH to vote for the Republican, giving him the 26th vote, so at least she can run against him in 4 years. But the toady doesn’t get the message and votes for her. The House Speaker proclaims that they will not vote again.
But Tom James is hoist by his own petard when the tied Senate vote is broken by the incumbent (D) VP in favor of the Republican VP candidate, New Mexico Senator Laura Montez (apparently a Gringa married to a Hispanic man, she rolls the R in her given name so I guess she’s like Beto O’Rourke ) in exchange he’s to be made her Sec of State, a true “corrupt bargain”.
I recall during the “John Adams” miniseries when they got to the 1800 election, someone suggested that maybe it would be a good idea for the outgoing Federalist House deciding the election to deliberately fail to elect, to keep the Presidency in Federalist hands. I have no idea if that was actually a consideration in real life. That would have prompted an early Constitutialn crisis with regards to whether or not a President Pro Tem or House Speaker were eligible to be Acting President.
I never knew this but I was looking at wikisource of the first Presidential succession act but it provided for a special election in the result of a vacancy of both Pres and Vice Pres.
Section 10. Was that constitutional?
All supposition.
That he’s named for a father he met once is entirely irrelevant. His bitch mother could have named him Abe Lincoln Obama and it wouldn’t have made him a Republican. He did admire his dad but there’s no evidence Islam meant a damn thing to the hard drinking Barack Sr. It’s his virulent anti-colonial politics that junior imitated, watch Dinesh D’Souza’s movie, I think I have a pirate link if you’re interested. Highly recommended.
Stepfather? So what. What did Islam mean to Lolo S? Evidence suggests not much, he was into western culture. And what did Lolo mean to Obama?
The mother, the creature that actually raised him, never converted, she was non religious.
He attended public school in Indonesia. Calling it a madrassa is as silly thinking his mother hoped a flight to Kenya while pregnant to give birth in a rathole village.
In office he acted no differently towards Muslims that the various cuck leaders (including “Center-Right” ones) of Europe did and do. Is Angela Merkel a Muslim too then?
A true muzzie would have at least opposed faggotry and thus been an improvement over Obama! Also would have been unlikely to allow Osama to be 86ed.
The man is bad enough we don’t have to imagine him to be even worse.
It couldn’t be clearer to me. The fact the leftist media would bend over backwards to state “he’s not” made it all the more obvious that he is.
Plus, add to that, what “open” Mohammadan in the United States is a “Conservative” politician ? Not a one. They’re all leftist, endorse the most vile of social left issues and other destructiveness... exactly as Zero.
The ideology of Black Muslims appears to be “Black power” with actual Islamic tenants being an afterthought at best, they were just attracted to it because Christianity was too “White”.
I have much more respect for an ISIS murderer than I do for the likes of Keith Ellison.
This brand of American libtard Islam appears to be to regular Islam “over there” what Superlibtard “Christianity” is to actual Christianity. I don’t even view them as the same thing though both are vile. ISIS would kill this Somali *itch running to replace Ellison.
There’s a Muslim Dr. who’s Vice Chairman of the Tarrant Country Texas GOP. Some people want him gone and we making a stink.
Also the nominee against Scott Peters in Cali.
You had a typo (you meant that the VP is * not* a Senator.
The pre-12th-Amendment system for electing the president and VP sucked, with one of many problems being that if two candidates tied for first place in the Electoral College (with each receiving votes from a majority of electors—remember, each elector got two votes), the House would elect the president and the loser of the vote would become the VP, without the Senate getting a say. Had the lame-duck Federalist House in 1801 refused to elect either Jefferson or Burr so that the Federalist President pro tempore of the Senate got to act as president of the U.S., it would have resulted in a lawsuit claiming that the Succession Act of 1791 was unconstitutional because it placed persons other than Executive Branch officers in the line of succession (an argument that James Madison had made on the floor of the House back in 1791, but the Federalist majority had ignored him). The House rules also provided that no business could be carried out until the House had counted the electoral votes that elected a president or, if the Electoral College failed to elect, until the House elected a president. There really wasn’t much to be gained by Federalists to refuse to exercise their duty to elect a president.
The 12th Amendment does not say whether, in a contingent presidential election, the vote of a majority of the members of a state’s House delegation for a particular candidate is required, or if a plurality vote of the members of the delegation would be permitted. When the Constitution is silent (in text or structure), the rules of each house may fill in the gaps. I believe that in 1824 the House rules required a majority vote by a state delegation in order for the delegation’s vote to go to a candidate, but, if there was a contigent election today with three or four candidates and there a deadlock after several ballots, I think that we might see the House change its rules to permit a plurality vote from a state’s delegation to be sufficient; however, one thing that the House could not change is the requirement that it would take the vote of 26 state delegations to elect a president.
As for the provision of the first Succession Act calling for a new election, I think that it was unconstitutional. Article Ii of the Constitution provides that the presidential term is 4 years, that the VP replaces the president in case of his death, removal or incapacity, and that Congress shall determine by law which officer shall act a president in cases of vacancies in both offices or of incapacity of the sole president or VP in office. Article II does not empower Congress to call a new election, only to legislate for the officer to act a president in the cases described above, and the fact that Article II begins by saying that presidents are elected to four-year terms is a clear indication that tge Framers did not contemplate special elections for short periods.
LMAO!
I'd have been a Federalist but that was very shortsighted of them. All because they didn't want Jefferson to be 2nd in line.
It was equally as shortsighted of the 80th Congress to put the Speaker and President Pro Tem BACK in (after they were removed by the 1886 act) during the early Truman administration with the Vice Presidency vacant.
Putting the Speaker and the Senate PPT back in the line of succession (they had been removed in 1886; prior to that the PPT went first, but in the 1947 statute the Speaker went first) was done upon Truman’s insistence; Truman (who did not have a vice president for the almost four years from FDR’s death until January 20, 1949) thought that it was important for the Acting President to be a popularly elected officer, apparently not minding that the Speaker was elected by voters in one of 435 congressional districts so he is by no means someone elected by the Anerican people writ-large. F’n Harry Truman.
What the Federalists should have done to keep Jefferson from being next in line after the VP was to place the Secretary of the Treasury first, then the Secretary of War, then the Attorney General, and only then the Secretary of State. A few years later, when presidents started appointing Secretaries of State from their same party and the position was one of great prominence, it would have been simple enough for Congress to amend the law to place the Secretary of State first. But the House and Senate of 1791 didn’t merely wish to keep Jefferson out of the presidency, they wanted to place their own leaders as the successors to executive power, which would be something quite dangerous.
Yes yes I recall that now. That damn Truman!!!! And I’m guessing since the GOP was in those positions at the time they were happy to oblige. I suppose Rayburn was happy to oblige too.
What he should have said was. “Gee fellas since this a non-controversial subject let’s amend the constitution so a new VP can be appointed.” He could have then fulfilled his own requirement by appointing an elected official to the vacancy.
We should take them out right NOW just in case Pelosi gets in there.
Putting the President Pro Tem in there back in the day was extra silly since that office was very often vacant, unlike today they only appointed one when the VP wasn’t there.
When President Garfield died on September 19, 1881, there were vacancies in both the Senate PPT and the Speaker of the House, and there was no qualified successor to President Arthur for the three weeks until Senator Thomas Bayard was elected PPT on October 10. Similarly, when Vice President Hendricks died on November 25, 1885, there were vacancies in both the Senate PPT and the Speaker of the House, and there was no qualified successor to President Cleveland for the 12 days until Senator John Sherman was elected PPT on December 7. Two near misses in a four-year period finally convinced Congress to do something about the line of succession, and a few weeks later (in January 1886) it adopted legislation that removed the PPT and Speaker from the line if succession and replaced them with Cabinet members (which are the type of officers that the Constitution contemplated be placed in the line of succession).
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.