Impeach+Bush+Cheney+
Dump Pelosi, Reid And
A Whole Bunch Of Worthless Lobby Suck Up Phonies,
Or Ask Yourself This To Start The New Year:
Who Is Opposing Your Incumbent Stooge?
Also Welcome To 2008 And A Head Start On New Insanities!
Media Bullshit and “The Bloomberg Thing” And The Most Aberrant Of Possibilities. We’re Off And Running!
by David Swanson Page 1 of 1 page(s)
By David Swanson
In a surprise and apparently sudden decision Tuesday evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the hiring of a new Chief of Staff for her DC office.
The choice of someone without any experience on Capitol Hill surprised many observers, leading to speculation as to what changes Pelosi may have in store for the new year.
"Al Groh will be able to hit the ground running," Pelosi said in a statement. "As head coach of the University of Virginia Cavaliers football team Groh has displayed exactly the decision making skills we need to turn this country around and head it in the right direction."
Apparently basing her decision in large part on Groh's performance in Tuesday evening's Gator Bowl, Pelosi went on to detail what she found inspiring about Groh's work. "Coach Groh saw an enormous lead for his team with only a few minutes remaining in the game," Pelosi said, "and he made the courageous and Democratic decision to play his freshman quarterback, a player who was completely unprepared for the game but who deserved a chance to be humiliated on national television.
The overconfidence that Groh exhibited in blowing his team's enormous lead reminded me immediately of the Democratic Congress under President Reagan and the decision not to push for impeachment over Iran-Contra.
That Congress showed maturity and restraint, well calculated to win the next elections when it became recognized by the American people.
The fact that the Republicans wiped the floor with us indicates only that the American people are a bunch of ignoramuses.
Pelosi may have made her decision prior to the game's last few minutes.
At least, her statement suggests that she was leaning in that direction.
"We all admired Groh's wise hesitation earlier in the game," Pelosi said, "particularly the time when he challenged a questionable call only after another play had been run, thus preventing an official review.
By so acting, Groh displayed for the stupid ass public a desire to win, without risking any actual progress toward victory.
This is precisely the sort of performance that is needed on Capitol Hill at a time when we are facing the least popular and most impeachable president and vice president in history, and I'm too damn scared and corrupt to act.
Plus there's the whole occupation of Iraq nonsense, and sooner or later people are going to figure out that we could just cut off the money by not passing any more bills to fund it.
"Distracting people from that simple fact will take the well-honed skills of a proven loser like Al Groh, and I am thrilled to welcome him to my office."
Contacted late Tuesday evening, Groh said, "I don't really mind the pay cut that much, because there's the lobbying option afterward.
Besides, I was going to be gone soon one way or the other. I never knew I was a Democrat, to tell you the truth, but I felt so sorry for Nancy when she told me how people are treating her that I couldn't really say no.
At least I don't think I'll change my mind, but I'm really tired."
http://www.davidswanson.org
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
A.B.C.F.O.X. It doesn’t matter what letters of the alphabet you choose; the media is F.U.C.K.I.N.G. the A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N people! We know what BuShit is and we know what Bullshit is, and this is Bullshit!
Some candidates won't make the cut
http://www.davidswanson.org
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
A.B.C.F.O.X. It doesn’t matter what letters of the alphabet you choose; the media is F.U.C.K.I.N.G. the A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N people! We know what BuShit is and we know what Bullshit is, and this is Bullshit!
Some candidates won't make the cut
Next debates will have stricter criteria
By LAUREN R. DORGANMonitor staff
January 01. 2008 12:01AM
The three presidential debates scheduled this weekend in New Hampshire have the strictest participation criteria of any so far this campaign season, eliciting criticism from the chairmen of both political parties here and from voters whose candidates haven't made the cut.
The Fox News/New Hampshire Republican Party forum planned for Sunday night at St. Anselm College has the toughest standard: Only five candidates have been invited, leaving out two candidates who've been included in previous debates, according to New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen.
Yesterday, Cullen sent out a press release blasting the limitations set for the Fox forum and for the back-to-back WMUR/ABC debates scheduled for Saturday - which have also set strict parameters - though he declined to say whether the Republican Party would pull out of its co-sponsorship with Fox.
"It is our belief that, consistent with the New Hampshire tradition, all serious candidates should be given an equal opportunity to participate. . . . The whole idea of excluding candidates is a big deal, and it's unprecedented," Cullen said. "We're trying to work with Fox as the situation develops over the next several days, and it is our hope that we'll be able to continue on with the event. But we've made it clear that we believe all candidates should have an opportunity to participate."
According to Cullen, the candidates who have received and accepted invitations to the Fox forum are Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Left out are California Rep. Duncan Hunter and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who frequently outpolls Thompson in New Hampshire and whose $19 million fundraising over the last quarter has broken single-day records. Paul's supporters, in particular, have cried foul, protesting in e-mails to Fox, the Republican Party and dozens of letters to the editor.
"I think the State of Texas can give lessons on 'Live Free or Die' to the residents of New Hampshire," wrote Jim FitzGerald of Waco, Texas, in one letter to the editor. He laid out the statistics on Paul's fundraising and ended by asking: "Do y'all need to turn in your license plates?"
A Fox News spokeswoman did not return a call for comment yesterday.
Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley echoed Cullen in a press release of his own.
"New Hampshire has a long and proud tradition of serving as a level playing field and is the one state where each candidate can be given an equal opportunity to be heard by the voters," Buckley said in a statement. "I would strongly encourage any New Hampshire media outlet holding candidate debates or forums not to eliminate a sitting U.S senator or member of Congress."
It will be impossible to say for certain which candidates rate an invitation to the WMUR/ABC Republican and Democratic debates until Friday morning, the day before the debates. The debate criteria require participants to finish among the top four in Iowa's caucuses on Thursday or to have rated above five percent in one of the latest four opinion polls, either nationally or in New Hampshire.
Among Republicans, Paul, who is polling over 6 percent in New Hampshire, will probably get to attend that debate. Hunter's chances look remote.
Among Democrats, the previously-included candidates whose invitations are in question are Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Going by the latest polling, none of them appear likely to get an invitation.
Kucinich's campaign could not be reached for comment. Spokesmen for both Dodd and Biden telegraphed confidence yesterday, saying they believe their candidates will meet the standards.
ABC News Political Director David Chalian said that his network told candidates after the debates they sponsored in August that their next debate would have a higher threshold. ABC's standards were not set to achieve any particular number, Chalian said, but instead with a goal of getting "a real conversation or debate between people who may be the nominee."
"It was a time to put some criteria in the debates, so we are servicing the voters," Chalian said. "I think you'd have a hard time arguing that someone has a real base of support . . . if they don't meet the criteria.
Cullen disagreed, saying the ABC standards are "more egregious" than Fox's.
"They're talking about two U.S. senators, along with Dennis Kucinich. I find Dennis Kucinich's views abhorrent, but he's got some supporters," Cullen said. "It's not my job to stand up and defend the Democrats, but it is part of my job to stand up and defend the primary."
------ End of article By LAUREN R. DORGAN
"THE BLOOMBERG THING IS NO LAUGHING MATTER."
Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid
First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page A04
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.
Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html?hpid=topnews
http://mydd.com/story/2007/6/19/19178/9453
"He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it."
Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run. The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion.
Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune. A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the common obstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House.
"Bloomberg is H. Ross Perot on steroids," said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner. "He could turn the political landscape of this election upside down, spend as much money as he wanted and proceed directly to the general election. He would have resources to hire an army of petition-gatherers in those states where thousands of petitions are required to qualify a third-party presidential candidate to be on the ballot."
Senior Republican officials -- including those supporting declared Republican presidential nomination contenders -- and several top Democrats told The Times they take the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy as a serious threat in November 2008. The Bloomberg team is studying the strategies of Mr. Perot, the Texas billionaire whose 1992 presidential campaign helped President Clinton to win the White House with 43 percent of the popular vote.
"Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot's most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992," the Bloomberg business adviser said on condition of anonymity so as to avoid appearing to speak for Mr. Bloomberg.
Talk of Mr. Bloomberg as a third-party candidate comes as Republican voters are deeply divided over their top-three declared candidates -- Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- and are casting longing glances at former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
"Some of the people on McCain's [presidential campaign] staff have been calling me to see if Mike is running because they are ready to leave the McCain campaign, which is a biplane on fire and spiraling down," the Bloomberg adviser said.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, another independent-minded Republican, dined recently with Mr. Bloomberg and suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" over the weekend that he and Mr. Bloomberg might make an independent run for the presidency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/weekinreview/24healy.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/weekinreview/24healy.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
Federal law mandates that Congress assemble in joint session on the sixth day of the calendar year following the meetings of the Presidential Electors to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election.
The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the hall of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Vice President is expected to preside, but in several cases the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has presided. The Vice President and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the seat of the Speaker of the House.
Senate pages bring in the two mahogany boxes and place them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each branch appoints two tellers to count the vote. Relevant portions of the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical order. If there are no objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote and, if applicable, states who was elected President and Vice President. The Senators then depart from the House chamber.If no candidate for President receives an absolute electoral majority 270 votes out of the 538 possible, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President.
In this case, the House of Representatives chooses from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote, decided by majority decision (an evenly divided state delegation is considered to abstain). A candidate receiving the majority of votes of all states (currently 26) is declared the president-elect.
If no candidate receives a majority, the House proceeds to a second ballot and continues balloting until a candidate receives a majority of the state unit votes.
This situation would most likely occur only when more than two candidates receive electoral votes, but could theoretically happen in a two-person contest if each received exactly 269 electoral votes.
As of 2007, the Democratic Party controls 26 state delegations, and the Republican Party controls 20.
If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the United States Senate must do the same, with the top two vote getters for that office as candidates.
The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case, not by States. If the Senate is evenly split on the matter, then the sitting Vice President is entitled to cast a tie-breaking vote.
If the House of Representatives has not chosen a winner in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the new Vice President becomes Acting President until the House selects a President.
If the winner of the Vice Presidential election is not known by then either, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House of Representatives would become Acting President until the House selects a President or the Senate selects a Vice President.
As of 2004, the House of Representatives has chosen the President on two occasions, in 1800 and in 1824. The Senate has chosen the Vice President once, in 1837.
‘THE BLOOMBERG THING”
Originally Posted: Wednesday, June 6, 2007
http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeachment-possibilites-are-frightened.html
The Polling Date Referenced here will have to updated following the Oklahoma Session….but….
THE REALLY SCAREY THOUGHT OF THE WEEK: BECAUSE….
ELECTORAL CHAOS: HOW MICHAEL BLOOMBERG COULD DEADLOCK BOTH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
‘THE BLOOMBERG THING”
Originally Posted: Wednesday, June 6, 2007
http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeachment-possibilites-are-frightened.html
The Polling Date Referenced here will have to updated following the Oklahoma Session….but….
THE REALLY SCAREY THOUGHT OF THE WEEK: BECAUSE….
ELECTORAL CHAOS: HOW MICHAEL BLOOMBERG COULD DEADLOCK BOTH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Rumors abound that Michael Bloomberg might spend a billion dollars running for the White House as an Independent, putting him on a competitive footing with the major party candidates. That might make it possible for Bloomberg to win several states and prevent anybody from winning a majority of the Electoral College votes.More.. (INSERT NOW)
Friday, June 01, 2007Rumors abound that Michael Bloomberg might spend a billion dollars running for the White House as an Independent, putting him on a competitive footing with the major party candidates. That might make it possible for Bloomberg to win several states and prevent anybody from winning a majority of the Electoral College votes.
The House of Representatives would then select a President, something that hasn’t happened since 1824.
The few political commentators who have considered this possibility dismiss its significance.
They reason that since Democrats control the House, the Democratic candidate would automatically move into the White House.
That assessment reflects a profound misunderstanding of the process outlined in the Constitution.
If no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College, the top three candidates are submitted to the House of Representatives.
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters May 30, 2007 How likely is it that you would consider voting for Michael Bloomberg as an independent candidate for President?
Very likely -7%
Somewhat likely -20%
Not very likely -32%
Not at all likely -28%
Not sure -13%
27% Likely to Vote for Bloomberg as Third Party CandidateFriday, June 01, 2007
It’s been 147 years since a “third-party” candidate won the White House. That man, Abe Lincoln is known to history for many things including becoming the first Republican President. Since it hasn’t happened in 147 years, any discussion about third-party campaigns must include the phrase “long-shot.”
It’s been 147 years since a “third-party” candidate won the White House. That man, Abe Lincoln is known to history for many things including becoming the first Republican President. Since it hasn’t happened in 147 years, any discussion about third-party campaigns must include the phrase “long-shot.”
Still, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be considering such a campaign and is reportedly willing to spend a billion dollars to get his message out. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that 27% of American voters would be Somewhat (20%) or Very (7%) likely to vote for Bloomberg.An even larger number—39%--would consider voting for Bloomberg vote under the right circumstances.
Just 28% would not vote for him while 33% are not sure.These numbers suggest that if Bloomberg can find a message that resonates, he might win some states and deny either major party candidate a majority in the Electoral College.
That could lead to Electoral Chaos by creating a deadlock in both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives.
Such a process would be unprecedented and unpredictable, sure to be studied by historians and political scientists for generations.
If Bloomberg somehow found himself in second place as Election 2008 progresses, the dynamics get even more interesting.
Remember, Ross Perot was second in the polls six months before the 1992 campaign. But, then he dropped out of the race for a period of time before re-entering the fray.
He never regained his earlier status but still wound up with 19% of the vote.In 2008, if it became clear that the Republican candidate couldn’t win, 46% of all voters say they’d pull the lever for Bloomberg over New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D).
Just 37% would vote for Clinton.
If the Democratic candidate couldn’t win, 35% of voters would prefer former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani while 34% would prefer Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is contemplating running at a time when the brand names of the two major parties is not doing well --the number of people considering themselves Republicans has dropped to the lowest level of the Bush era and the number of Democrats has just declined to the lowest level in seventeen months.And the Politicos, Candidates, Pundits and Know It.
Still If the Mayor were to spend some of his money developing a potentially competitive third party, 49% of voters say they’d consider voting for a Congressional candidate supported by Bloomberg.
Only 18% would not consider a Bloomberg Congressional candidate.
If he goes that route, 54% would want the Mayor to recruit business and community leaders as Congressional candidates.
If he goes that route, 54% would want the Mayor to recruit business and community leaders as Congressional candidates.
Only 11% would rather see him recruit those who have held office in other parties.
All of this is pure speculation, of course.
Today, just 7% of Americans say they’ve followed stories of a potential Bloomberg candidacy very closely.
The whole concept is a blank slate.
Earlier head-to-head polling found Bloomberg struggling to reach double digits in national polls, although he has polled as high as 23% in New Jersey.
Nobody knows who the major parties will nominate and no one can realistically project the impact of a billion dollar campaign.
It’s also unclear what sort of message Bloomberg might articulate.
If he simply promised to be a better manager than the other candidates, it’s hard to see how he’d have much impact.It’s also hard to see how Bloomberg could set himself apart from other candidates on the situation in Iraq.
On immigration, he would have some flexibility so long as he demonstrated a serious commitment to enforcing the border and reducing illegal immigration. But, again, that is unlikely to set him apart from other candidates.er, if Bloomberg credibly.
The Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that 44% of all voters say they’d be more likely to vote for Bloomberg if he supported initiative rights so that important issues could be placed on the ballot for voters to decide directly.
The Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll found that 44% of all voters say they’d be more likely to vote for Bloomberg if he supported initiative rights so that important issues could be placed on the ballot for voters to decide directly.
That would turn off just 16% of potential voters.
The results are similar (41% to 21%) if Bloomberg were to support a proposal requiring all tax increases to be approved by voters. Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters favor this policy and only 18% are opposed.
Traditional party politicians, however, tend to resist giving voters more power through initiative and tax approval approaches.Thirty-five percent (35%) say they’d be more likely to vote for Bloomberg if he were to build a true third party rather than just make an ego-driven run for the White House.
But, when all is said and done, Americans have their doubts about a possible third party candidate.
Just 23% believe it’s possible for Bloomberg to be elected—even after being told he would spend a billion dollars on the campaign. Forty-three percent (43%) say it is not possible while 34% are not sure.
So, assuming he can find the right campaign theme, Bloomberg’s biggest challenge might be convincing voters he has a chance to win.
The House would then vote, but the result would not be determined by the overall number of Representatives. According to the Constitution, each state gets to cast one vote… and a majority of all the states is required to select a President.
That means a candidate needs to get the nod from 26 state delegations before moving into the White House.
Today, the Democrats control precisely 26 state delegations. Republicans control 21 and 3 are tied. But, many are closely divided. If the Democrats lose a single state delegation, they lose the majority needed to select a President on their own.
In at least 12 state delegations currently controlled by Democrats, the loss of a single representative would either shift control to the Republicans or create a deadlock.
If the Democrats lose just a single net seat in any one of those twelve states, they lose control of the ability to select the next President in the House.
If a Bloomberg campaign resonates with the public enough to win several states; his candidacy could create a deadlock in both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives.
Certainly his strategists would recognize this and target the most vulnerable Democrats in key states to assure such an outcome.
What happens if nobody controls a majority of the state delegations in the House? It’s hard to tell, but whatever happens would be studied by historians and political scientists for generations.
There would certainly be an unprecedented and intense period of negotiations between Election Day and January 20. A deal could be reached prior to the Electoral College voting. Or, it could go to the House (with the Senate called upon to select a Vice President).
The possibilities are too numerous and speculative to consider here, but it is hard to overstate the leverage that Bloomberg would hold. If he finishes a strong second in the national popular vote, that leverage would be limited only by his desire to use it.
There is even a decent chance he could wind up as President.To give just one extreme example of the possible negotiating tactics, remember that the vote for Vice President is held separately from the vote for President.
If Bloomberg really played hardball, his team could cast their Electoral Votes for, say, the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate. By electing a Republican Vice-President, Bloomberg would put tremendous pressure on the Democrats to negotiate with him.
WHY? BECAUSE IF THE HOUSE REMAINS DEADLOCKED ON JANUARY 20, THE ALREADY ELECTED REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENT WOULD ASSUME THE ROLE OF PRESIDENT.
WHY? BECAUSE IF THE HOUSE REMAINS DEADLOCKED ON JANUARY 20, THE ALREADY ELECTED REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENT WOULD ASSUME THE ROLE OF PRESIDENT.
This, of course, is not a likely scenario. But, if Michael Bloomberg is truly serious about investing a billion dollars in a Presidential campaign—and if he can find a message that truly resonates with the American people--he has the potential to fundamentally alter Election 2008 in ways we can’t begin to imagine.
(SERIOUS ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN, AND WE ARE IN AN EXTREMELY VOLATILE STATE WHERE AN EXPLOSION COULD HAPPEN AT ANY MINUTE.)
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution altered Article II pertaining to presidential elections. Article Two stated that the U.S. Electoral College would elect both the President and the Vice President in a single election; the person with a majority would become President and the runner-up would become Vice President.
Problems with this system were demonstrated by the election of 1796 and, more spectacularly, the election of 1800. The Twelfth Amendment, proposed by the U.S. Congress on December 9, 1803 and ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804, required electors to cast two distinct votes: one for President and another for Vice President.
CONTENTS
1 Text
2 Voting for President and Vice-President under the original Article II
3 Electoral College under Amendment XII
4 Elections 1804–present
5 References5.1 Bibliography
6 External links
THE TEXT OF THE 12TH AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS:
Problems with this system were demonstrated by the election of 1796 and, more spectacularly, the election of 1800. The Twelfth Amendment, proposed by the U.S. Congress on December 9, 1803 and ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804, required electors to cast two distinct votes: one for President and another for Vice President.
CONTENTS
1 Text
2 Voting for President and Vice-President under the original Article II
3 Electoral College under Amendment XII
4 Elections 1804–present
5 References5.1 Bibliography
6 External links
THE TEXT OF THE 12TH AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS:
“-The people shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;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.
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as the President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
(THAT WOULD BE CHENEY... IF WE HAVE NOT IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED HIM BY THEN.)
(THAT WOULD BE CHENEY... IF WE HAVE NOT IMPEACHED AND CONVICTED HIM BY THEN.)
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE UNDER AMENDMENT XII
The amendment, which applied to elections beginning in 1804, did not change the composition of the Electoral College. Rather, it amended the process whereby the Electoral College, or in some cases the House of Representatives, chooses the President.Under the Twelfth Amendment, electors must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President.
No Elector may cast votes for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who both inhabit the same state as the Elector. It is, however, possible for an Elector to cast his votes for candidates from the same state, if that state is different from the Elector's.
The Twelfth Amendment explicitly precluded from being Vice President those ineligible to be President: people under thirty-five years of age, those who have not inhabited the United States for at least fourteen years, and those who are not natural-born citizens. It is unclear if the Twenty-second Amendment's term-limiting provisions prevent two-term Presidents from becoming Vice Presidents (see that article for a fuller discussion).
A majority of electoral votes is still required for one to be deemed elected President or Vice President. When nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under Article II, chooses a President.
The Twelfth Amendment allows the House to consider no more than three candidates, compared to five under the original constitution.The Senate, similarly, may choose the Vice President if no candidate has received a majority of electoral votes.
Its choice is limited to those with the "two highest numbers" of electoral votes. (If multiple individuals are tied for second place, the Senate may consider all of them, in addition to the individual with the greatest number of votes.)
The Twelfth Amendment introduced a quorum requirement of two-thirds for the conduct of balloting. Furthermore, the Twelfth Amendment provides that the votes of a majority of Senators are required to arrive at a choice; In the case of a 50/50 tie the President of the Senate, THE SITTING VICE PRESIDENT, will cast the deciding vote.
In order to prevent deadlocks from keeping the nation leaderless, the Twelfth Amendment provided that if the House could not choose a President before March 4 (at that time the first day of a Presidential term), the individual elected Vice President would act as President until one could be chosen by the House.
The Twentieth Amendment changed the date for the commencement of Presidential terms to January 20 and permits Congress to direct, through legislation, which officer should act as President if both houses of Congress are deadlocked.AMENDMENT XXSec. 3. 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.
![[PDA - Progressive Democrats of America - Stand Up. Take Action. Vote.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/pdalink-150x200.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment