» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Davester on 11/03/08 at 6:34 pm
*sigh...*
Our long national nightmare is finally over...
A little early, I know. Just practicing...
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Rice_Cube on 11/03/08 at 6:56 pm
Not so fast!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/split_decision
:o
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Brian06 on 11/03/08 at 7:00 pm
Not so fast!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/split_decision
:o
Damn I will lose it if that happens again. God I'm nervous and hopeful at the same time. He is in better position than any Democrat has been in a while so that's good at least. :-\\
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Rice_Cube on 11/03/08 at 7:01 pm
The good news is that they've registered tons of new Democratic voters and a lot of independent voters are likely to go Democrat.
Hopefully this will be one of the best voting turnouts in history.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: nally on 11/03/08 at 7:03 pm
^I certainly hope so too.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Davester on 11/03/08 at 7:03 pm
Not so fast!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/split_decision
:o
Yup, there's always that...
In the event of an Obama victory the transition period promises to be one of the more interesting in recent memory...
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Davester on 11/03/08 at 7:06 pm
The good news is that they've registered tons of new Democratic voters and a lot of independent voters are likely to go Democrat.
Hopefully this will be one of the best voting turnouts in history.
No doubt. Independents will probably decide this one...
Some of that silent majority...
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/03/08 at 8:19 pm
Not so fast!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081103/ap_on_el_pr/split_decision
:o
http://images.art.com/images/-/Mr-Bill---Ohh-Nooo-Magnet-C11751410.jpeg
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Davester on 11/03/08 at 8:28 pm
http://images.art.com/images/-/Mr-Bill---Ohh-Nooo-Magnet-C11751410.jpeg
No worries. Your vote doesn't count anyway... :P
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Davester on 11/03/08 at 9:34 pm
Some friends and I have decided to hang out at the polls and throw eggs at anyone who votes the way we don't want them to. Should be interesting...
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: snozberries on 11/03/08 at 10:59 pm
The Redskins are playing tonight.
Apparently the last 17 times the Redskins won (before an election) the Democrat lost.... here's hoping the Redskins loose tonight
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Badfinger-fan on 11/03/08 at 11:13 pm
The good news is that they've registered tons of new Democratic voters and a lot of independent voters are likely to go Democrat.
Hopefully this will be one of the best voting turnouts in history.
tons of new democratic voters huh? where did they get some of these new voters ::)
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0205Lyg9JsBoAqhGjzbkF/SIG=12q2r35pg/EXP=1225857995/**http%3A//www.nasites.net/projects/1296/Multimedia/Gallery/SanQuentin.jpg
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: danootaandme on 11/04/08 at 3:50 am
Not so fast, bushie hasn't gone home yet, and who knows what long lasting damage cheney is doing as we sit here.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: philbo on 11/04/08 at 8:55 am
Some friends and I have decided to hang out at the polls and throw eggs at anyone who votes the way we don't want them to. Should be interesting...
How do you know? I thought it was a secret ballot...
I think the sight of people queuing for hours to vote is in some ways inspiring - it's the first election that I can remember that has had that kind of positive feel to it; yet it also makes me wonder why the technology doesn't seem to get people through very quickly - surely queuing for that length of time shouldn't be necessary any more?
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: karen on 11/04/08 at 9:19 am
How do you know? I thought it was a secret ballot...
I think the sight of people queuing for hours to vote is in some ways inspiring - it's the first election that I can remember that has had that kind of positive feel to it; yet it also makes me wonder why the technology doesn't seem to get people through very quickly - surely queuing for that length of time shouldn't be necessary any more?
Each polling district only has one polling station (at least in Connecticut). A quick check makes it look like about 4,000 voters per station
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/04/08 at 9:51 am
tons of new democratic voters huh? where did they get some of these new voters ::)
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0205Lyg9JsBoAqhGjzbkF/SIG=12q2r35pg/EXP=1225857995/**http%3A//www.nasites.net/projects/1296/Multimedia/Gallery/SanQuentin.jpg
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/republican-voter-registration-chief-arrested-fraud-california/
odd... ACORN never charged with anything, yet the GOP run voter registration people have been charged and arrested. I wonder why the GOP keeps talking about voter fraud?
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Rice_Cube on 11/04/08 at 11:31 am
Voted...now waiting.
Electoral-vote.com guy is gonna update the site throughout the day, I wish I had that amount of time to do stuff :D
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: MrCleveland on 11/04/08 at 2:08 pm
7 p.m. is when it starts!
If Obama gets Ohio, Obama gets America!
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: CatwomanofV on 11/04/08 at 2:09 pm
What is really scary is this:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081102/FEATURES15/811020313
Dick Cheney, the next president?
November 2, 2008
By Alex Belenky
The 2008 presidential election campaign is close to an end. Numerous polls still predict a close race, and the media are discussing all possible outcomes.
A 269-269 electoral vote tie is one such outcome, and if it happens, unclear existing election rules may either cause a constitutional crisis or make the current vice president Dick Cheney the next president.
In the event of an electoral tie, if the election rules remain as they are, the newly elected Congress is slated to count electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2009.
The House of Representatives would vote for president, and the Senate would vote for vice president. House rules for electing a president have remained unchanged since 1825, though each new Congress can set new rules. Each state has one vote (regardless of its size), a quorum of two-thirds of 50 states is needed to start the balloting, and, if the rules stay as they are, an evenly divided state delegation cannot cast a ballot. Under certain compositions of the newly elected House, it may fail to elect a president by Inauguration Day under the 1825 rules.
Electing a vice president in the Senate by Inauguration Day could be unsuccessful as well, since the 2009 Senate may be evenly divided. The absence of a single senator, say, due to health reasons, may result in neither of the two vice presidential candidates receiving 51 votes. Thus, even if the seated vice president (who is not a senator, but serves as president of the Senate) can break a tie in choosing a new vice president in the Senate, which has remained questionable since the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804, at least 51 Senate votes are needed to elect a new vice president anyway.
In an ABC report of July 17, J. Fortier, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, said that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 governs the situation. L. Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia, has recently offered the same view.
However, the language of the text of Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment calls this view into question.
The Presidential Succession Act was enacted under the authority of the 20th Amendment of the Constitution. The act outlines procedures for filling the office of president in only five situations in which there is no one "to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President." One such situation is "failure to qualify," and the amendment authorizes the Congress to invoke the Presidential Succession Act only when "neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified."
The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines "to qualify" as a) "to be successful in one stage of the competition and as a result to proceed to the next stage," and b) to have the abilities required to do or to have something. Other dictionaries offer similar definitions such as a) to reach the later stages of a selection process or contest by competing successfully in earlier rounds and b) to be or to become qualified.The question is: which sense of "to qualify" were the Amendment sponsors after?
If it is "to be successful in one stage of the competition and as a result to proceed to the next stage" then the act is applicable only when neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect is chosen by Inauguration Day either by the Electoral College or by Congress.
If it is to have the abilities required to do or to have something, then the act is applicable only when both a president-elect and a vice president-elect have been chosen either by the Electoral College or by Congress, but the chosen individuals have failed to qualify as president and as vice president, respectively, since they have not met the constitutional requirements to be eligible to be elected to the offices.
No matter what the interpretation of the phrase "neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified" employed in the text of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment should be, it can be either definition a) or b), but not both.
This means that the act is applicable only when either a president-elect and a vice president-elect are not chosen by Inauguration Day, or only when both a president-elect and a vice president-elect were chosen but failed to qualify.
In contrast, the phrase "when neither a president nor a vice president shall have qualified" would cover both cases, and the phrase "until a President shall have qualified" is employed in the text of the 20th Amendment to cover the situation in which either a president has not been chosen before Inauguration Day, or the president-elect has failed to qualify. The use of this phrase in this part of the Constitution suggests that the phrase "when neither a president nor a vice president shall have qualified" may better reflect the intent of the amendment sponsors.
Yet, the language employed there seems to limit the number of cases covered by the amendment to only one of the cases a) or b), and it's unclear which one.
The authors of "Understanding the Constitution," a textbook for law schools, say that "Congress now made the same provision for succession in the event of disability or disqualification of the President-elect and Vice President-elect as in the case of President and Vice President." The author of "A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution" states that "Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment empowers Congress to provide for the situation when neither the President-elect nor Vice President-elect qualifies." The use of the article "the" in "the President-elect and Vice President-elect" makes it appear that both books support case b), which defines "to qualify" as a matter of competence.
In explaining the 20th Amendment, the Web site Justice Learning states, "If the president is not able to hold office, the vice president will act as president. The 20th Amendment gives Congress the power to pass legislation outlining a more detailed succession plan if the vice president is also not able to carry out the presidential duties until a new president and vice president are qualified." This also seems to support the competency definition.
However, only the U.S. Supreme Court may decide whether the Presidential Succession Act is applicable in case a) or in case b). If the court finds the act to be inapplicable in case a), when neither a president nor a vice president has been chosen by Inauguration Day, only the 12th Amendment may then govern the completion of the election.
According to the 12th Amendment, "the vice president" then becomes the new president.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that "the vice president" is the newly elected vice president, an election stalemate is inevitable. There are no constitutional provisions or federal statutes determining who should act as the next president in this case and consequently the election process cannot be completed.
If the court decides that "the vice president" is the acting president, a constitutional crisis will be avoided. In the case of the 2008 election, this would mean that Dick Cheney would be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on Jan. 20, 2009.
If the court finds that the Presidential Succession Act is applicable in case a), then if the president-elect and vice president-elect have been chosen but has been disqualified, only the acting vice president may potentially act as president and only if the Court clarifies that "the Vice President" mentioned in the 12th Amendment is the acting vice president. Otherwise, a constitutional crisis is inevitable.
Covering (only) case b) by the Presidential Succession Act looks like the lesser evil, since if case a) should occur, either chamber or Congress or both still may eventually produce either the president-elect or the vice president-elect or both before the next election (though after Inauguration Day). In contrast, if the act covers (only) case a), installing the acting vice president as president until the next election is the only alternative to a constitutional crisis should case b) emerge.
Let's assume that the U.S. Supreme Court determines that "the Vice President," mentioned in the 12th Amendment, is the acting one. Then in the event that Congress had been unable to choose a president from 1804 to 1933, (before passage of the 20th Amendment), under the 12th Amendment, the acting vice president would have been the next president, even if a vice president-elect was available.
Finally, if the U.S. Supreme Court finds that only one scenario a) or b)is covered by the Presidential Succession Act, the language employed in the 20th Amendment is such that it leaves unclear whether the act applies when only one of the two executives is chosen in the election but fails to have qualified by Inauguration Day.
Alexander S. Belenky is a Ph.D. in systems analysis and applied mathematics and visiting scholar at MIT's Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals. He is the author of the books "Extreme Outcomes of U.S. Presidential Elections," "Winning the U.S. Presidency: Rules of the Game and Playing by the Rules," and "How America Chooses Its Presidents."
Cat
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Rice_Cube on 11/04/08 at 3:37 pm
7 p.m. is when it starts!
If Obama gets Ohio, Obama gets America!
Obama doesn't need to win Ohio to become President.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Henk on 11/04/08 at 5:13 pm
What is really scary is this:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081102/FEATURES15/811020313
Dick Cheney, the next president?
November 2, 2008
By Alex Belenky
The 2008 presidential election campaign is close to an end. Numerous polls still predict a close race, and the media are discussing all possible outcomes.
A 269-269 electoral vote tie is one such outcome, and if it happens, unclear existing election rules may either cause a constitutional crisis or make the current vice president Dick Cheney the next president.
In the event of an electoral tie, if the election rules remain as they are, the newly elected Congress is slated to count electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2009.
The House of Representatives would vote for president, and the Senate would vote for vice president. House rules for electing a president have remained unchanged since 1825, though each new Congress can set new rules. Each state has one vote (regardless of its size), a quorum of two-thirds of 50 states is needed to start the balloting, and, if the rules stay as they are, an evenly divided state delegation cannot cast a ballot. Under certain compositions of the newly elected House, it may fail to elect a president by Inauguration Day under the 1825 rules.
Electing a vice president in the Senate by Inauguration Day could be unsuccessful as well, since the 2009 Senate may be evenly divided. The absence of a single senator, say, due to health reasons, may result in neither of the two vice presidential candidates receiving 51 votes. Thus, even if the seated vice president (who is not a senator, but serves as president of the Senate) can break a tie in choosing a new vice president in the Senate, which has remained questionable since the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804, at least 51 Senate votes are needed to elect a new vice president anyway.
In an ABC report of July 17, J. Fortier, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, said that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 governs the situation. L. Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia, has recently offered the same view.
However, the language of the text of Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment calls this view into question.
The Presidential Succession Act was enacted under the authority of the 20th Amendment of the Constitution. The act outlines procedures for filling the office of president in only five situations in which there is no one "to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President." One such situation is "failure to qualify," and the amendment authorizes the Congress to invoke the Presidential Succession Act only when "neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified."
The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines "to qualify" as a) "to be successful in one stage of the competition and as a result to proceed to the next stage," and b) to have the abilities required to do or to have something. Other dictionaries offer similar definitions such as a) to reach the later stages of a selection process or contest by competing successfully in earlier rounds and b) to be or to become qualified.The question is: which sense of "to qualify" were the Amendment sponsors after?
If it is "to be successful in one stage of the competition and as a result to proceed to the next stage" then the act is applicable only when neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect is chosen by Inauguration Day either by the Electoral College or by Congress.
If it is to have the abilities required to do or to have something, then the act is applicable only when both a president-elect and a vice president-elect have been chosen either by the Electoral College or by Congress, but the chosen individuals have failed to qualify as president and as vice president, respectively, since they have not met the constitutional requirements to be eligible to be elected to the offices.
No matter what the interpretation of the phrase "neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified" employed in the text of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment should be, it can be either definition a) or b), but not both.
This means that the act is applicable only when either a president-elect and a vice president-elect are not chosen by Inauguration Day, or only when both a president-elect and a vice president-elect were chosen but failed to qualify.
In contrast, the phrase "when neither a president nor a vice president shall have qualified" would cover both cases, and the phrase "until a President shall have qualified" is employed in the text of the 20th Amendment to cover the situation in which either a president has not been chosen before Inauguration Day, or the president-elect has failed to qualify. The use of this phrase in this part of the Constitution suggests that the phrase "when neither a president nor a vice president shall have qualified" may better reflect the intent of the amendment sponsors.
Yet, the language employed there seems to limit the number of cases covered by the amendment to only one of the cases a) or b), and it's unclear which one.
The authors of "Understanding the Constitution," a textbook for law schools, say that "Congress now made the same provision for succession in the event of disability or disqualification of the President-elect and Vice President-elect as in the case of President and Vice President." The author of "A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution" states that "Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment empowers Congress to provide for the situation when neither the President-elect nor Vice President-elect qualifies." The use of the article "the" in "the President-elect and Vice President-elect" makes it appear that both books support case b), which defines "to qualify" as a matter of competence.
In explaining the 20th Amendment, the Web site Justice Learning states, "If the president is not able to hold office, the vice president will act as president. The 20th Amendment gives Congress the power to pass legislation outlining a more detailed succession plan if the vice president is also not able to carry out the presidential duties until a new president and vice president are qualified." This also seems to support the competency definition.
However, only the U.S. Supreme Court may decide whether the Presidential Succession Act is applicable in case a) or in case b). If the court finds the act to be inapplicable in case a), when neither a president nor a vice president has been chosen by Inauguration Day, only the 12th Amendment may then govern the completion of the election.
According to the 12th Amendment, "the vice president" then becomes the new president.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that "the vice president" is the newly elected vice president, an election stalemate is inevitable. There are no constitutional provisions or federal statutes determining who should act as the next president in this case and consequently the election process cannot be completed.
If the court decides that "the vice president" is the acting president, a constitutional crisis will be avoided. In the case of the 2008 election, this would mean that Dick Cheney would be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on Jan. 20, 2009.
If the court finds that the Presidential Succession Act is applicable in case a), then if the president-elect and vice president-elect have been chosen but has been disqualified, only the acting vice president may potentially act as president and only if the Court clarifies that "the Vice President" mentioned in the 12th Amendment is the acting vice president. Otherwise, a constitutional crisis is inevitable.
Covering (only) case b) by the Presidential Succession Act looks like the lesser evil, since if case a) should occur, either chamber or Congress or both still may eventually produce either the president-elect or the vice president-elect or both before the next election (though after Inauguration Day). In contrast, if the act covers (only) case a), installing the acting vice president as president until the next election is the only alternative to a constitutional crisis should case b) emerge.
Let's assume that the U.S. Supreme Court determines that "the Vice President," mentioned in the 12th Amendment, is the acting one. Then in the event that Congress had been unable to choose a president from 1804 to 1933, (before passage of the 20th Amendment), under the 12th Amendment, the acting vice president would have been the next president, even if a vice president-elect was available.
Finally, if the U.S. Supreme Court finds that only one scenario a) or b)is covered by the Presidential Succession Act, the language employed in the 20th Amendment is such that it leaves unclear whether the act applies when only one of the two executives is chosen in the election but fails to have qualified by Inauguration Day.
Alexander S. Belenky is a Ph.D. in systems analysis and applied mathematics and visiting scholar at MIT's Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals. He is the author of the books "Extreme Outcomes of U.S. Presidential Elections," "Winning the U.S. Presidency: Rules of the Game and Playing by the Rules," and "How America Chooses Its Presidents."
Cat
I'm too lazy to read this, TBH, but I notice a lot of "ifs", and the first condition (a tie) is unlikely to happen IMHO.
But in case it does come to this chain of events: you can always move to the Netherlands. Obama can come along - he's guaranteed to become president of our country (with a whopping 80% margin over McCain, according to recent polls).
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Badfinger-fan on 11/04/08 at 5:16 pm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/republican-voter-registration-chief-arrested-fraud-california/
odd... ACORN never charged with anything, yet the GOP run voter registration people have been charged and arrested. I wonder why the GOP keeps talking about voter fraud?
thank goodness they are all innocent until proven guilty
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: CatwomanofV on 11/04/08 at 5:19 pm
I'm too lazy to read this, TBH, but I notice a lot of "ifs", and the first condition (a tie) is unlikely to happen IMHO.
But in case it does come to this chain of events: you can always move to the Netherlands. Obama can come along - he's guaranteed to become president of our country (with a whopping 80% margin over McCain, according to recent polls).
I would have no qualms about moving to the Netherlands if most of the people in your country are like you. ;)
Cat
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: snozberries on 11/04/08 at 5:32 pm
I know the chances are slim to none.... but what happens if there's a tie?
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Henk on 11/04/08 at 5:33 pm
I would have no qualms about moving to the Netherlands if most of the people in your country are like you. ;)
Cat
I wish I could say they are, but unfortunately... :( Karma for your kind words, though. ;)
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Henk on 11/04/08 at 5:36 pm
I know the chances are slim to none.... but what happens if there's a tie?
Here's your answer:
What is really scary is this:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081102/FEATURES15/811020313
Dick Cheney, the next president?
November 2, 2008
By Alex Belenky
The 2008 presidential election campaign is close to an end. Numerous polls still predict a close race, and the media are discussing all possible outcomes.
A 269-269 electoral vote tie is one such outcome, and if it happens, unclear existing election rules may either cause a constitutional crisis or make the current vice president Dick Cheney the next president.
In the event of an electoral tie, if the election rules remain as they are, the newly elected Congress is slated to count electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2009.
The House of Representatives would vote for president, and the Senate would vote for vice president. House rules for electing a president have remained unchanged since 1825, though each new Congress can set new rules. Each state has one vote (regardless of its size), a quorum of two-thirds of 50 states is needed to start the balloting, and, if the rules stay as they are, an evenly divided state delegation cannot cast a ballot. Under certain compositions of the newly elected House, it may fail to elect a president by Inauguration Day under the 1825 rules.
Electing a vice president in the Senate by Inauguration Day could be unsuccessful as well, since the 2009 Senate may be evenly divided. The absence of a single senator, say, due to health reasons, may result in neither of the two vice presidential candidates receiving 51 votes. Thus, even if the seated vice president (who is not a senator, but serves as president of the Senate) can break a tie in choosing a new vice president in the Senate, which has remained questionable since the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804, at least 51 Senate votes are needed to elect a new vice president anyway.
In an ABC report of July 17, J. Fortier, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, said that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 governs the situation. L. Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia, has recently offered the same view.
However, the language of the text of Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment calls this view into question.
The Presidential Succession Act was enacted under the authority of the 20th Amendment of the Constitution. The act outlines procedures for filling the office of president in only five situations in which there is no one "to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President." One such situation is "failure to qualify," and the amendment authorizes the Congress to invoke the Presidential Succession Act only when "neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified."
The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language defines "to qualify" as a) "to be successful in one stage of the competition and as a result to proceed to the next stage," and b) to have the abilities required to do or to have something. Other dictionaries offer similar definitions such as a) to reach the later stages of a selection process or contest by competing successfully in earlier rounds and b) to be or to become qualified.The question is: which sense of "to qualify" were the Amendment sponsors after?
If it is "to be successful in one stage of the competition and as a result to proceed to the next stage" then the act is applicable only when neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect is chosen by Inauguration Day either by the Electoral College or by Congress.
If it is to have the abilities required to do or to have something, then the act is applicable only when both a president-elect and a vice president-elect have been chosen either by the Electoral College or by Congress, but the chosen individuals have failed to qualify as president and as vice president, respectively, since they have not met the constitutional requirements to be eligible to be elected to the offices.
No matter what the interpretation of the phrase "neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified" employed in the text of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment should be, it can be either definition a) or b), but not both.
This means that the act is applicable only when either a president-elect and a vice president-elect are not chosen by Inauguration Day, or only when both a president-elect and a vice president-elect were chosen but failed to qualify.
In contrast, the phrase "when neither a president nor a vice president shall have qualified" would cover both cases, and the phrase "until a President shall have qualified" is employed in the text of the 20th Amendment to cover the situation in which either a president has not been chosen before Inauguration Day, or the president-elect has failed to qualify. The use of this phrase in this part of the Constitution suggests that the phrase "when neither a president nor a vice president shall have qualified" may better reflect the intent of the amendment sponsors.
Yet, the language employed there seems to limit the number of cases covered by the amendment to only one of the cases a) or b), and it's unclear which one.
The authors of "Understanding the Constitution," a textbook for law schools, say that "Congress now made the same provision for succession in the event of disability or disqualification of the President-elect and Vice President-elect as in the case of President and Vice President." The author of "A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution" states that "Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment empowers Congress to provide for the situation when neither the President-elect nor Vice President-elect qualifies." The use of the article "the" in "the President-elect and Vice President-elect" makes it appear that both books support case b), which defines "to qualify" as a matter of competence.
In explaining the 20th Amendment, the Web site Justice Learning states, "If the president is not able to hold office, the vice president will act as president. The 20th Amendment gives Congress the power to pass legislation outlining a more detailed succession plan if the vice president is also not able to carry out the presidential duties until a new president and vice president are qualified." This also seems to support the competency definition.
However, only the U.S. Supreme Court may decide whether the Presidential Succession Act is applicable in case a) or in case b). If the court finds the act to be inapplicable in case a), when neither a president nor a vice president has been chosen by Inauguration Day, only the 12th Amendment may then govern the completion of the election.
According to the 12th Amendment, "the vice president" then becomes the new president.
If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that "the vice president" is the newly elected vice president, an election stalemate is inevitable. There are no constitutional provisions or federal statutes determining who should act as the next president in this case and consequently the election process cannot be completed.
If the court decides that "the vice president" is the acting president, a constitutional crisis will be avoided. In the case of the 2008 election, this would mean that Dick Cheney would be sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on Jan. 20, 2009.
If the court finds that the Presidential Succession Act is applicable in case a), then if the president-elect and vice president-elect have been chosen but has been disqualified, only the acting vice president may potentially act as president and only if the Court clarifies that "the Vice President" mentioned in the 12th Amendment is the acting vice president. Otherwise, a constitutional crisis is inevitable.
Covering (only) case b) by the Presidential Succession Act looks like the lesser evil, since if case a) should occur, either chamber or Congress or both still may eventually produce either the president-elect or the vice president-elect or both before the next election (though after Inauguration Day). In contrast, if the act covers (only) case a), installing the acting vice president as president until the next election is the only alternative to a constitutional crisis should case b) emerge.
Let's assume that the U.S. Supreme Court determines that "the Vice President," mentioned in the 12th Amendment, is the acting one. Then in the event that Congress had been unable to choose a president from 1804 to 1933, (before passage of the 20th Amendment), under the 12th Amendment, the acting vice president would have been the next president, even if a vice president-elect was available.
Finally, if the U.S. Supreme Court finds that only one scenario a) or b)is covered by the Presidential Succession Act, the language employed in the 20th Amendment is such that it leaves unclear whether the act applies when only one of the two executives is chosen in the election but fails to have qualified by Inauguration Day.
Alexander S. Belenky is a Ph.D. in systems analysis and applied mathematics and visiting scholar at MIT's Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals. He is the author of the books "Extreme Outcomes of U.S. Presidential Elections," "Winning the U.S. Presidency: Rules of the Game and Playing by the Rules," and "How America Chooses Its Presidents."
Cat
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Badfinger-fan on 11/04/08 at 5:49 pm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/republican-voter-registration-chief-arrested-fraud-california/
odd... ACORN never charged with anything, yet the GOP run voter registration people have been charged and arrested. I wonder why the GOP keeps talking about voter fraud?
I think it'd be naive to think that Acorn doesn't have people that have tried to register fradulent voters. not accusing the organiztion as a whole, but there have been many people approached by the group multiple times for registration or at least they allegedly have done this. make no mistake, there's probably fraud on both sides.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Rice_Cube on 11/04/08 at 5:50 pm
I think it's unlikely to progress past the House and Senate...the House will be overwhelmingly Democratic, so they'll confirm Obama, and the Senate will also be slightly Dem, so they'll vote in Biden. Right?
Of course, if it does end up in an EC tie, Obama wouldn't have a lot of momentum going into 2012...
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: danootaandme on 11/04/08 at 6:17 pm
Of course, if it does end up in an EC tie, Obama wouldn't have a lot of momentum going into 2012...
More than bush did in 2000.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/05/08 at 8:41 am
I think it'd be naive to think that Acorn doesn't have people that have tried to register fradulent voters. not accusing the organiztion as a whole, but there have been many people approached by the group multiple times for registration or at least they allegedly have done this. make no mistake, there's probably fraud on both sides.
I think that's a far cry from the accusations of ACORN being a corrupt organization which is pretty much the rallying call of the right-wing. They need a scape goat for why they were losing, and I'm sure they'll be looking to blame everyone else long before they blame their leaders.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: Davester on 11/05/08 at 2:23 pm
McCain's concession speech was quite impressive. I found myself wondering, "Where was this guy during the campaign..?"
Had he showed such soul and statesmanship during the campaign, he might have won...
It was as dignified a concession as I've ever witnessed, an acknowledgment and fulfillment of dire necessity, and a truly gracious closing chapter to a bitter and sometimes shocking campaign so unfortunately defined by desperation and hatred...
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/05/08 at 3:36 pm
McCain's concession speech was quite impressive. I found myself wondering, "Where was this guy during the campaign..?"
Had he showed such soul and statesmanship during the campaign, he might have won...
It was as dignified a concession as I've ever witnessed, an acknowledgment and fulfillment of dire necessity, and a truly gracious closing chapter to a bitter and sometimes shocking campaign so unfortunately defined by desperation and hatred...
8 years of working under GW killed McCain's chances. I might not have agreed with him on a lot, but I know the McCain of 2000 was a far different beast than the McCain of 2008. Hard to call yourself a maverick and be taken seriously when you're voting in lockstep with the rest of your party.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: danootaandme on 11/05/08 at 6:08 pm
I had a much higher regard for McCain four years ago. But when he sold himself out to Bush after all that crap the bush/rove gang threw at him, then buddied up to him like the prodigal brother, it was more than enough to turn my stomach.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/05/08 at 7:20 pm
Obama and the Dems ran a far better campaign this time than either Gore or Kerry. Furthermore, McCain ran a half-assed campaign and Palin was a terrible VP choice--in spite of the right-wing media trying to sell the opposite on both.
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: danootaandme on 11/06/08 at 5:39 am
Palin will need to do some brushing up if she intends to enter national politics. She thought Africa was a country in and of itself, not a continent composed of countries.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5095495.ece
www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/palin_didnt_know_africas_a_con.html
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: philbo on 11/06/08 at 11:17 am
McCain's concession speech was quite impressive. I found myself wondering, "Where was this guy during the campaign..?"
Had he showed such soul and statesmanship during the campaign, he might have won...
It was as dignified a concession as I've ever witnessed, an acknowledgment and fulfillment of dire necessity, and a truly gracious closing chapter to a bitter and sometimes shocking campaign so unfortunately defined by desperation and hatred...
Agreed. It was the best speech I'd heard him make, period. But I don't think his campaign manager would have let him go out saying nice things about his opponent all the time ;)
Scariest part of the speech was where he described Palin as a "new voice"... I'd really rather not see that much more of her
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: greenjello74 on 11/06/08 at 11:41 am
Agreed. It was the best speech I'd heard him make, period. But I don't think his campaign manager would have let him go out saying nice things about his opponent all the time ;)
Scariest part of the speech was where he described Palin as a "new voice"... I'd really rather not see that much more of her
I don't think we will see much more of her. How on earth did she get elected in the first place??????
Subject: Re: Our long national nightmare is finally over...
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/06/08 at 10:39 pm
Palin will need to do some brushing up if she intends to enter national politics. She thought Africa was a country in and of itself, not a continent composed of countries.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5095495.ece
www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/palin_didnt_know_africas_a_con.html
So wait, there's South Africa, North Africa, West Africa, and East Africa? But wheres the Africa?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rudolf.gif