Monday, February 15, 2016

The Twelfth Ammendment

Happy President's Day to you.
I entered military service on President's day weekend, and got out the same four years later. Hey! USAF is military. I shot a gun. Full auto even.

Hopefully, this day next year, we can celebrate having a president we can be proud of.
How we get that president will be interesting.

I was at dinner the other day with the head of the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus, Dennis Moore.
Actually he sat at the table next to Scherie and me at the Big Sky Diner, a situation that has happened frequently, leading to discussions of politics, church and food.
We talked about some of the political activists we knew in common. Dennis carries some weight.

Then we talked about the General Election.
I mentioned brokered conventions, particularly of the Democrat variety, should Sanders and Clinton tie, or should Biden be called on to enter the fray as Sanders rises in the polls.
Should there be three strong Dem rivals splitting the primaries (Superdelegates aside!), the Dems could have a brokered convention.
Who would emerge? I don't know.

As an aside, I believe that the Dems are damaging themselves with Clinton/Sanders as the candidate.
Whichever prevails, the general electorate will not support to the degree the Repubs will rally around their candidate. I could be wrong.

But this talk of a brokered convention brought on another concern of Dennises. Dennis's, Dennis', that Dennis has.

Suppose that Trump ran independent, Or Bloomberg.
Suppose because of a confluence of candidacies that none of the candidates in the general get a majority.
According to the 12th Amendment, should this happen, the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Veep.
And they don't have to be among the candidates that ran.
EDIT: Silverfiddle, in comments, corrected me on this.
See his comment below.

Now I generally believe that this would work to our advantage since both chambers are Republican controlled and would probably choose the Republican candidate, as opposed to the liberal candidate.

If the chambers were to change majority party in that next election (heaven forbid),
imagine the call of Democrats to ask us to wait until the next Congress is seated to reflect the will of the electorate, just as we are asking (and rightly so) the Republican Chy to populat (thusambers to wait until the next president can appoint Scalia's successor.

EDIT: BTW, this didn't happen with Clinton/Bush/Perot because although Perot presumably took popular votes from  Bush, he carried no electoral college votes himself.

Any thoughts?

23 comments:

  1. You have described a scenario that could be a national nightmare possibly worse than that which we've faced for the last seven years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we weren't sleeping so well anyway.

      Delete
  2. Peril surrounds the 2016 election cycle. Bloomberg today is “Meh.” No one but a New Yorker would support the notion that the government has a right to control how many ounces of soda we the people may have in a single day. And let’s not forget that it was Bloomberg’s policy that led to black market cigarettes, which is why the NYPD murdered Eric Garner. In the context of Bloomberg, De Blasio makes perfect sense.

    I think there is a real possibility that the GOP will refuse to nominate Trump, and this will cause him to splinter off as a third party candidate. This would definitely give the election to the Democrats ... and as it so happens, I believe that this has been Trump’s plan all along. He is a conservative in the same way that Chuck Schumer is a man of integrity.

    On the up side, no matter what happens in this election —we probably deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's giving Schumer a lot of credit :)
      And whether the collective "we" deserve it, I don't want to pay for someone else's sins.
      I hope God still has a plan for America, and America can respond.

      Delete
    2. Mustang, as usual I believe you are spot on. I can only speak for my wife and myself, but we will not vote for Trump. We are Christian and conservative. There is not a scenario where we would vote for him even as the Republican nomination. Now Mr T is already threatening to break his agreement with the RNC. Could we be less than a year away from President Hillary and a communist stacked Court?

      Delete
    3. Mustang,

      No one but a New Yorker would support the notion that the government has a right to control how many ounces of soda we the people may have in a single day.

      New Yorkers HATED this. As well as the forced bicycle lanes and racks, and closed down broadway to try to make NYC a pretend Paris while working people couldn't get to work, make deliveries, etc.

      Bloomberg is a true elitist. Don't believe the media - the only people who like him here are those small minority who are doing extremely well.

      Delete
    4. Then how did he get re-elected, even past the term limit?

      Delete
    5. That's the question about Americans and elections isn't it?

      Delete
  3. "A Republic, if you can keep it."

    With God's will, we can.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ed, I've got to say, if you're going to go to this extent to be grammatically correct "of Dennises. Dennis's, Dennis', ", then it's "at the table with Scherie and ME" not "I" :-) My pet peeve!

    I believe this country would be one big conflagration if the Republican congress picks a president....THEN, I MIGHT buy that gun you all push me to buy....then, we'd all probably need one. awful scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ben Carson recently said "We will get what we deserve."
    Please, God, NO, not that...not what we deserve!

    ReplyDelete
  6. If only the seeming majority cared about and understood the issues, then the character of the white house resident. It's obvious they don't. (sigh) ;-)

    With the repubs tearing themselves apart (Trumps mission?) our perfection addicted conservatives who stay home on election day will likely stay home again.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I am hearing people like DaBlade say they can't pull the lever for Trump.
      While I think the reticence/refusal to vote for a mormon was misguided, I can understand wanting the purity of conscience to say "I did not vote for Donald Trump" only if he is elected and goes berserker.
      If we get a Sanders or Clinton, I'd be yelling, "Why couldn't you bring yourself to vote for Trump?".

      Delete
  7. Hi Ed,

    I didn't know you had a blog until you mentioned it today at Z's.

    The 12 Amendment says The House and Senate must choose from the top vote getters if on one gets a majority of votes

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html#12

    So, They would have to choose from the top 3 for president and top 2 for VP.

    It would still be chaotic, as others in the thread have said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi SF.
      Working off memory can lead one wrong.
      You are, of course, correct.
      Top vote getters.
      Not only chaotic, but if we thought the 2000 election court challenge/contest of the Florida results was contentious....

      Delete
  8. This actually happened in 1824. The House, coerced by Hery Clay, elected J. Q. Adams ( who promptly appointed Clay Sec of State) over Andrew Jackson.

    ReplyDelete
  9. However it goes, it's going to be ugly... sigh

    ReplyDelete
  10. Henry Clay.

    If only I could type

    ReplyDelete