'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
What Goes Around...
Moderator: Andrew
18 posts
• Page 1 of 1
What Goes Around...
by tj » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:03 am
Moveon.org and others set the pace. You knew it would happen, I just didn't imagine it would happen before he took office...
'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
-
tj - Cassette Tape
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:55 am
- Location: State of Confusion
Re: What Goes Around...
by S2M » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:15 am
tj wrote:Moveon.org and others set the pace. You knew it would happen, I just didn't imagine it would happen before he took office...
'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution....and in that instance only. He can't be impeached for rasing taxes in certain sectors, or slashing them here, or even attempting to nationalize healthcare....
That article is laighable.....
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
-
S2M - MP3
- Posts: 11981
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
- Location: In a bevy of whimsy
Re: What Goes Around...
by Behshad » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:21 am
tj wrote:Moveon.org and others set the pace. You knew it would happen, I just didn't imagine it would happen before he took office...
'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
Explain the title you chose for this topic please
-
Behshad - MP3
- Posts: 12584
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am
by S2M » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:21 am
Here ya go....excellent read, and video.....
The more ya Know...
MEMO: video is no longer available, sorry....
A speech by Barabra Jordan Representative from Texas (D).
Mr. Chairman:
I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.
Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, "We, the people." It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in "We, the people."
Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.
...The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.
The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We need one branch to check the others."
The North Carolina ratification convention: "No one need to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.
"Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "And to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." I do not mean political parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term, "high crime and misdemeanors."
Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."
Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.
This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.
What the President did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.
At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President's actions.
Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there is grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen twenty-seven times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the President. The words are, "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."
Justice Story: "Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations."
We know about the Houston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute, complete direction in August 1971 when the President instructed Ehrilichman to "do whatever is necessary." This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding's office. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."
The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."
Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions; impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray their public trust."
James Madison, again at the constitutional convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the process of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder.
Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? This is the question. We know that. We know the question.
We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.
It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm
The more ya Know...
MEMO: video is no longer available, sorry....
A speech by Barabra Jordan Representative from Texas (D).
Mr. Chairman:
I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.
Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, "We, the people." It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in "We, the people."
Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.
...The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.
The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We need one branch to check the others."
The North Carolina ratification convention: "No one need to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.
"Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "And to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." I do not mean political parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term, "high crime and misdemeanors."
Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."
Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.
This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17.
What the President did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.
At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President's actions.
Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there is grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen twenty-seven times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the President. The words are, "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."
Justice Story: "Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations."
We know about the Houston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute, complete direction in August 1971 when the President instructed Ehrilichman to "do whatever is necessary." This instruction led to a surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding's office. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."
The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."
Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions; impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray their public trust."
James Madison, again at the constitutional convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the process of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder.
Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? This is the question. We know that. We know the question.
We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.
It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
-
S2M - MP3
- Posts: 11981
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
- Location: In a bevy of whimsy
Re: What Goes Around...
by Rick » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:22 am
Behshad wrote:tj wrote:Moveon.org and others set the pace. You knew it would happen, I just didn't imagine it would happen before he took office...
'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
Explain the title you chose for this topic please
I'll try. How does sour grapes sound? Fuckin crybabies.
-
Rick - Super Audio CD
- Posts: 16726
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Texas
Re: What Goes Around...
by S2M » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:25 am
Rick wrote:Behshad wrote:tj wrote:Moveon.org and others set the pace. You knew it would happen, I just didn't imagine it would happen before he took office...
'Impeach Obama' groups pop up on Facebook
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105214913.k5rna1c2&show_article=1
Explain the title you chose for this topic please
I'll try. How does sour grapes sound? Fuckin crybabies.
ALERT ALERT Blatant misuse of the 'Sour Grapes' term......
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
-
S2M - MP3
- Posts: 11981
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
- Location: In a bevy of whimsy
by jrnyman28 » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 am
With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
- jrnyman28
- Compact Disc
- Posts: 6732
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 2:15 pm
by Don » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:57 am
jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
- Don
- Super Audio CD
- Posts: 24896
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm
by Behshad » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:09 am
Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
-
Behshad - MP3
- Posts: 12584
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am
by Don » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:18 am
Behshad wrote:Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 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.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
- Don
- Super Audio CD
- Posts: 24896
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm
by StevePerryHair » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:20 am
Behshad wrote:Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
Speaker of the House is next in line. Do we have one yet?
-
StevePerryHair - Digital Audio Tape
- Posts: 8504
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
- Location: Mickey's World
by Don » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:21 am
StevePerryHair wrote:Behshad wrote:Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
Speaker of the House is next in line. Do we have one yet?
That pertains to the current President, it would be a different scenario for the president and vice -president elect.
- Don
- Super Audio CD
- Posts: 24896
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm
by StevePerryHair » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:24 am
Gunbot wrote:StevePerryHair wrote:Behshad wrote:Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
Speaker of the House is next in line. Do we have one yet?
That pertains to the current President, it would be a different scenario for the president and vice -president elect.
And that scenario is.......
-
StevePerryHair - Digital Audio Tape
- Posts: 8504
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
- Location: Mickey's World
by Don » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:27 am
StevePerryHair wrote:Gunbot wrote:StevePerryHair wrote:Behshad wrote:Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
Speaker of the House is next in line. Do we have one yet?
That pertains to the current President, it would be a different scenario for the president and vice -president elect.
And that scenario is.......
Outlined in the post above yours.
(The Electoral College will pick someone)- Don
- Super Audio CD
- Posts: 24896
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm
by Red13JoePa » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:31 am
Here's a novel thought and I realize it may be an alien concept to some, BUT...
We'll have to wait and see.
personally I hope this guy doesn't endure from the republican side the kind of outright hatespeech, bullying and assassination that bush, republicans and even the office of the president itself as a result endured for the better part of 8 years.
Maybe the mccain supporters will find more productive ways of trying to sway the guy into doing stuff that strenghthens the country than say, oh, trying to have a sewer named after the President out of spite.
We'll have to wait and see.
personally I hope this guy doesn't endure from the republican side the kind of outright hatespeech, bullying and assassination that bush, republicans and even the office of the president itself as a result endured for the better part of 8 years.
Maybe the mccain supporters will find more productive ways of trying to sway the guy into doing stuff that strenghthens the country than say, oh, trying to have a sewer named after the President out of spite.
"I love almost everybody."---Rocky Balboa 1990
"Let's reform this thing.Let's go out and get some guys who want to work and go do it"--Neal Schon February, 2001
"I looked at Neal, and I just saw a guy who really wants his band back"-JCain 2/01
"Let's reform this thing.Let's go out and get some guys who want to work and go do it"--Neal Schon February, 2001
"I looked at Neal, and I just saw a guy who really wants his band back"-JCain 2/01
- Red13JoePa
- MP3
- Posts: 11646
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:43 pm
- Location: Happy Valley
by StevePerryHair » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:33 am
Gunbot wrote:StevePerryHair wrote:Gunbot wrote:StevePerryHair wrote:Behshad wrote:Gunbot wrote:jrnyman28 wrote:With all the impeach/assassination talk flying around, I have a somewhat morbid yet honest question. If Obama were to be assassinated today, who would become our next President? Would it honestly be Biden even though Obama has not officially taken office yet?
If the President-elect dies, then the Vice President-elect becomes president on Inauguration Day. That rule takes effect only after the meeting of the Electoral College. If the person unofficially called the President-elect dies before that meeting, then the Electoral College would have broad discretion to choose some other person.
Let me follow up by another morbid ye honest question.
What would happen if both were killed during the assassination? Would McCain get in automatically? Or would we have to have another election, with Bush as the president until the votes are all counted?
Just typing that gave me a chest pain.....
Speaker of the House is next in line. Do we have one yet?
That pertains to the current President, it would be a different scenario for the president and vice -president elect.
And that scenario is.......
Outlined in the post above yours.
Oh, I thought that was just if the electoral college hadn't gathered yet.-
StevePerryHair - Digital Audio Tape
- Posts: 8504
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
- Location: Mickey's World
by StevePerryHair » Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:39 am
I tried to look it up myself and I found that it's actually Congress who gets to decide? Does that sound right? And maybe not even they get to pick someone, but it seems like they could decide how it should be handled. I wonder if there would just be another election.
-
StevePerryHair - Digital Audio Tape
- Posts: 8504
- Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
- Location: Mickey's World
18 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests