"Constitutional Responsibility" Means Senate Defeats Nominee But House Decides Prez

[Land Shark]

Today the Repubs say they will stop Trump "by any means necessary" whether he has delegates or not, via floor votes. To heck with democracy! Apparently the Constitution is on their side, with Lopez-Torres v. NEW YORK BD OF ELECTIONS holding that candidates need not get a "fair shot" and have no right to a fair process.

If they screw Trump they may or may not get Trump's promised riots, bit we will get an independent run by Trump. And if we get an independent run by Trump, it is entirely possible.or even fairly likely that trump.could veer somewhat more left and pick up, say, Democratic states - just a couple or a few. Enough to make it hard to get a pure majority.

Without a real majority, the Republican House of Representatives picks our next president, on a one state one vote basis per the 12th amendment. That means a losing Republican is president.

So if everyone is going to go against the Republicans purported invite to be more.democratic and let the voters decide SCOTUS opening, in favor of lobbying to DO THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, the Republicans easiky dodge the bullet by voting down every nominee. So easy for them.

But come November, if there is a three way race we are in danger of having the House pick the President because of the 12th amendment. So HARD for us -- because we would be hypocrites to oppose the House it if we urge the Senate this Particular way.

And if that hapoens, how will all the Democrats who screamed for the Senate to do their constitutional responsibility object to the House doing their constitutional responsibility and installing a Republican who most likely lost the popular vote AND lost the elector college and even lost their own party's primary elections as the next PRESIDENT??

It is simple for the Republicans to vote down a nominee, while dedicating ourselves to constitutional responsibility could mean the least popular Republican is in stalled as the next President.

I do not guarantee no candidate with a majority. I don't think replies that attempt to say it won't happen are particularly necessary. I'm just saying that there is a Constitutional sinkhole if no one gets a majority and everybody should be aware of that gaping hole in democracy so we don't accidently fall into it.

Under the circumstances where the likelihood of 3 major candidates rises every day, it is dumb to get everyone rushing to commit themselves to "constitutional responsibility" of the Senate unless we can show why the Senate has to do its responsibility but the House doesn't. "CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" DOESN'T GIVE US ANYTHING, JUST A VOTE, BUT IT MAY GIVE THE REPUBLICANS THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER WE BEAT THEM.

[Trust Buster]

1. That would make Trump's riots pale in comparison.

[Land Shark]

2. Yeah, but by then we'd all be on record strongly opposing riots too

Undemocratic presidential installations on alleged "constitutional" grounds like Bush v Gore may be the one place riots or the threat thereof is justified. Said riots would simply be violently shut down and Dems wouod be in no position to complain.

The point is, this Senate "constitutional responsibility" approach leaves us in a very poor position for November, if the 12th amendment gets triggered.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. There would be riots for following the Constitution? n/t

[Trust Buster]

23. Yes. And I'd be leading it.

[Land Shark]

24. Then let's be consistent - if Trump gets screwed his people have the right to demonstrate

Not saying you are not consistent ....

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. Nice n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. What do you suggest

if no candidate were to get enough electoral votes? Other than rioting, that is.

[Trust Buster]

27. If Hillary receives the most votes but a a Republican-controlled House threw the election to

a Republican, well you can fill in the blanks.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. You didn't answer the question

Popular vote means nothing in a Presidential election.

So, if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, how do you suggest the Presidency be decided, since you don't want to follow the Constitution?

[Trust Buster]

29. As an American citizen, I said my peace. I have nothing further to add to this subject. Good day

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. That's cool

I didn't realize there were Democrats who have zero respect for the Constitution - I thought that was limited to Republicans.

[Land Shark]

33. There are a few parts of Constitution that are very unpopular but not yet amended like electoral

College.

Post Bush v. GORE arguably the worst thing about it was not losing the Presidency by a "constitutional" coup, but the silence afterward in the sense of lack of protest.

In this case, if everyone gets in board with a "constitutional responsibility" band wagon, they are neutered or at least somewhat neutralized when it comes to the House making undemocratic choices. So....

If the question goes to the House, we would want to scream with all our being to DO THE DEMOCRATIC THING AND RESPECT THE PEOPLE.

If we are not on that message now, and indeed are insisting on constitutional responsibility, our ability to put appropriate democratic/moral pressure on the House is greatly impaired. Those who flip to wanting democracy will be hypocrites.

I believe the person with most votes OUGHT TO WIN. In the House the election is a political question. Arguments for democracy have a lot of force, but wouod be neutered by charges of hypocrisy.

So I'm saying don't commit to the framing that is being proposed, namely that of "constitutional responsibility." Preserve our ability to argue vociferously for democracy.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. The Constitutionality isn't based on who they choose

it's based on them making the choice.

If it were a Democratic House and the Republican candidate got the most votes, we'd all be calling for the House to elect the Democratic candidate. That's where they hypocrisy comes in, IMO.

I wouldn't expect a Republican House to choose a Democratic President any more than I would expect a Democratic House to choose a Republican President.

[Land Shark]

35. Understood. But even in losing, bit ching rights are important

And since it is a political choice in the House, one certainly has the right to butch -- unless one was just saying the exact opposite days or weeks earlier

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. I guess I don't consider bitching rights important

Doesn't change anything.

[Land Shark]

37. Bit ching rights is politics and strong bit ching rights is wining politics over time

I may not have selected the best words by saying "hitching rights". Being on the pro-democracy side of issues is historically being on the winning and progressive side (expanding rights to vote to universal suffrage)

But that said, are you really serious that if you lose the Presidency in the House to a candidate that got fewer popular votes and fewer electoral votes because of the choice of the Republicans in the house, you really don't care if you have any bitching rights after that?

Maybe someone can steal other things from you for perhaps technically legal but sneaky reasons and you will just be quiet and have a smile on your face?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. That's where we differ

I wouldn't consider it stealing. Given that we would probably end up with a Republican President, I wouldn't like the outcome, but if nothing illegal or unconstitutional is done, I don't consider it stealing.

And as you've pointed out, if bitching rights are important to you (general you, not you in particular), then the best way to retain them is to not be a hypocrite.

[Chan790]

40. You understand that it's a virtual certainty...

that the Republican President we'd end up with would be a likely distant third-place finisher?

It's not even comparable to 2000...there was an actual significant number of American that wanted George W. Bush as President...neither of us was among them, but we can't really deny that they actually existed. There is not likely to be any real base of public backing for this outcome, few supporters of the pretender President and no legitimacy in the public mind of this outcome.

You're talking about the imposition of a US President that likely finished 3rd of 3 in both EC and popular votes and won only a handful of states...like less than 10, possibly less than 5.

Yes, I'd expect the American public to rise up to reject that result as tyranny and oppression.

[Land Shark]

42. Yes i agree. That is the scenario I am envisioning in the OP

Not saying it WILL happen but the chances keep getting higher every day.

Three way races have special dynamics, especially when two of the three are closely related to each other. But that is another subject.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

44. I don't consider following the Constitution to be

tyranny and oppression. YMMV.

[Chan790]

46. That amuses me.

Do I believe that the Constitution is some magically-perfect document and that strict adherence to it can never have unintended and undesirable outcomes?

In a word?

No.

I don't believe the Constitution or strict adherence to it to be infallible. I don't think anybody but Clarence Thomas and you does.

I absolutely however believe in minoritarian tyranny and that any result imposed on the many by the very, very few is oppressive.

More to the point, I think the vast majority of Americans would consider the Constitutional outcome in this scenario illegitimate...to a point that I am skeptical that the Republic survives it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. Hmmm

I don't believe the Constitution or strict adherence to it to be infallible. I don't think anybody but Clarence Thomas and you does.

I don't believe the Constitution is infallible either, but I do believe in strict adherence to it, as it is the supreme law of the land. If we don't like it, then we should push to have it amended, but not agreeing with it doesn't mean we can or should ignore it.

Picking and choosing which parts are legitimate and which aren't makes it pretty useless as a governing document.

[Trust Buster]

39. Fantasizing about Hillary receiving the most votes in the general but not a majority and

having a Republican-controlled a House award the presidency to a Republican IS A REPUBLICAN FANTASY. I wish THAT behavior could be limited to Republicans but the Sanders supporters have used every Republican tactic on this forum much to my chagrin.

[Land Shark]

43. People need to be aware of where the potholes are so they don't fall in

Your reply here doesn't make a lot of sense because the OP doesn't help Republicans or hurt the Democratic nominee, so you have nothing to be chagrined about.

[onenote]

3. Do tell: which Democratic states would Trump "likely" win with a third party run

Please be specific. Otherwise, your long and somewhat shouting post is nothing but unsupported speculation.

And what exactly would be the constitutional argument against the House picking whomever they pick?

[Land Shark]

7. People should be aware of the consequences of third candidates, but that said

"Trump's strongest support is with registered Democrats and those at the periphery of the Republican party." See. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html?referer=&_r=0

Best regions are Appalachia and industrial north. I'm from Michigan. In a 3 way race where a traditional republican grabs many republican regulars, Trump could compete in Michigan. You may laugh, I dunno, but then nobody thought Hillary would lose Michigan and fair trade is THE issue. West Virginia coal country.

Short of winning any states it would also be easy for the Republican legislatures of blue states to redefine how electors are chosen, given their plenary lower to do so, and make electors proportional like Maine and Nebraska currently or. Or just proportional by % of the vote. If a small handful of states do that the effect is the same as losing a state or two.

My main point is to make people aware of this possible problem. I hope it doesn't happen and if you don't think it will happen I'm fine with that.

[OhioBlue]

4. I think that would be very difficult unless he ran as a write-in

The Republican National Convention ends on 7-21

The deadline to get on the ballot as an independent will have expired in 12 states. The deadline will expire in another 12 within 11 days.

edit to add link: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

[corkhead]

5. Do you think the "poorly educated" he loves so much would be able to spell his name?

[OhioBlue]

6. lol....

I wonder how many "Mother F'in Trummp" write-ins there would be.

[Land Shark]

10. He may have legal arguments for exceptions

Unfair nomination processes are constitutional under Lopez-Torres' unanimous opinion, but some judges wrote a special opinion to say they think it would be different if there weren't another way to get on the ballot such as by collecting signatures. Obviously that argument would be most applicable against republicans themselves, but it could also be raised as an argument for an equitable exception to those ballot access requirements you refer to.

[OhioBlue]

13. Where could he even start with such a legal argument?

Would this be State by State and subject to appeal?

Is there a feasible way this could happen in time for the ballots to include him as an independent?

[Land Shark]

18. Maybe he will start on it NOW given R's discuss their plans openly in media today

He can hold off filing til last second.

But you know trump's got the ego to think he could win without being on the ballot in x states.

[Chan790]

41. I think you miss the obvious.

I doubt he runs as a true indie. I'd wager that he "buys" the nomination of a third-party (or third parties) with substantial ballot access who would sell their nomination for the opportunity to make the major-party jump by capturing the Presidency.

This goes hand-to-hand with the similar suggestion on the other side that Greens will ask Stein to stand aside to Sanders should Clinton win the Democratic nomination...the difference is I don't see Stein doing that or Sanders accepting. They're not exactly simpatico on all that much.

I can totally see Trump shunting someone off the Libertarian line on the GE ballot with a lot of Libertarian support for such a move.

[L. Coyote]

8. Trump isn't a threat to anyone but himself.

One of the great things about ignorance and stupidity, just let it talk long enough and it reveals itself fully.

But I'm thinking Trump has an Alzheimer's problem. It is just beginning and that is why his impulse control is so deteriorated. He is far enough along to run for President even if totally unqualified, his memory is obviously shot, but he still covers very well and doesn't realize his trajectory. He even has that Reaganesque attitude, a cavalier detachment from reality. But, he's in no shape to finish the race, just watch and listen.

[Skittles]

15. I disagree

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:11 AM - Edit history (1)

if you don't think a babbling idiot can be installed into the White House, you must be forgetting about Dubya

[Land Shark]

17. Good point

[Pakhet]

19. But w had smart (evil but smart) people running his show

Trump runs his own show

[Skittles]

20. please stop with this SMART nonsense

SMART PEOPLE do not allow the biggest terrorist attack in American history, they don't crash the economy, they don't endorse torture, they don't start SENSELESS WARS, they're not anti-science - Bush's puppet masters were not SMART - they were just plain EVIL

[HuckleB]

30. Exactly. And that's what makes the Dem infighting so infuriating...

... at least to me.

I don't see the big issues between our big two as being too hard to overcome.

We cannot face a repeat of 2000.

[Recursion]

9. Some interesting things about the House voting for President

1. They can only choose among the top 3 electoral vote recipients (so no dark horses)

2. It's the new House, not the current one

3. (This one is very interesting) they don't vote individually, but by state, so the question is how many states have a majority of Representatives from the two parties?

[Land Shark]

12. You are 100% correct, thank you Recursion. :)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. I've not seen where it must be the new House

either way, you're right, it wouldn't matter who held the majority in the House, it would matter how held the majority of the states in the House.

[flamingdem]

11. Haha no one wants Cruz

bet we run even better against Cruz with Trumpsters sitting it out.

[Skittles]

14. repukes will know how we felt in 2000

yes indeed

[Land Shark]

16. Only if Dems have majorities in 26 state delegations after the 2016 elections

[Kip Humphrey]

31. That gaping hole in democracy is precisely what has kept us stuck in a 2-party system forever.

It is also a longstanding reason to call a Constitutional Convention and sits besides the universal right to vote, human rights, FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights, etc.. Unfortunately, given the insanity that inhabits much of our society in this era, a Constitutional Convention would prove lethal.

[Land Shark]

45. The electoral college is in the process of constitutional amendment

They are just trying to do it with the interstate voting compact- as if the constitution can be amended by a contract. Not sure that will work, but the idea is that the states agree to pledge delegates to the top vote.getter amongst all the states in the compact.

On point here, some states would be agreeing to send their electors for a candidate other than what the citizens of their own state voted for.

[Kip Humphrey]

47. Given the latitude states themselves have in managing their electoral obligations, this "compact"

approach is likely legal, just not sure how binding it could be.

[Land Shark]

49. Well, here's the deal. The Constitution provides only ONE way to change it: amendment, not compact

The lawn is familiar with the concept of nondelegable duties, and I could easily see a court holding that states may not delegate their decision about electors to a non-state based system or entity. For example, could a state legislature sell its electors to the highest out of state bidder? Probably not. So there are limits to this allegedly plenary power. What the chances are of being upheld or struck down I can't really say for sure.

[Land Shark]

50. And TODAY, the NYT reports Republicans are working on an independent campaign with "real" Repub

They say the ballot access question is manageabls, UT efforts should start in March, or perhaps use the Libertarian party which is already on but names a candidate in May.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=2&referer=http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/anti-trump-republicans-may-tap-third-party-candidate-as-a-desperate-measure-to-stop-donald-trump/