Article II

[03_SHOOTER]

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. (Modified by the XII Amendment)

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. (Modified by the XXV Amendment)


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

[TruBlu]

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

I need some clarification on this part here. What I get out of this section here is this: The President can elect, on his own accord, members to the Senate in the absence of others on a temporary basis. Is that what that means? If so, why would that be allowed, to have one man elect individuals that could unfairly further his own policies? If not, what does it mean?

[03_SHOOTER]

I need some clarification on this part here. What I get out of this section here is this: The President can elect, on his own accord, members to the Senate in the absence of others on a temporary basis. Is that what that means? If so, why would that be allowed, to have one man elect individuals that could unfairly further his own policies? If not, what does it mean?

Nope, it means that the President may appoint people to fill vacancies in federal positions that normally would require the "advice and consent of the Congress" (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) should such a vacancy occur while Congress is in recess.

[TruBlu]

Nope, it means that the President may appoint people to fill vacancies in federal positions that normally would require the "advice and consent of the Congress" (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) should such a vacancy occur while Congress is in recess.

OK, makes a lot more sense than how I was reading it. Thanks. I'm sure I'll have more when I've got more time to read through and have time to dissect each part.

[03_SHOOTER]

OK, makes a lot more sense than how I was reading it. Thanks. I'm sure I'll have more when I've got more time to read through and have time to dissect each part.

I'm glad that I could clear that up for you.

[03_SHOOTER]

Some of you may recall the discussions about whether or not Sen. Obama is or is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. The case was originally brokered by a supporter of Sen. Clinton, and was dismissed by the District Court in Philadelphia on the grounds that the plaintiff didn't have "standing" to bring suit. WELL, it now appears that the same objections from another source are actually going to at least be considered by SCOTUS.

Donofrio v. Wells, Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz: Major Updates on Conference, Cort’s Renewed Application (http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1317)

December 1st, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, has been able to confirm that his case was referred to the full Court by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. This means that, per the docket, all 9 Justices have agreed to hold a Conference this Friday, December 5 to consider granting Certiorari. If this is granted, then the “Rule of Four” concept will then be in play.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Leo also updated everyone on Cort Wrotnowski’s case (where Cort is Plaintiff), Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. Apparently, after Cort called the Supreme Court requesting an update of his emergency stay renewal, he spoke with a certain individual who allegedly stated that his particular case (docket) had been referred to an anthrax containment facility! This news has led Leo Donofrio to call all concerned citizens to write the Supreme Court in diplomatic fashion to address this outrageous behavior.

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network)):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

Update: Dr. Orly Taitz’s commentary. Also, CountUsOut is showing a rallying cry to protest in front of SCOTUS, Friday, December 5, 8am ET until whenever.

The following is the full text of Leo’s blog entry…


CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Posted in Uncategorized on December 1, 2008 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE] Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski will be on Plains Radiotonight at 7:00 PM EST

CONFIRMED BY SCOTUS: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AFTER FIRST HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT BY JUSTICE THOMAS

by Bob Vernon, Honest American News - Plains Radio Network

December 1, 2008

On November 19, 2008, the official United States Supreme Court Docket for case number 08A407 - Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey - was updated to show that the “emergency stay application” to halt the national election and Electoral College meeting of 2008… was “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.” At that time, it was not clear whether this was scheduled for conference by Justice Thomas alone or by the full Court.

In multiple interviews with Leo C. Donofrio, this reporter and other members of the Plains Radio Network, were informed by Mr. Donofrio that he suspected the distribution for conference was an action taken by more than Justice Thomas alone. Mr. Donofrio suggested that another docket update stating the emergency application was referred to the full court by Justice Thomas should have appeared on the docket prior to the distribution for conference.

Since the docket did not reflect a prior referral it was widely accepted that the distribution for conference was an act of Justice Thomas alone. Honest American News can now confirm - by direct contact with the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office - that the distribution for conference of DONOFRIO V. WELLS was an action taken by the full court.

On November 28, 2008, the docket for case number 08A407 was updated to show, retroactively, that Justice Clarence Thomas did in fact refer Donofrio’s emergency stay application to the full court on November 19, 2008. Last night in an interview with…Plains Radio Network, Mr. Donofrio suggested that this new update, nine days later, indicated that the full Court had taken action to distribute the case for conference. Mr. Donofrio cited a SCOTUS public information document issued to reporters entitled:

A REPORTER’S GUIDE TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf

In that document, on page 3, it advises:

“The Circuit Justice may act on an application alone or refer it to the full Court for consideration. The fact that an application has been referred to the full Court may not be known publicly until the Court acts on the application and the referral is noted in the Court’s order.”

Mr. Donofrio pointed out in various interviews that since his case had been made public by the SCOTUS, there was probably a referral by Justice Thomas prior to the actual distribution for conference. Mr. Donofrio was correct.

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008.

Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas.

Mr. Donofrio will be on the Plains Radio Network tonight. SeePlainsradio.com for details.

Bob Vernon
Honest American News
Plains Radio Network
State: Texas

[HairyEyeball]

Under the presumption, farfetched though it may be, that such birth certificate is produced, and proves Baraq Hussein's Constitutional ineligibility for the position, the permutations might make for interesting speculation: While a sitting President, upon becoming incapacitated or otherwise unable to perform the duties and functions of the office, is succeeded by the Vice President, Baraq Hussien is not yet President, and Joe Blow Biden is not yet Vice President. Do we throw B.O. under the bus and continue the coronation with Biden? And if so, who might be his choice to slither into his vacated position?

Perhaps the election itself would be declared invalid - what provision would be invoked? Would an 'emergency election' be declared by the Nine Black Robes? Or since there is no place on the ballot to vote for Vice President, would the candidate with the next highest number of votes be declared the winner, giving us a less socialist liberal 'Republican' McCain Presidency (and four more years of 'stolen election' braying)?

And precisely what sanctions might be levied against the candidate who illegally campaigned, or the party that sponsored him (if any)?

[03_SHOOTER]

Well, I found this, and while it purports to address the possibility of the President-Elect dying before taking Office, I see no reason why the same principles wouldn't apply in case of some other form of disability from taking Office, and therefore it's being applicable here.
Death of a President (Elect) (http://presidentelect.org/art_deathpresidentelect.html)
by James R Whitson
September 4, 2008 (updated 9/10/2008)

"What happens if the president elect dies before being inaugurated?"

Since I finally changed the colors on my maps to match what everyone expects after the 2000 election, this has now become the most asked question I get! I've answered here before but since it still gets asked so often I'll elaborate. The first thing to note is that it matters when the person dies.

Let's tackle the easy one first. If a winning candidate dies after the election in November AND after the Electoral College votes in December then his running mate will be sworn in as President. After being sworn in he would then choose a Vice President who would then have to be confirmed by both Houses of Congress.

Here's where it gets tricky, though!

If a candidate wins on election day in November and then dies before the Electoral College counts the votes in December, then there is a problem! Technically the electors can already vote for whomever they want to even if the candidate is alive. So the most likely outcome with a death is that the electors would decide who would become president. Obviously the party of the candidate would have something to say about who they should vote for. But the electors would not be bound by the party's opinion. The best outcome would be for all the dead candidate's electors to come together and choose who to vote for in a single block. But that is complicated by the fact that the electors never really all come together at all -- the electors vote in their individual state capitals, not in one big group.

My thought is that most electors would probably vote for the vice presidential candidate for president. But then that opens up a whole new can of worms about who gets the VP slot on the electoral ballots! Once again the party would have suggestions, but once again electors would not be bound to that.

One last complication is the states that have laws that bind electors to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for. If those laws don't have provisions for the death of a candidate then that person will get votes!

So with electors able to vote for whomever they wish, some electors stuck voting for a dead guy, and a probable mishmash of vice presidential candidates getting votes, what does the result look like? Maybe an election sent to Congress to decide! It's easy to imagine. Assume DEAD CANDIDATE wins the election with 300 electoral votes while LOSER CANDIDATE loses with 238 votes. DEAD CANDIDATE then dies before the Electoral College votes. Here is one very possible count of the votes:


LOSER CANDIDATE: 238
DEAD CANDIDATE: 100 (from electors in states required to vote him)
DEAD CANDIDATE's VP: 150
OTHER GUY: 50 (from electors who decide to vote for someone else)
In that scenario no one has reached the required 270 votes to become president. The Constitution says the House of Representatives would have to pick the President from among the top three vote getters -- in this case LOSER CANDIDATE, DEAD CANDIDATE, and DEAD CANDIDATE's VP. So it is possible the House could pick the losing candidate to become the next president!

Assuming the same scenario above, we would now have to look at the electoral vote for Vice President. And here things could get much more hairy as there would be no obvious replacement as there was for the presidential pick. For this example, let's assume that several possible replacement VP's are lobbying for the votes:


LOSER CANDIDATE's VP: 238
DEAD CANDIDATE's VP: 100 (from electors in states required to vote for him)
OTHER GUY A: 90
OTHER GUY B: 75
OTHER GUY C: 35
In that scenario we have a big problem. Because the Constitution says that the Senate would pick the VP from the top TWO vote getters -- here LOSER CANDIDATE's VP and DEAD CANDIDATE's VP. But DEAD CANDIDATE's VP is already being voted on in the House for President! Could the same person be elected for both posts? Constitutionally I don't think so. What would probably happen is the House would vote for President first and then the Senate, knowing those results, would then vote for VP. But that again presents another problem. What if the House chooses DEAD CANDIDATE's VP for President? Since the Senate only has two choices to pick from and one of those has just been elected President does that mean they could only pick LOSER CANDIDATE's VP from the other party as the new Vice President?

Another scenario would be the electors settling on a different candidate for VP rather than splitting their votes, but again we could have another interesting situation arise:


LOSER CANDIDATE's VP: 238
DEAD CANDIDATE's VP: 100 (from electors in states required to vote for him)
OTHER GUY: 200
In that scenario we lose the risk of only having one choice for VP as the Senate will now be choosing between LOSER CANDIDATE's VP and OTHER GUY. Where's the problem? What if DEAD CANDIDATE's VP is not chosen by the House to become President? There's no way he could then be voted Vice President either in this case and the peoples' choice for both offices in the election will get neither post!

There is one last thing to consider -- precedent. In 1872, Horace Greeley died after the election but before the Electoral College voted. Since he lost the election (and therefore what happened afterwards didn't change a thing, technically) not many people even remember him or this story. As I mentioned as possibilities above, some electors voted for his running mate and some voted for other people as well -- besides his VP three other people got his electoral votes. But three of his electors went ahead and voted for him anyway. When it came time to count the votes Congress decided to toss the three votes of the dead candidate. But as he lost there was no real significance to it, other than the possible precedent it may have set.

Looking at my first scenario again:


LOSER CANDIDATE: 238
DEAD CANDIDATE: 100 (from electors in states required to vote him)
DEAD CANDIDATE's VP: 150
OTHER GUY: 50 (from electors who decide to vote for someone else)
Let's assume Congress followed the Greeley precedent and tossed the 100 votes cast for him. Since no one has 270 electoral votes we now have a scenario where Congress chooses from LOSER CANDIDATE, DEAD CANDIDATE's VP, and OTHER GUY. Right?

Not so fast! Following the Greeley precedent when Congress tossed the dead candidate's votes, that also changed the number required to win. Since it was just 3 votes it really didn't matter. But in this case it changes things massively. With 538 votes you need 270 to win. Toss 100 of those votes and you're left with 438. That means you just need 220 to win. And in this scenario LOSER CANDIDATE is now the clear winner without it ever having to go to the House for a decision!

Keep in mind this is all speculation. While it is very possible an opposing party candidate or someone who didn't even run could win office, it's also possible that things could work out fine. And if electors aren't bound to vote for a dead candidate or his running mate then that clears the way considerably for the winning party.

But, anything is possible in this scenario and that is why so many people seem to be interested in it!

(People think this is an interesting scenario? Just imagine the possibilities if both a presidential candidate AND his running mate die before the Electoral College counts the votes!)

[PhilK]

That was like reading an article about the BCS system as we approach Bowl Season.

[03_SHOOTER]

That was like reading an article about the BCS system as we approach Bowl Season.

Makes you go run screaming for the kitchen, looking for the BIG bottle of Motrin? :D

[HairyEyeball]

It's obvious that Mr. Whitson has invested some research (and a lot of speculation) in the question, but just who is this James R Whitson?

Perhaps it was the way I read it, but his permutations don't appear to take into account the overwhelmingly liberal composition of both Houses, a 'fact' that has somewhat greater influence on any outcome, should it reach that point, than much of the 'theory' he presents.

One may well wonder if these are, indeed, the 'interesting times' the Chinese wished on us.

[Billyd]

Makes you go run screaming for the kitchen, looking for the BIG bottle of Motrin? :D

I was thinking Jack