You want to see real CHAOS? How about an electoral college tie - 269 to 269

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two independent clauses. They actually have nothing to do with each other than being said in the same sentence.

Take this from the Constitution: 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 Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Does being commander in chief have anything to do with pardons?

NO!!!

Who did the VP vote for in previous instances of an EC tie?

 

[Auld Phart]

Two independent clauses. They actually have nothing to do with each other than being said in the same sentence.

Take this from the Constitution: 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 Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Does being commander in chief have anything to do with pardons?

NO!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two independent clauses. They actually have nothing to do with each other than being said in the same sentence.

Take this from the Constitution: 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 Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Does being commander in chief have anything to do with pardons?

NO!!!

Two independent clauses. They actually have nothing to do with each other than being said in the same sentence.

And no sentence in the 12th Amendment mentions the Vice President having a vote.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[postman]

Right. Votes by "not the Senate" are counted in the Senate.

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

You can Ass-u-me it has something to do with the first clause, but as I pointed out, The president being commander in chief, has nothing to do with pardons.

 

[Auld Phart]

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

You can Ass-u-me it has something to do with the first clause, but as I pointed out, The president being commander in chief, has nothing to do with pardons.

no one, BUT YOU, is claiming his position it does.

Granting pardons has nothing to do with him being CiC.

why are you deflecting with such obvious bait?

 

[CrazyTrader55]

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

You can Ass-u-me it has something to do with the first clause, but as I pointed out, The president being commander in chief, has nothing to do with pardons.

The Supreme Court will clarify this if necessary.

It's clear to anyone who can read.

In the event of a tie EC vote:

The presidential vote goes to the House, where each state has ONE VOTE. All house districts within the state have a representative. Those reps vote. The winner of that vote gets that state's single vote.

The VP goes to the Senate under similar rules.

It is possible for Trump to win the presidency and Walz to win the Vice Presidency OR vice-versa under this scenario.

 

[postman]

Who did the VP vote for in previous instances of an EC tie?

That was before the 12th amendment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

You can Ass-u-me it has something to do with the first clause, but as I pointed out, The president being commander in chief, has nothing to do with pardons.

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

The President of the Senate breaks ties in Senate votes.
There is no mention of anyone, let alone the VP, breaking ties in the Electoral College.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

The President of the Senate breaks ties in Senate votes.
There is no mention of anyone, let alone the VP, breaking ties in the Electoral College.

he knows.
He can't get anyone to pay attention to him in the real world, so he come here to troll.
Respond accordingly.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'd laugh my ass off.

Why Not Laugh at the Anti-Sages Who Scribbled the Sacred-Cow Constitution?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

It depends on what the meaning of "they" is.

Using Today's Brainwreck Grammar, "They" Could Mean the Vice-President

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The constitution doesn't specify who "they" is, when it comes to tie votes.

The President of the Senate breaks ties in Senate votes.
There is no mention of anyone, let alone the VP, breaking ties in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fodder: Wags Wearing Wigs

The disqualifying ties in the House, mentioned by James Michener (Presidential Lottery, 1969) didn't have to be that way. Whichever screwball wrote that restriction could have easily given the state's Governor the deciding vote in order to break the inevitable deadlock.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The Founding Fodder: Wags Wearing Wigs

The disqualifying ties in the House, mentioned by James Michener (Presidential Lottery, 1969) didn't have to be that way. Whichever screwball wrote that restriction could have easily given the state's Governor the deciding vote in order to break the inevitable deadlock.

Prior to the adoption of the Electoral College the Founding Fathers had discussed the possibility of having the President elected by governors. Of course there would need to be some kind of tie breaking procedure. Presumably this was rejected by the states with larger populations.

 

[BackAgain]

An electoral college tie? Hell yeah! Let’s do it.

 

[scruffy]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/04/politics/tie-presidential-election-what-matters/index.html

This is fascinating. As if the political situation isn’t already crazy enough and the country divided enough, picture this:

Trump and Harris finish in a 269 to 269 electoral college tie. Several maps are shown of how this could happen. Now we will shift into tie breaker mode.... Advantage TRUMP.

That'll be worth at least one nationwide leftard riot

 

[M14 Shooter]

An electoral college tie? Hell yeah! Let’s do it.

I'm in.

 

[Lisa558]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/04/politics/tie-presidential-election-what-matters/index.html

This is fascinating. As if the political situation isn’t already crazy enough and the country divided enough, picture this:

Trump and Harris finish in a 269 to 269 electoral college tie. Several maps are shown of how this could happen. Now we will shift into tie breaker mode.... Advantage TRUMP.

Yup. Trump doesn’t need 270 to win. He needs just 269. The DEI pick needs 270.

 

[CrazyTrader55]

Yup. Trump doesn’t need 270 to win. He needs just 269. The DEI pick needs 270.

Be careful.... A 269-269 tie isn't a guarantee for Trump to win on a tiebreaker, not with how divided we are in this country. If the Marxist wins the popular vote by millions, I'm not sure you wouldn't see Republicans vote for her instead of Trump in order to avoid riots.

 

[Lisa558]

Be careful.... A 269-269 tie isn't a guarantee for Trump to win on a tiebreaker, not with how divided we are in this country. If the Marxist wins the popular vote by millions, I'm not sure you wouldn't see Republicans vote for her instead of Trump in order to avoid riots.

The RINOS, anyway.

Sort of the way the SCOTUS wouldn’t hear the election case in 2020. Same thing.

 

[JoeB131]

The RINOS, anyway.

Sort of the way the SCOTUS wouldn’t hear the election case in 2020. Same thing.

SCOTUS is made up of 8 of the same 9 people it's made up of now.

I'm sure Trump will file a bunch of bullshit claims, no matter how badly he loses this time. And they won't here those, either.