Obama loses then wins the election

[Saint Cad]

A few things happen but are not impossible.

McCain wins a few key states by a few votes (like Michigan), so he wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. A few Democrats seeing a chance to pull an end-around seeing how Obama "won" the election like Gore did in 2000 raise an objection to the votes while being counted claiming McCain is not a "natural-born citizen". Whether or not he is is not for this debate.

a) Considering Obama won the popular vote, would the Democratically controlled legislature uphold the objection thereby implementing the 12th Amendment.

b) Would McCain have any recourse or would the SCOTUS rule it a political question.

c) If it does go to a vote of the states' delegations, obviously McCain can't win so would Obama be a lock?

d) Especially after the 2000/Florida debacle, how would the American public react if this were seriously attempted or successful.

[Cisco]

I can't quite figure out what your question (or debate) is, or what is has to do with the 12th, but the person who wins the electoral vote wins the election. Period.

And whether or not John McCain is a natural born citizen is settled. He is. That will never be seriously or legitimately challenged.

[foolsguinea]

Um, McCain's the child of two US citizens, has served as a US Senator, & is a freakin' war veteran. Not a natural-born citizen? Really? The GOP might favor that kind of cynical rules-lawyering, but the Dems (who by the way are fielding a candidate with one foreign parent) aren't that stupid.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I can't quite figure out what your question (or debate) is, or what is has to do with the 12th, but the person who wins the electoral vote wins the election. Period.

And whether or not John McCain is a natural born citizen is settled. He is. That will never be seriously or legitimately challenged.

Agreed. And if, by some weird series of events, it were to be considered not settled, then it would be the SCOTUS that would do the settling, not the legislature.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Cisco

I can't quite figure out what your question (or debate) is, or what is has to do with the 12th, but the person who wins the electoral vote wins the election. Period.

And whether or not John McCain is a natural born citizen is settled. He is. That will never be seriously or legitimately challenged.

My understanding is that any member of Congress can object to the electoral vote then the body must vote on the objection. IIRC, a Demo congresswoman pro forma objected to the votes from Florida in 2000.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

My understanding is that any member of Congress can object to the electoral vote then the body must vote on the objection. IIRC, a Demo congresswoman pro forma objected to the votes from Florida in 2000.

Didn't Al Gore himself, as president of the senate, tell her her objection was unwarranted? A link to what you're referring to would help the discussion move along if you mean something else.

[jayjay]

Challenges to the candidates' citizenship from either side is silly and stupid. Both of these men have been involved in legislative office for years (in McCain's case, decades). If they were seriously not even American citizens, it would have come out before this. Even as a fervid Obama supporter, I can see that challenging McCain's citizenship is idiocy.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Challenges to the candidates' citizenship from either side is silly and stupid. Both of these men have been involved in legislative office for years (in McCain's case, decades). If they were seriously not even American citizens, it would have come out before this. Even as a fervid Obama supporter, I can see that challenging McCain's citizenship is idiocy.

In the OP, I specifically asked not to discuss IF McCain is a NBC. My question was what if a Democrat in Congress uses that as an objection and forces it to a vote?

From our pal Wiki

On January 6, 2001, a joint-session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Right, but McCain is an American citizen. There really isn't any wiggle room there.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

In the OP, I specifically asked not to discuss IF McCain is a NBC. My question was what if a Democrat in Congress uses that as an objection and forces it to a vote?

From our pal Wiki

My apologies. I missed that part of the OP.

At that point, it would be discussed and (hopefully) voted down because it's simply not true. We're not talking a campaign gambit here, or fudging the truth in an ad. To vote yes on such a motion would be an obvious abuse of Congressional power for partisan purposes to overthrow the vote of the American electorate. I speak as a registered Democrat and Obama supporter when I say that I hold out the hope that the Democratic majority in the Senate and House would have more honor and honesty than to execute a partisan coup d'etat.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever

Right, but McCain is an American citizen. There really isn't any wiggle room there.

Once again. He is a citizen and most consider him a NBC.

IGNORE THAT FOR THIS DEBATE SINCE THAT WOULD MERELY BE THE REASON (LEGITIMATE OR NOT) FOR THE OBJECTION TO FORCE CONGRESS TO VOTE ON THE OBJECTIONS.

Granted it may be a consideration for the actual states' voting, but that is immaterial to the questions I asked. If you want to claim that the objection would not be upheld for the NBC reason, then that would answer question a.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Once again. He is a citizen and most consider him a NBC.

IGNORE THAT FOR THIS DEBATE SINCE THAT WOULD MERELY BE THE REASON (LEGITIMATE OR NOT) FOR THE OBJECTION TO FORCE CONGRESS TO VOTE ON THE OBJECTIONS.

Granted it may be a consideration for the actual states' voting, but that is immaterial to the questions I asked. If you want to claim that the objection would not be upheld for the NBC reason, then that would answer question a.

What is the point of this debate? It's premise is ludicrous.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Once again. He is a citizen and most consider him a NBC.

IGNORE THAT FOR THIS DEBATE SINCE THAT WOULD MERELY BE THE REASON (LEGITIMATE OR NOT) FOR THE OBJECTION TO FORCE CONGRESS TO VOTE ON THE OBJECTIONS.

Granted it may be a consideration for the actual states' voting, but that is immaterial to the questions I asked. If you want to claim that the objection would not be upheld for the NBC reason, then that would answer question a.

Right, if you want me to ignore the fact for a silly premise, then let's all embrace intelligent design.

[glee]

I don't understand why you link winning the 'popular vote' (which means nothing in legal terms) with objecting to McCain 'not being eligible'.

Do you think that one justifies the other somehow?

Like everyone else outside the US I detest Bush and the crass things he's done. But I would be appalled if someone attempted this illegal and silly way of overturning the election. I assume therefore that feelings would be even stronger inside the US, so no politician would even attempt it.
If they did succeed there would be a huge swelling of support for McCain being restored to his rightful position.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Once again. He is a citizen and most consider him a NBC.

IGNORE THAT FOR THIS DEBATE

But that is the basis of the topic you wish to discuss.

Are you asking what the procedure is for challenging a candidate's legal qualifications for the job? Try GQ for that.

[tomndebb]

Why don't we just posit that some Democrat will raise an objection based on the complaint that McCain has not yet attained the age of 35?

I'm sorry. If you want to discuss hypothetical situations in which one party or another could actually screw the election, then do enough research on Constitutional law to come up with a legitimate premise and posit a hypothetical situation 20 or 40 years in the future. Let's not jack around the political brawls on this Forum with ludicrous proposals that require that we all suspend our disbelief regarding the real actions of real people (while opening the door to all sorts of catcalls that "your side would too behave badly").

If you are seriuous about the topic, open a new thread that is clearly hypothetical (using the Bigender and Smallender parties as examples, rather than the current parties).

This is closed.

[ /Moderating ]