Not true. The Constitution specifies a majority, not 270. Gore would win.
stoid
Oh shit. I agree with Stoidela.
I try not to reply to threads I haven’t completely read or scanned because I know that someone else almost always answers for me.
Please excuse.
stoid
I don’t think anyone will count it against you in matters of FACT vs. opinion, F2.
stoid
I was getting used to disputing facts with you as well as opinions.
We are getting closer to endgame scenarios, with major legal and constitutional issues still unresolved. See this article in today’s NY Times
So the question is - if no one is able to resolve these issues, what happens? It would seem to me that Clinton might prevail by simply handing the physical trappings of government to Gore and the Democrats. (My wife suggests a civil war, featuring the national guards of Florida and Texas against the US army).
IzzyR, it never ceases to amaze me how Republicans who dislike Clinton seem endlessly able to conjure up all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy thoughts.
Assuming that there is still some doubt about the legality of the election results in Florida, Dec. 18 will probably result in the following actions: A group of designated Republican electors will meet in Talahassee and vote. The results of that vote will be sealed and sent to Congress. A group of Democratic electors will do the same.
Come January 6 (or the 5th, if pending legislation in Congress is passed and becomes law), Congress will meet in joint session, presided over by Al Gore (President of the Senate). At that session, one of two things will happen. Either the sealed envelope from Florida’s Republicans will be opened, the votes read off, and a Democratic congressman will object, or neither envelope will be opened and the issue of which envelope should be opened will have to be resolved.
Now, in 1876, when this precise scenario occurred (with the states Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana in dispute), the Congress appointed an Electoral Commission, a 15 member body that was supposed to have 14 Dems, 14 GOP members, and one independent, with the power of resolving the issue of which electors should be considered legitimate in each state. Illinois Republicans engineered the selection of the independent member to the US Senate, forcing him to decline his appointment to the Commission. He was replaced with a moderate Republican from the Supreme Court, who proceded to vote party-line with the other Republicans to validate all the Republican electors, neccessary if Hayes was to win the election. Anyone watching this year’s nonsense shouldn’t be surprised; as 1876 shows, party loyalty is more important than application of reason or logic, and that is really to be anticipated in our system.
Now, since then, Congress passed legislation in 1887 which might change how such a scenario plays out this year. According to news reports, assuming that a challenge is made to the credentials of any electors, there is no debate in the joint session. The houses of Congress immediately repair to individual sessions where they are allowed a maximum of two hours debate. Any challenge must be upheld by a majority vote in both houses. You can guess the chances that the House is going to successfully challenge any Republican electors from Florida. What isn’t clear is what happens if there are two envelopes: does one get opened, the votes allowed subject to challenge? Or do they remain unopened until Congress solves the question of which should be opened?
One important difference from 1876: at that time, the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, which gave them just enough political clout to force at least the appearance of bipartisanship in the resolution of the issue.
If by Jan. 20 this isn’t resolved, then by act of Congress, first Dennis Hastert (who has said he would refuse the job), then good old Strom Thurmond (who hasn’t said anything, probably because he’s asleep 
) would become acting president until such time as the situation IS resolved.
DSYoungEsq,
The thing about the civil war was a joke. But my understanding is that the GSA was taking orders from the Clinton people (John Podesta, specifically) in refusing to turn over the transition offices and cash to Bush. Certainly positions seem to be hardening on both sides of the aisle, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that the current administration, firm in the belief that Gore has been legally elected, will favor him in transition matters.
It’s easy to talk about the issues being “resolved”. But with many open constitutional issues, there exists the possibility that there is no mechanism for resolving them. The NYT seemed to suggest that. I don’t think you’ve addressed that adequately.
Regarding the Strom Thurmond thing, does the President Pro Tempore serve for a designated time period, or can he be voted in and out at any time? Because the Democrats are likely to be in control of the Senate from January 3 to January 20, and if they can replace Thurmond they are likely to do so (if there’s something at stake in it.)
BTW, if you can get to it, I could use your comments here
Thought #1: John Podesta specifically denied to CNN last night that he spoke to the GSA about the transition issue. This isn’t to say that the supposition about the Clinton administration letting GSA know they would prefer transition funds not be released isn’t a correct supposition, but let’s provide some actual evidence they did so before levelling the accusation, in light of the specific denial from Mr. Podesta (see, it’s that conspiracy thing again).
Thought #2: I didn’t mean to imply that all of what will happen is already set in stone by either the past example or the federal law. There are permutations possible, but let’s keep in mind that there ARE both constitutional provisions and federal laws applicable. On top of which, we have to keep in mind the Republicans are in the driver’s seat, and so far, they have shown willingness to use their political power where neccessary, as may occur in Florida with the soon to be convened special session of the state legislature.
Now, as to Strom baby, I’m not sure that, for purposes of organizing the Senate, that the President of the Senate has any power. News organizations were reporting pretty consistently before, during, and after the election that a 50/50 tie in the Senate left the Republicans as the majority party, though I concede they may not have been thinking of the roughly 15 days between the convening of the Senate and the inauguration of a new Vice-President. Someone with more information than I about the rules of the Senate could perhaps expound further as to whether the Democrats have the ability under the rules of the Senate to remove Strom as President Pro-tempore and install someone of their own. I suspect not.
By the way, here is an interesting constitutional question: suppose that by Jan. 20 no President or Vice-President is actually elected by the electors. Who is the Secretary of State? Do the incumbent Cabinet officers retain their position until kicked out by a new President? Or do THEY serve terms certain, ending the day their President’s term ends? If so, and if BOTH Mr. Hastert and Mr. Thurmond were to decline the ‘honor’ of Acting President, WHO becomes the President???
Question 1: Is the Senate President Pro Tem automatically its most senior member or is he elected every 2 years? I can see Joe Lieberman being chosen during the Democrats’ 17-day period of control; howjalikedemapples? I’m not sure Thurmond would even understand what was happening, anyway.
Question 2: Could the Speaker actually decline the honor, or would the Presidency devolve upon him automatically? He could resign immediately, I’m sure.
Re Cabinet officers, I always thought they remained in office until they’re fired or resign, regardless of the President. Leastwise, I’ve never heard of a mass exodus at any other changeover.
I’ve read elsewhere that the GSA is not allowed to make office space available until the next President is clearly chosen, due to a law passed right after the 1960 dustup to prevent any kind of mischief. I’ll try to find a link. If that’s the case, then the only criticism of Clinton could be for his refusing to recognize Bush as the clear winner. But of course, validity has never been necessary to criticize Clinton (different topic).
Meanwhile, Bush is getting his daily intelligence briefings and I have no doubt he has his cabinet quietly picked, whoever did the actual picking. The rest of the transition work seems way overblown in significance.
IzzyR, regarding there being no mechanism for resolving Constitutional issues, I refer you to the Supreme Court.
How about Bush is elected president, and Cheney dies of a heart attack a few hours after the inaguaration, leaving no-one to run the country!
tj
The problem with this is that the powers that put them in the driver’s seat are themselves the subject of dispute among legal scholars. In the scenario that the NY Times envisioned, the legislature might select the Bush electors, the Gore people deem that unconstitutional and hence null, and then congress split on the issue, along House/Senate lines.
Not that any of this is extremely likely, but what has happened so far that is?
ElvisL1ves,
Not only do I link the NY Times article, but I actually quoted the part that said “One party or the other might try to take the case to the Supreme Court, but many legal scholars doubt the court would get involved”. You can lead a horse to water…
You can find most of the Senate’s standing rules at http://www.senate.gov
From what I read, the Senate can choose anyone it wants to be for the job of Senate President Pro Tem. However, it traditionally goes to the senior member of the Majority Power. I doubt that the Democrats would try to force Thurmond out of the job. Giving it to Lieberman would likely face opposition from both sides of the aisle, most likely from Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who would be the Democrat in line for that job. Byrd is not one to tamper with the traditions of the Senate.
As I read Rule I of the Senate, Mr. Thurmond remains the President Pro Tempore of the Senate until such time as he is voted out of the office, or he stops being a Senator. During selection of the President Pro Tempore, the Vice-President of the United States does not break ties in his role as President of the Senate. So, while a 50/50 split in Senators would prevent the election of a new President Pro Tempore, it also prevents the removal of Mr. Thurmond.
Mr. Hastert has stated he will not accept appointment as Acting President of the United States, based on legal opinions he has received that he would have to resign his position as a Representative from Illinois to so do, and he likes being Speaker more than he likes the thought of being Acting President.
Izzy, I wasn’t talking about the Republicans in Florida per se; the Republicans in Congress are just as much in the driver’s seat and those constitutional powers are quite explicit. As I have pointed out, Congress CAN’T split on the issue, barring unforseen circumstances like the death of a significant number of Republican Representatives.
Not sure where or what you pointed out. But whatever it was, the NY Times folks that I linked earlier seemed to disagree with you.
No no one is really in the driver’s seat.
You might wish to check out that article, if you haven’t already done so.
That’s a far cry from your assertion that there IS no mechanism, and your quote is full of qualifiers, too, from people who might as well just admit they don’t really know what the hell they’re talking about.
You might want to try a drink of this water, it’s fresh and cool.
Elvis,
I did not make an “assertion that there IS no mechanism”, I wrote that “there exists the possibility that there is no mechanism for resolving them”. Why do this sort of thing?
If the NY Times couldn’t come up with people who know what they are talking about, I would kind of have to think there might be some genuine ambiguity regarding these matters. But maybe you know better.
Are you sure it was water?