I have just been catching bits and pieces of some weird side issue that was settled with Cheney being determined to be a legitimate Wyoming voter, or some such.
I was reading the latest missive from Michael Moore, which included something from someone else about the 6 ways that Gore could become prez, and it included this:
stoid
completely stumped
Just imagine Hillary Clinton as a NY Senator and all the mystery of the situation will vanish.
which is that if Cheney were legally a Texas resident, he and Dubya would reside in the same state, and per the 12th amendment, the P and Vp cannot come from the same state. (interesting).
But i don’t get the what the Moore thing is referring to about the electors from Texas. I read the 12th amendment and I didn’t see anything about tossing the electors from the given state…maybe I missed something?
Help.
Help.
The Twelth Amendment says that when a state’s electors vote for President and Vice President at least one of them must be a resident of another state.
I wonder if the Supreme Court actually declared Cheney a Teaxas resident would it mean the electors pledged to Bush & him would be invalidated? IANAL so this just WAG, but I suspect the amendment would leave the electors in place and just require them to cast their votes for someone else for one of the two slots. Interestingly, if it came to that they would have to vote Cheney for VP, and some placeholder for Prez, because lack of a majority for VP would result in the Senate, with Gore’s tiebreaking vote, filling that slot, while lack of an electoral majority for Prez would place the result in the safely GOP House.
I just saw your second post after sending mine. Technically the Prez and VP can come from the same state- it is that their home state’s electors can’t vote for both of them together.
The Twelth Amendment says that when a state’s electors vote for President and Vice President at least one of them must be a resident of another state.
I wonder if the Supreme Court actually declared Cheney a Teaxas resident would it mean the electors pledged to Bush & him would be invalidated? IANAL so this just WAG, but I suspect the amendment would leave the electors in place and just require them to cast their votes for someone else for one of the two slots. Interestingly, if it came to that they would have to vote Cheney for VP, and some placeholder for Prez, because lack of a majority for VP would result in the Senate, with Gore’s tiebreaking vote, filling that slot, while lack of an electoral majority for Prez would place the result in the safely GOP House.
The memebers of the electoral college can only vote for one person for president, and one person for VP FROM THEIR OWN STATE.
So this only effects electors that come from a state where both the candidate for President and the candidate for VP also come from.
Hence…IFBush and Cheney were Texas residents, then the Texas delegates would have to choose to either cast their votes for Bush as Pres. or Cheney as VP. The Prez and VP can come from the same state, but they have to do it minus one their home states EC votes for one of them.
Since Cheney is from Wyoming, and a Wyoming resident, then this is not an issue. And BTW…This is the only election in the last 100 years where it could even be CONSIDERED as an issue.
My point about Hillary was to set the level of requirements neccesary to be considered a resident. I will glady compare Cheney’s Wyoming history with Hillary’s NY history.
well they arent from florida then.
Once again we witness the GOP’s utter disregard for the Constitution! Cheney lives in Texas and pretends to live in Wyoming, which is against the rules, but, oh, no, they’ll just change the rules as it suits them.
Naw, even I can’t make that one fly. Let’s call it even, we’ll let them keep the Cheney thing if we can count all the chads.
Sounds fair, and bi-partisan, to me!
But, oh, no, they’ll…
(you know the rest! But if the Supremes voided thier ticket because of that I would laugh my ASS OFF!!!)
Can you imagine the hissy fit Millosarian, et al, would throw!!! By the way, Stoidy, what the hell did you do to Canned Meathead?
The term in the constitution is inhabitant rather than resident. It seems that Cheney is legally a resident of the state of Wyoming. (and he is registered to vote there).
But the term inhabitant aparently has specific legal meaning. It isn’t enough to just own property and stop by once in a while. You actually have to live there.
In that sense, nearly all Senators & Congresscritters are inhabitants of Washing DC or Virginia even though they are residents of the state they represent.
On the other hand, all this really means is that the Texas electors can’t both for BOTH Bush and Cheney.
Bush/Lieberman anyone? or maybe Gore/Cheney. Now THAT would be an interesting ticket.
tj
The appellate judges who ruled on the case:
Higginbotham, appointed by Reagan.
Rhesa H. Barksdale and Jacques L. Wiener Jr. appointed by Bush.
are, of course, beyond reproach. I wonder if this means no one will have to ever pay out of state college tuition again ?
Huh. I wonder if those who seem morally outraged by Cheney having changed residency (quickly) to Wyoming are less outraged by Hillary Clinton running for the Senate from a state she had lived in barely over a year (and barely lived in during that year).
Not to seem mean; I’m just trying to point out that both sides have taken advantage of lax “resident” requirements, and for one side to call foul seems somewhat hypocritical.
Though lord knows hypocricsy runs like a river throughout everything else in this election, so I guess it’s noticing the drop in the bucket.
Apples and oranges Jonny boy. The laws of New York (unlike many states) have a very lax residency requirement for running for office. That’s one of the reasons that Hillary chose to run there. As far as I’m concerned if the votors of New York though it was OK to have a carpetbagger represent them, then it’s OK with me too.
On the other hand, What the US constitution has to say about electors voting (use of the word inhabitant rather than resident) seems very clear.
The intent was to make sure that the electors couldn’t just vote for “Local boys”. And local is defined by where you live (i.e. the liklihood that the electors would think of you as a neighbor) NOT where you happen to have a house that you never visit.
The only moral outrage that I see is that Cheney seems to fine some povisions of the constitution as mere inconveniences that he has to work around rather than laws he has to follow.
If the constitution had a similar inhabitant requirement for Senators, you can bet that Hillary Clinton would not not be Senator-Elect from New York.
tj
Well, i began by scraping all the jelly off his sides. Then I sliced him very thinly and lined a hot pan with the slices. After browning on both sides, I scrambled 3 eggs, added salt, pepper and chives, and poured them over him. I turned down the heat and let the eggs cook gently until set, and served.
He was tasty, too, if a bit on the salty side.
stoidy
(Don’t anyone else even * think * about calling me that! eluc is my Master… as such he is permitted privileges others can only dream of.)
There’s Bush’s lava lamp principles again.
Ya know, folks, between the details that we all know about, the unfuckingbelievable “list o’ felons” provided to K. Harris before the election by TEXAS that was BOGUS and wrongly prevented perhaps thousands of likely Democrats from voting, and now THIS…well, what can I say? When you’ve got a Bush in Florida and a Bush in Texas…the fun never stops in Election 2000!
Did you all know that one of Scalia’s sons is a member of the law firm arguing Bush’s case before the Supreme Court? Those wacky coincidences just keep piling up like bodies, don’t they?
Won’t it be just * hi-larious * if the Court decides that the count can go on, but it’s the Fl. Secretary of State’s job to determine the standards? I tell ya, I’ll just die laughing! They certainly seemed at one point to be very fond of that idea today…
Prediction: The first presidential election of the new millennium (I know, we’re not technically there yet - damn doper know-it-alls) will go down in history as the most corrupt presidential election we have ever had or are ever likely to have. Mark my words. As the years go by, and the shit gets the light shined on it…
And please, don’t start with me, ok? I’m just saying that it will NOT be over tomorrow, next week, or 1/20, and my * prediction * is that history will NOT find that all of this was innocent coincidence.
stoid
The principle of having the president and vice president coming from a different state was the Framers’ idea of ensuring that it would be unlikely that both offices would be held by someone from the same state. The Framers hoped that the electors, who presumably knew better, wouldn’t just fill out their ballot with the names of two guys they knew from their own state. Remember that in the first four elections, each elector just filled out a ballot with two names. There was no separation of the vote for president and vice-president. The VP was just the runnerup. (I think that most of us here knew that however.)
Since electors today are essentially robots, the requirement is a bit archaic. Also residency requirements are pretty lax throughout the country.
Unless you’re trying to get out of paying out-of-state tuition for the University of California.
Clearly both Hillary & Cheney jumped thru the (admittedly large & low) hoops to be technically legal residents- that is exactly what was required. But again, as tejota pointed out, that the qualification as a “inhabitant” is a much (higher & smaller) legal hoop that Cheney - and not hillary- must jump thru.
Frankly- the intent of the section was clearly to prevent exactly what Bush/Cheney did.
Personally, I see the term “inhabit” to be much broader than the term “resident”. Why? Hell, you just have to BE someplace in order to “inhabit” it. You actually have to own property someplace and live there a good chunk of the time to be a “resident”.
As such, I have no doubt that, in a legal sense, “inhabit” and “resident” are similar, and probably interchangeable. Apparently, the legal requirements for being a “resident” of Wyoming (Wyoming? I say Wynotoming!) are considered as being met by Cheney. Now, a higher court and/or closer examination of his behavior over the past several years may or may not say otherwise.
In either case, to jump to conclusions when only the faintest hint of suspicion lingers is the height of idiocy.
Nice to see you are still doing your part to help it all “cool down”…you are an inspiration to us all.
I’m sorry, but this just does not hold up to scrutiny. Cheney has lived in Wyoming his whole life. He has owned a house there for the last 30 or 40 consecutive years. He was a an elected Congressman from Wyoming for many years.
And Hillary’s connection to NY prior to her Senate Run…
Zilch.
Nada.
Nothing.
I think Chelsea and her went shopping there once.
Maybe.