Un-Electing Obama - New Tea Party Strategy

[aletier_v]

The secession stuff didn't surprise me
but this is something I haven't seen before.
--

http://lakecharlesteaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/how-to-un-elect-obama-let-house-of-reps-pick-the-president?xg_source=facebookshare

"If 1/3rd of the States do not cast their votes in the Electoral College -- then the matter falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the President.

In other words -- if we pressure Congressmen, State Party Officials, and groups such as Tea Party Patriots, Heritage Foundation, etc., to call on RED States to NOT have their Electors cast their vote -- then the House of Reps CAN choose the next President!!!!!"

[Faygo Kid]

1. They're nuts.

Fox News will give them air time for this absurdity.

[zbdent]

16. as will most of the rest of the "liberally-biased media" ...

no doubt ...

[southernyankeebelle]

2. Why shouldn't this be any surprise. They tried to supress voters right and steal the election.

They need to turn the page. They won't be happy til they can impeach him. What republicans don't still realize is that if they keep this up we will break records in 2014 and try to vote republicans out again. They are finally getting the birther stuff isn't working.

[RKP5637]

41. If the R's keep it up, maybe they can get 75% of the country to hate them. n/t

[southernyankeebelle]

66. Excellent point. Maybe they are going for 100%

[hobbit709]

3. There's a better chance of the sun rising in the west.

[cali]

4. what a moran. and of course, he's wrong.

[aletier_v]

7. Is he? I don't know, that's one reason I posted it.

Either way, this thing is spreading around now to spark hope.

It won't go well when it fails.

[cali]

10. Article II of the Constitution and it won't even be a blip when it fails

oh, and the 12th Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[aletier_v]

11. I'm not talking legally, I'm talking emotionally

They're already investing emotion into this,
like they begrudgingly did with Romney.

[cali]

14. ah, yes. they can continue freaking the fuck out.

and making up stupid shit.

hope it gives them all ulcers.

[Tobin S.]

5. I don't know if that's true or not

But I think you'd have a hard time getting 1 state to do that let alone 17 states to say the least. Talk about opening up a can of worms and setting a dangerous precedent.

[treestar]

6. Anything to thwart the will of the electorate

[graham4anything]

8. think of Nixon vs. Kennedy- which party stole more votes was never learned, however

the above sounds like Ron the Fraud Paul, who could never even muster a single electoral vote anywhere.

Another stupid waste of time.

BTW-how many good things will Obama do between now and Jan. inauguaration? I predict six.

and maybe get a suprise good thing on top of the six.
(like a commuting of Siegelman's sentence)

[loudsue]

43. Ron Paul supporters almost started a war during the repuke convention because the convention

voted they couldn't nominate him (ron paul). repukes don't even honor THEIR OWN party members, much less the rest of the citizens of the USA.

[graham4anything]

63. Remember, Ron Paul lived in district next to Tom Delay and was reelected many times...he is part

of the team. He is a fraud, no different than DeLay or any of the others.

and google Jorg Haider to see the Paul Family redux.

And remember his literature was vile racism. True republican values.
Three sheets with scissor holes to the wind.

And his son? again, google Jorg Haider. It's as if they were clones in thoughts and appearances.

[RomneyLies]

58. You may see several Ron Paul Electoral votes this year

Several electors had previously stated their intention to vote for Paul. With Romney as a clear loser, it's even more likely there will be multiple faithless electors this year.

[gollygee]

9. Why do they hate America

We have a democratic process. They are talking about throwing away everything America stands for. They need to stop pretending to be patriots.

[magellan]

12. Well, they were fine with SCOTUS trampling state rights in 2000 to select their man Bush**

Why would they let a little thing like Obama winning the EV and carrying the popular vote stop them? The alternative is facing reality, something RWNJs will never do.

[oldbanjo]

13. BULL

[aletier_v]

15. I read article 2 and 12th amendment

I don't see that it supports this theory, but it does mention needing a 2/3rd quorum of the house for the purposes of electing the president.

[RomneyLies]

57. They are reading the constitution wrong. n/t

[reformist2]

17. All Obama needs is a "majority of the whole number of electors appointed"...

...the part about needing 2/3 of the states to participate pertains to the situation if no candidate gets a majority of electors and the election is thrown to the House of Representatives.

[aletier_v]

19. so it's true? If 1/3 of State electors abstain from voting,

the presidential election falls to the House?

[cali]

21. no it is not true.

[Posteritatis]

22. If the Electoral College can't reach 50%+1 vote, the House picks the president. (nt)

[scheming daemons]

23. You have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

The "2/3 of the house" language *ONLY* applies if no candidate receives 270 electoral votes.

The 332 votes that are coming from the Blue states will all be present at the Electoral College. It doesn't matter if the red state electors stay home.

[aletier_v]

26. No reason to be insulting.

Yes, i'm having a hard time understanding the language of the amendment,
but apparently so are many other people since there's no clear answer up
until right now.

[cali]

27. what??? It's been explained clearly to you and no, it doesn't seem that

a lot of other people are having trouble understanding that it's not possible.

[hobbit709]

28. Because your being obtuse is not?

[SheilaT]

36. Do you think that any Democratic electors would abstain from voting?

That would be the ONLY way Obama might not get a majority of the votes cast. If 1/3 of the Republican Electors abstain, Obama still gets the majority of the votes cast, only in this case he'd get a larger majority (because the denominator would be smaller) of Electoral College Votes than he's already got.

This is the kind of crap that gets put out by people who don't know how to read carefully.

[jeff47]

38. No, they're wrong as always.

Step 1: Electoral college meets, must give one person 270 votes to pick the president. If only 270 votes are cast, they still pick the President if they happen to all be for the same person.

Step 2: If the Electoral college fails to give one person 270 votes, it falls to the House to pick. Each state gets 1 vote, so the Democrat vs. Republican split isn't the same as the full House. One candidate must get an absolute majority (26 votes), and at least 2/3rds of the states must cast a vote.

And that 2/3rds part is where the teabaggers are placing their hope. But you'll note that getting to that point requires getting through the electoral college first.

Their other big problem is the other part of Step 2: The Senate picks the vice president. And if the House fails to pick a President, the vice president selected by the Senate is acting president until the House selects a president.

Meaning if these teabaggers miraculously get their wishes, they get President Joe Biden.

*Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer or election expert. This all comes from reading Wikipedia.

[still_one]

18. First it won't happen. If it did, there would be a war. They would

Blatantly disenfrancise the popular and electoral college

[aletier_v]

20. I'm not sure they'd care.

Is it legally possible?

[scheming daemons]

24. no

[cali]

25. aaargh. NO IT IS NOT FUCKING LEGALLY POSSIBLE. PERIOD. EXPLANATION POINT.

[aletier_v]

29. Perhaps if you had actually ANSWERED the question the first time

I wouldn't have been confused.

Go read your own responses, there's no answer there, just your own emotional kneejerking.

[cali]

33. right. I just directed you to the source material and a link.

Are you a baby bird? Do you need information chewed up and regurgitated to you in pablum form?

[PotatoChip]

42. !

Sorry to interrupt, but that comment cracked me up.

Don't mind me, and carry on (if you wish).

[louis c]

64. You're correct.

There is no quorum necessary for the electoral college.

If this argument was true, how'd Lincoln get elected?

[hrmjustin]

30. It won't happen.

There would be riots if that happened.

[aletier_v]

32. I agree. That's why I wanted to know if this had any validity at all

So it looks like it should die out pretty quickly, though.

[RandySF]

31. This kind of desperation is scary.

It makes me wonder what they would do to keep the president from taking the second Oath of Office.

[cali]

34. They can't do anything about that

and for the way crazy and physically dangerous, well that's what the Secret Service is for.

[aletier_v]

49. It is scary. I can't believe they didn't even vet the message before sending it out

There's some movement to force a recount in all swing states now, too.

You know, when the Civil War began,
the pressures had been accumulating for some time,
at least ten years if I remember correctly.

[dem4ward]

35. Never in my lifetime would I have thought

I would see any group of Americans carrying on in such a way. These tea party people are really uneducated and dangerous to themselves and others. Spreading hatred, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Somebody call the

[ProudProgressiveNow]

40. +1000 nt

[njlibguy_19656mm]

39. ah teabaggers..

they're so pathetic

[dinger130]

44. What I'm waiting for, after all other nutty Repub attempts fail,

is taking a stab at impeachment on some kind of stupid crap that they will dream up.

[Honeycombe8]

45. Red states? Red states didn't vote for Obama. They mean purple states, I guess.

Florida or Ohio or Colorado or Virginia. I think that's it.

[democrattotheend]

46. I remember holding out hope for the electors in 2000

But in that case, it was quasi-reasonable because of the disputed election. Even then it is highly unlikely because electors are usually party faithful. It ain't gonna happen this year.

[bluestate10]

51. The party of the candidate that won picks Electors from the state. Those people are selected

from a pre-determined list of party loyalists. So a guy like former Boston, Mass Mayor Ray Flynn wouldn't be on the list. Even if states that went for Romney chose not to vote, President Obama would still get 332 Electoral votes, 61.7% of the vote, well more than the required 50.1%.

[Iggy]

47. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz......

The teabaggers are irrelevant... they lost the election, remember?

Let's move on to reality

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I do not call them nuts...I call them dangerous.

I have said here many a times why.

[bluestate10]

53. I agree. We are going to have to deal with people like that one day soon.

And, by necessity, it won't be pretty.

[dchill]

50. "Is our children learning?"

Guess not...

[unblock]

52. this is FALSE: the 2/3 quorum is required ONLY if no one gets a majority of electoral votes

in the event that no one wins a majority of electoral votes, THEN the house gets to decide.

ONLY WHEN THE HOUSE IS DECIDING, then each state gets ONE vote and there must be a quorum of 2/3rd of the states.
the constitution very clearly states that the quorum is ONLY "for this purpose" and clearly indicates that the quorum requirement relates to the number of MEMBERS (congresscritters, not electors).



the relevant portion of article 2, section 1:

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.

[vilify]

54. Such patriots they are.

I can smell a civil war brewing or nasty riots at the very least.

[rosestar77]

55. The guy walks back the 2/3 majority requirement on his Facebook page...

From they guy's Facebook page,

"Oh By The Way (wink-wink)… Yes. There’s a method to my madness.
Before reading any comments correcting me about the 2/3rds requirement - I do know that the 2/3rds applies to the House; not the States represented in the Electoral College. But hopefully, what I wrote yesterday has motivated some of you to do two things:
1) Begin reading the Constitution.
2) Realize that the Constitution does not address how to proceed in the event that some of the Electors decide not to cast their votes.
In my opinion, such a situation would expose what is called a “Constitutional Crisis” and would most likely lead someone somewhere to file a court case. And then the Court may very well toss the ball forward to the House.
So… it’s worth a shot."

https://www.facebook.com/glenn.ellerbe

[aletier_v]

60. well, I was motivated to read those clauses first-hand

sounds to me like he's back-peddling to explain a screw-up.

[theKed]

70. Oh!

There's a word for this!

Ummm...shit, lemme google that. I totally know this...

Oh yeah!

BULLSHIT

He fired from the hip and put out completely incorrect information and now is trying to save face "cmon guiz I was just tryin to get you to read tha cons'tution! LOL LOL!!1one!"

Even his bullshit answer to his bullshit information is bullshit. It does so address how to proceed if some of the electors decide not cast their vote. Halfwit.

[cecilfirefox]

56. I think many states have laws compelling the electors to vote- but its still not happening. lol nt

[Bluenorthwest]

59. What a stooge this hick is!

Maybe he's using the Confederate Constitution.

[NightOwwl]

61. hahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

[RedCappedBandit]

62. Funny how these 'patriots' hate democracy so much

[santamargarita]

65. Teabaggers thought this up by themselves?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

67. You know, if this keeps up.....

I will see about buying some guns, a bunch of that dried food, and copies of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", The Torah, The Koran, and any other work that I know they will burn. Then get me a bomb shelter.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

68. Every brainwashed fanatic with a computer and a FB account

is whipping themselves into a frenzy. People spend way too much time on FB.

[NYC Liberal]

69. But Obama has way more than a majority of the electors. That is all that's required.

As long as Obama's electors show up, that's it. Having red-state electors not show up just means Romney will get fewer electoral votes.

[OldDem2012]

71. Okay, here's the bottom line....

...to be elected President you must win a minimum of 270 electoral votes. Period.

It simply does not matter how many states cast their electoral votes as long as a minimum of 270 electoral votes are cast for the winning candidate.

Bottom line? It is EXTREMELY unlikely that ANY of the states who have pledged to cast their 332 electoral votes for the President will refuse to do so, even if ALL of the states who pledged their 206 electoral votes to Romney withhold their votes. Period.

The Tea Nazis are as totally delusional as they have ever been.