Angel4Liberty
08-10-2013, 03:51 AM
A recent conversation about the Executive Branch became a specific discussion of the Vice Presidents—particularly the ones from the last 20 years or so. Think about each of them, in reverse chronological order: Biden, Cheney, Gore, and Quayle. Now, what’s the first adjective that comes to mind about each of them? Not too inspiring, usually, right? I mean, you have Senile, Slimy, Stuffy, and Stupid, right? Who ever thought it would be a good idea for these guys to be “next in line” for the top chair if something happened to our vainglorious Presidents?
So, how do we get the VP? The Presidential candidate (or rather, the party suits) chooses them to run on the ticket, of course. Hold the phone. If something happens to the guy the People (through the Electoral College) voted into office, the person that was chosen by one guy gets to be in charge. Does that sound like an enormous potential for corruption, abuse, and surreptitious power grabbing? If you really think about it: People want Obama impeached, except we’d all be stuck with Biden. If W’s impeachment succeeded, we’d get (horror) Cheney. Um, a little disturbing? A little. And here’s the kicker: You may want the one guy for President and vote for him, but you can only vote for the “whole ticket;” you only get to pick half of that ticket; and you can’t vote for the one guy only, you have to vote for both. And that other guy has the potential of being the one that’s supposed to be elected by the People. The VP, essentially, is appointed, not elected.
This sounds like a rather impressive oversight on the part of our Founders, and one that would be vastly inconsistent with their compendious and exhaustive design for a federal government and its balance of power. Dr. Paul admonished, “…Just open up the Constitution! And read it!” and I did just that.
This issue is addressed first in Article II, Section 1, but was amended by the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. I’m sure you all know it or have it readily available, but just for convenience sake, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html is the link to view the 12th.
The amendment clearly states that the Electors vote for President and Vice President separately: “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President…” [emphasis added.]
The verbiage of Article II Section 1 states that after the President is chosen, the “Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President,” and if wasn’t amended still implies that the votes for the President and votes for the Vice President should be two sets of votes, each for one person; not votes for a set of two people.
Well, I am a bit confused, but not about why we have the Electoral College and whether or not that should be undone. Is the current process of the voters picking the candidate, the candidate (read: party) picking the running mate, then the Electors picking the set, unconstitutional? Isn’t the choice of the Vice President, Constitutionally, supposed to rest with the People/Electors?
I’m curious about how you read this amendment (this part and all of it), and how it should be interpreted, and how our current process reflects the process outlined here. I read a little bit about why the Article was amended in the first place, but I don’t believe it had anything to do with the Founders not foreseeing the emergence of political parties—except perhaps they did not foresee the corruption and devolution into the two-party stranglehold of present day. Other items I reviewed discussed the primaries and running mate selection—or confused the primary with the “general” elections and still gave the choice of the VP to the nominee of the party—and all that’s just a little outside the scope of this particular query, and definitely for a different discussion altogether.
(If this isn’t the correct forum for this, I apologize. Mods, please move this if necessary. Thanks!)
P.S. I'm a bit verbose, so thank you for reading my mini-novel :)
So, how do we get the VP? The Presidential candidate (or rather, the party suits) chooses them to run on the ticket, of course. Hold the phone. If something happens to the guy the People (through the Electoral College) voted into office, the person that was chosen by one guy gets to be in charge. Does that sound like an enormous potential for corruption, abuse, and surreptitious power grabbing? If you really think about it: People want Obama impeached, except we’d all be stuck with Biden. If W’s impeachment succeeded, we’d get (horror) Cheney. Um, a little disturbing? A little. And here’s the kicker: You may want the one guy for President and vote for him, but you can only vote for the “whole ticket;” you only get to pick half of that ticket; and you can’t vote for the one guy only, you have to vote for both. And that other guy has the potential of being the one that’s supposed to be elected by the People. The VP, essentially, is appointed, not elected.
This sounds like a rather impressive oversight on the part of our Founders, and one that would be vastly inconsistent with their compendious and exhaustive design for a federal government and its balance of power. Dr. Paul admonished, “…Just open up the Constitution! And read it!” and I did just that.
This issue is addressed first in Article II, Section 1, but was amended by the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. I’m sure you all know it or have it readily available, but just for convenience sake, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html is the link to view the 12th.
The amendment clearly states that the Electors vote for President and Vice President separately: “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President…” [emphasis added.]
The verbiage of Article II Section 1 states that after the President is chosen, the “Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President,” and if wasn’t amended still implies that the votes for the President and votes for the Vice President should be two sets of votes, each for one person; not votes for a set of two people.
Well, I am a bit confused, but not about why we have the Electoral College and whether or not that should be undone. Is the current process of the voters picking the candidate, the candidate (read: party) picking the running mate, then the Electors picking the set, unconstitutional? Isn’t the choice of the Vice President, Constitutionally, supposed to rest with the People/Electors?
I’m curious about how you read this amendment (this part and all of it), and how it should be interpreted, and how our current process reflects the process outlined here. I read a little bit about why the Article was amended in the first place, but I don’t believe it had anything to do with the Founders not foreseeing the emergence of political parties—except perhaps they did not foresee the corruption and devolution into the two-party stranglehold of present day. Other items I reviewed discussed the primaries and running mate selection—or confused the primary with the “general” elections and still gave the choice of the VP to the nominee of the party—and all that’s just a little outside the scope of this particular query, and definitely for a different discussion altogether.
(If this isn’t the correct forum for this, I apologize. Mods, please move this if necessary. Thanks!)
P.S. I'm a bit verbose, so thank you for reading my mini-novel :)