US Politics: Reaching the Tipping Point

[The Anti-Targ]

You think Obama would want it? Unless the D's hold the Senate I think there is no way Justice Obama gets confirmed. I'm probably old fashioned, but I think people with Judging experience at a reasonably high level should be nominated for the SC.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You think Obama would want it? Unless the D's hold the Senate I think there is no way Justice Obama gets confirmed. I'm probably old fashioned, but I think people with Judging experience at a reasonably high level should be nominated for the SC.

 

Taft was Chief Justice after serving as President, so, it’s not unheard of for a President to move to the SCOTUS.

What is even more interesting to me in SCOTUS world is the spate of 5-4 ruling that should come out in the next two weeks including Gerrymandering and the 2020 Census.  Chief Justice Roberts purports to be fighting to keep the SCOTUS as a neutral non-political arm of the US government.  The next two weeks will be quite telling:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-supreme-court-june/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Taft was Chief Justice after serving as President, so, it’s not unheard of for a President to move to the SCOTUS.

What is even more interesting to me in SCOTUS world is the spate of 5-4 ruling that should come out in the next two weeks including Gerrymandering and the 2020 Census.  Chief Justice Roberts purports to be fighting to keep the SCOTUS as a neutral non-political arm of the US government.  The next two weeks will be quite telling:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-supreme-court-june/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

 

 

I saw a short video about the 5-4 ruling on the Apple App store monopoly case (that went against Apple. The video said Kavannaugh was the deciding vote. Does that mean he sided with the Democrat appointees? I want to cynically suggest that his vote against Apple has something to do with Tim Cook being gay. But that's probably being unfair to Kavannaugh...right?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, drawkcabi said:

I think whoever is the next Democrat president (please oh please oh please oh please in 2021!!!!!) should nominate Obama to take Justice Ginsberg's (who will almost certainly retire if as soon as a D is president again) seat on the SCOTUS.

I've been in favor of this since he finished his terms.  Doubt he'd accept though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I saw a short video about the 5-4 ruling on the Apple App store monopoly case (that went against Apple. The video said Kavannaugh was the deciding vote. Does that mean he sided with the Democrat appointees? I want to cynically suggest that his vote against Apple has something to do with Tim Cook being gay. But that's probably being unfair to Kavannaugh...right?

No clue.  That said Kavannaugh siding against a big business is a good thing policy wise, right?

[Ormond]

There are 20 slots in the first televised debate of Democratic candidates. The DNC says that one criterion they will use is the number of donors a candidate has.

So -- if there is one of the more obscure candidates you would like to see get a voice in the debate, it would be wise to find their online donation site and send them $1. It's not the amount of money but the number of donors that's the criterion. You wouldn't have to think this candidate is your #1 choice for the nomination -- but if you have a lower tier candidate who is promoting an issue you would like to see addressed in the debate, it might be a good idea to send him or her that dollar. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

This is essentially what Mark Prior has been researching for the past couple decades:

 

Sounds about what I’d expect, though I’m skeptical that this can be accurately measured outside of small group samples. That said, the person I had in mind was working in the early wave of psychology, long before the radio was even invented. I’ve just always been impressed that he basically foresaw what would become cable news. Now we’ve got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond, who comes on at five. She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

There are 20 slots in the first televised debate of Democratic candidates. The DNC says that one criterion they will use is the number of donors a candidate has.

So -- if there is one of the more obscure candidates you would like to see get a voice in the debate, it would be wise to find their online donation site and send them $1. It's not the amount of money but the number of donors that's the criterion. You wouldn't have to think this candidate is your #1 choice for the nomination -- but if you have a lower tier candidate who is promoting an issue you would like to see addressed in the debate, it might be a good idea to send him or her that dollar. 

(Bleep) that, wise professor. We know who the five candidates with juice are. Get rid of all these other people with less than 2% support. They’re not going anywhere.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

(Bleep) that, wise professor. We know who the five candidates with juice are. Get rid of all these other people with less than 2% support. They’re not going anywhere.

I can't stop laughing any time I think of Gillibrant and De Blasio and the like begging for a dollar apiece.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

(Bleep) that, wise professor. We know who the five candidates with juice are. Get rid of all these other people with less than 2% support. They’re not going anywhere.

Gotta disagree.  The criteria for the later debates is significantly more difficult than the first debates.  There will be a noticeable culling of the debate pack by the fall of this year, still months before any votes are cast.  If any of these "also rans" can break through at the debate and get a boost, then good for them.  But in all likelihood, whatever small chance the Moultons and Gabbards of the world have disappears once they fail to make an impact at the first debate. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I can't stop laughing any time I think of Gillibrant and De Blasio and the like begging for a dollar apiece.

I got called by three different dead end campaigns asking me to attend an event in Iowa and support them. I had to tell three poor interns that they have no chance of winning, and also, get off your damn scripts. I used to write those stupid things. They’re not meant to be read by robots….

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Gotta disagree.  The criteria for the later debates is significantly more difficult than the first debates.  There will be a noticeable culling of the debate pack by the fall of this year, still months before any votes are cast.  If any of these "also rans" can break through at the debate and get a boost, then good for them.  But in all likelihood, whatever small chance the Moultons and Gabbards of the world have disappears once they fail to make an impact at the first debate. 

I would agree if there were eight to ten candidates, but were at like 23 now. It’s becoming absurd. There are a few really good candidates in the 1% pile, but they’re being crowded out by people who don’t belong in this race. All it amounts to is a waste of time and resources, and it benefits no one.

[Fez]

57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

(Bleep) that, wise professor. We know who the five candidates with juice are. Get rid of all these other people with less than 2% support. They’re not going anywhere.

Not necessarily. If one of the top campaigns, especially Biden's, falls apart completely, it's possible for one of the unknowns to become a contender very quickly. It doesn't even necessarily take that, Buttigieg just managed to go viral over a couple clever remarks and he's parlayed that into going from being one fo the 0%ers to consistently being one of the top five in polling. That could easily happen to someone else in the debates or at another time.

I do hope a lot of the other candidates start dropping out soon to run for another office or re-election to their current office. But someone like Jay Inslee doesn't really have much else to do right now, so why not spend his time hoping he can get hot at the right moment.

[Demetri]

14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Under the 12th Amendment the Vice-President must be qualified to hold the office of President.  Under the 22nd Amendment President Obama is no longer  qualified to hold the office of President.

No offense but this is not accurate. Definitely not in the definitive tone you use to state the answer with simplicity. But I also think it is probably not  the right answer either way (in my opinion, and it is very much a split opinion in legal scholarship, you're totally entitled to yours of course). I also think it misses the big picture a bit in its reasoning. I find it likely that Obama would be upheld as vice president if it happened with the decision reasoning focusing on legislative intent, a shift in terminology and issues of practicality. After all, the wording I'll outline is crucial. 

The 12th says no one "ineligible" to the office of president can be vice president. The specific bit of the 22nd you reference is but one of the requirements for an eligible president. But the 22nd changes terms and when that happens a strong presumption is made that the legislature did so purposefully to distinguish it from issues such as these where it would be easy to erroneously lump two different doctrines into one. That presumption is a fundamental cornerstone for Constitutional Law, and thus the wording here becomes of even more importance than it would for any other legal document.

Instead of "ineligible", the 22nd states, and note the difference, "" No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...". But the broader and more famous stipulations regarding age, residency extend beyond the 22nd and appear in Article II, Section 1: 5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." 

It is extremely noteworthy that "eligible" was used in 12 but not in 22 and both were preceded by explicitly named requirements to be "eligible." This constructively states a different standard and also provides a strong argument that legislative intent was to link 12 to Article II, not to theFD 22nd amendment. It might sound silly, but huge cases are decided on that very same logic (inconsistent terms purposefully indicating how certain things connect legally). Furthermore, the legislature has exercised tremendous discretion regarding elections and those elected. 

To suggest that reading the 12th and the 22nd together makes the issue absolutely sorted is absolutely incorrect. But your conclusion might well not be. I think a holistic view of intent and consideration of historical factors (1796, 1800 elections and others prompted a complete change in how VP is elected and FDR's existence led to the 22nd amendment, which basically codified what was already the norm.) In trying to connect those two (which is already too limited) there would need to be a good explanation as to why Congress worded 1 amendment to directly link to pre-existing Constitutional material and yet would not extend that same word to another, as that word acts to unify and shed light on intent. 

But beyond all that, it is clear that being elected isn't a requirement to serve as president. It certainly limits the ability to run for president, but does not affect eligibility of that office. The 12th points directly to the Article II requirements for "eligibility" to help highlight this. The intent was very clearly to avoid a situation where an 8 year old is serving as VP. It simply says that the general standards for eligibility apply to the vice president because that person is basically the back-up president and it makes no sense to not consider their age or citizenship if we codify rules for the president.

It is still undecided in legal circles. I think that it would be fine (consider the remedy the government would have here if Obama was put on the ballot and they somehow decided it was unconstitutional. )That adds a nice policy consideration flourish to this because it would necessarily have to involve Congress  overriding popular opinion on an issue that, is itself, a manifestation of popular opinion. Here is how it would work (note that it only is available after election): (From Amendment 20): "... 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified." That will simply never happen in the real world. So ambiguity here is not as evenly distributed as you'd think because saying "Nah, it's barred" means that Congress would actually try to do the above remedy. It is also a fun connection back to the elections that led to reforming VP election. It would be a complete fool's errand.

I don't think someone can make a great argument as to why 12 connects to Article II via same wording but not to 22nd outside of legislative intent. As a result, I think it would be permissible. But the answer is absolutely not an unqualified no. It is a fun little issue though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not necessarily. If one of the top campaigns, especially Biden's, falls apart completely, it's possible for one of the unknowns to become a contender very quickly. It doesn't even necessarily take that, Buttigieg just managed to go viral over a couple clever remarks and he's parlayed that into going from being one fo the 0%ers to consistently being one of the top five in polling. That could easily happen to someone else in the debates or at another time.

I do hope a lot of the other candidates start dropping out soon to run for another office or re-election to their current office. But someone like Jay Inslee doesn't really have much else to do right now, so why not spend his time hoping he can get hot at the right moment.

Eh, I think the base is paying close attention, and that they’ve found the candidates that have a chance. Sure someone else can have their star turn, but at this point I think it’s pretty clear that Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg are the only viable candidates. Having an excessive amount of candidates with no chance only crowds out their individual messages, ones we need to hear so we can pick the best candidate to beat Trump.

[James Arryn]

16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Here, in this thread? I imagine it would get almost universal praise, when in the context of voting for Trump.

My own view is that anything announced here would have limited readership. I tried launching my bacon & bun Thames tour on here and all I got was the VAT man. 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sounds about what I’d expect, though I’m skeptical that this can be accurately measured outside of small group samples.

Don't think I follow, what exactly can't be measured outside of small groups?  Selective exposure?  If that's the case I strongly disagree, there have a number of excellent studies that employ large samples.  Although it is true that much of the research on selective exposure is conducted via experiments with much smaller samples (like this one).

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Having an excessive amount of candidates with no chance only crowds out their individual messages, ones we need to hear so we can pick the best candidate to beat Trump.

While I agree that's the top tier, I think there's still ample opportunity for someone in at least the second tier to break out.  If you look at institutional support like endorsements or consideration among activists, Booker, Klobuchar, Beto, Castro, and Gillibrand all have comparable support to much of the top tier (actually taking both those lists together Beto looks like he's in the most trouble).  With a strong debate performance I could see any one of those jumping up to the top tier.  And, as @Fez mentioned, it's still possible that someone random comes out of nowhere like Buttigieg did.  Honestly, I'm fine with the field not getting culled til after the third debate, which will be mid-September.  We can have a good ol' summer clusterfuck!

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Demetri said:

No offense but this is not accurate. Definitely not in the definitive tone you use to state the answer with simplicity. But I also think it is probably not  the right answer either way (in my opinion, and it is very much a split opinion in legal scholarship, you're totally entitled to yours of course). I also think it misses the big picture a bit in its reasoning. I find it likely that Obama would be upheld as vice president if it happened with the decision reasoning focusing on legislative intent, a shift in terminology and issues of practicality. After all, the wording I'll outline is crucial.

<snipped for length>

I don't think someone can make a great argument as to why 12 connects to Article II via same wording but not to 22nd outside of legislative intent. As a result, I think it would be permissible. But the answer is absolutely not an unqualified no. It is a fun little issue though.

Thank-you for that detailed answer! 

I’d love to see Biden try that...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Demetri said:

No offense but this is not accurate. Definitely not in the definitive tone you use to state the answer with simplicity. But I also think it is probably not  the right answer either way (in my opinion, and it is very much a split opinion in legal scholarship, you're totally entitled to yours of course). I also think it misses the big picture a bit in its reasoning. I find it likely that Obama would be upheld as vice president if it happened with the decision reasoning focusing on legislative intent, a shift in terminology and issues of practicality. After all, the wording I'll outline is crucial. 

The 12th says no one "ineligible" to the office of president can be vice president. The specific bit of the 22nd you reference is but one of the requirements for an eligible president. But the 22nd changes terms and when that happens a strong presumption is made that the legislature did so purposefully to distinguish it from issues such as these where it would be easy to erroneously lump two different doctrines into one. That presumption is a fundamental cornerstone for Constitutional Law, and thus the wording here becomes of even more importance than it would for any other legal document.

Instead of "ineligible", the 22nd states, and note the difference, "" No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...". But the broader and more famous stipulations regarding age, residency extend beyond the 22nd and appear in Article II, Section 1: 5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." 

It is extremely noteworthy that "eligible" was used in 12 but not in 22 and both were preceded by explicitly named requirements to be "eligible." This constructively states a different standard and also provides a strong argument that legislative intent was to link 12 to Article II, not to theFD 22nd amendment. It might sound silly, but huge cases are decided on that very same logic (inconsistent terms purposefully indicating how certain things connect legally). Furthermore, the legislature has exercised tremendous discretion regarding elections and those elected. 

To suggest that reading the 12th and the 22nd together makes the issue absolutely sorted is absolutely incorrect. But your conclusion might well not be. I think a holistic view of intent and consideration of historical factors (1796, 1800 elections and others prompted a complete change in how VP is elected and FDR's existence led to the 22nd amendment, which basically codified what was already the norm.) In trying to connect those two (which is already too limited) there would need to be a good explanation as to why Congress worded 1 amendment to directly link to pre-existing Constitutional material and yet would not extend that same word to another, as that word acts to unify and shed light on intent. 

But beyond all that, it is clear that being elected isn't a requirement to serve as president. It certainly limits the ability to run for president, but does not affect eligibility of that office. The 12th points directly to the Article II requirements for "eligibility" to help highlight this. The intent was very clearly to avoid a situation where an 8 year old is serving as VP. It simply says that the general standards for eligibility apply to the vice president because that person is basically the back-up president and it makes no sense to not consider their age or citizenship if we codify rules for the president.

It is still undecided in legal circles. I think that it would be fine (consider the remedy the government would have here if Obama was put on the ballot and they somehow decided it was unconstitutional. )That adds a nice policy consideration flourish to this because it would necessarily have to involve Congress  overriding popular opinion on an issue that, is itself, a manifestation of popular opinion. Here is how it would work (note that it only is available after election): (From Amendment 20): "... 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified." That will simply never happen in the real world. So ambiguity here is not as evenly distributed as you'd think because saying "Nah, it's barred" means that Congress would actually try to do the above remedy. It is also a fun connection back to the elections that led to reforming VP election. It would be a complete fool's errand.

I don't think someone can make a great argument as to why 12 connects to Article II via same wording but not to 22nd outside of legislative intent. As a result, I think it would be permissible. But the answer is absolutely not an unqualified no. It is a fun little issue though.

I appreciate your thorough review of this issue.  I appreciate where you are coming from.  However, you are ignoring a huge part of issues, Politics.  

Politically, does it make sense for any Presidential Candidate to nominate someone for the office of Vice-President who’s opening moments create a Constitutional crisis as to whether or not they can actually hold the office of Vice-President under the 12th Amendment?  What does such a nomination say about that person’s qualifications for the office of President?

You might be right legally.  That said, I’d be very surprised to see any candidate open this can of worms, politically.  

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That said, I’d be very surprised to see any candidate open this can of worms, politically.

Agreed, I just don't think it's politically palatable so the legal question is kinda moot.