One of those Constitutional things that was never altered by the 17th Amendment.
Back when the overall vote total was applied to the Vice-president.
Making VPOTUS an \elected Constitutional office\ office.
It is no longer such and a dire crisis awaits when it is found that Biden did not receive enough legitimate votes to win in 2022.
It would mean that the “coat-tails” VP is not legitimate also leaving BOTH POSITIONS >>simultaneously empty<<.
The line of succession (LoS) in the Constitution does not figure this scenario.
Rereading the Constitution proves that LoS is interrupted by the absence of BOTH positions as one must be in office to “succeed” from the loss.
Pelosi is not “Constitutionally” the next in line.
THIS is why we need originalist SCOTUS judges.
Also, this would be a “trigger” for devolution of Biden’s watch.
If it weren’t already in motion from Trump’s watch.
I point you back to January 11, 2021.
___________________________________________________
I love your Constitution and am trying to understand it better as it applies to the Biden, Harris, Pelosi LoS. I’ve been mulling your post over for a few days and trying to do the relevant research, but I’m stuck. Can you please explain this part for me? “One of those Constitutional things that was never altered by the 17th Amendment. Back when the overall vote total was applied to the Vice-president. Making VPOTUS an \elected Constitutional office\ office.”
I understand that the Seventeenth Amendment, which seems to apply only to the selection/election of Senators, didn’t change something. What is the something? How the VP is chosen? Do I understand correctly that the VP used to be appointed but is now elected? Are you saying that if Biden wasn’t properly elected, then Harris isn’t properly elected and the simultaneous vacancy of both positions interrupts the LoS so that Pelosi isn’t eligible? Which part of the Constitution applies here?
Thank you in advance for helping me understand the current situation better.
Originally the VP was the one who got the next highest number of votes; then it changed to whoever was the running mate of the person that won the presidential election.
I’m sorry. One of my questions was poorly worded. I know that the VP is automatically elected with the winning President. I should have asked if the VP used to be appointed after the President won his election. I assume there was an Amendment that changed that.
Here is one concern I have. It appears that there are two clauses that are now in opposition to each other due to human error - the succession clause and the NBC clause. When there are two clauses in the Constitution that oppose each other, which one takes precedence? Wasn’t the time to oppose Harris as a potential President the period before she was put on the ticket and elected? Having accepted her on the ticket and allowing her to be elected, doesn’t the succession clause now override the NBC clause?
The argument that both positions are vacant because neither Biden nor Harris won (due to massive fraud) is currently a non-starter because the position of the other side is that they did win, and I don’t see them giving up that point any time soon. So we’re back to the precedence of the NBC clause over the succession clause until the state legislatures withdraw their electors to a sufficient degree, or a court makes a determination about the legitimacy of the election.
Originally, the VP was the candidate with the second highest vote total. The Founders did not reckon on political parties and did not account for the President and VP being from opposite political parties. That changed with the 12th amendment requiring electors to vote separately for Pres and VP.