Posted on 11/07/2010 3:55:56 AM PST by Evil Slayer
Would like to toss out an interesting scenario that could possibly take place. Now that Pelosi will be constitutionally ineligible to become POTUS should both Obama and Biden happen to be disqualified for unknown reasons, come January after Sen. John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker of the House, HE will be second in line for the job.
In my opinion, if the Republicans who will be in charge of committees to push the question of Obama's qualification to be POTUS succeed in exposing him as in violation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and SCOTUS rules he is unqualified, wouldn't that move Boehner one step closer to the presidency?
Yes, I know what you are thinking. Biden would step in immediately after Zero is removed (no impeachment necessary). But Biden would also be removed since he would be (in my opinion) an accessory to the crime.
Once Boehner is sworn in, he will have the ability to not only clean house by removing all of Zero's commie czars but it would be like January 2013 instead of 2011 come this January.
I look forward to my fellow FReeper's comments.
Yeah, you seem to be the only other poster to notice that. What a worthless thread.
Oops, I see you weren’t the poster to whom I referred. It was post 4 that first noted your error. I see you are the author of this worthless thread.
I agree with you.
Me too. Beohner is all wrong for the job. Establishment Republicans aren't getting it either. The Establishment Republicans are almost as suspect as the failed democrats.
Who would be your choice for speaker?
“The brain damaged Biden would have a panic attack and resign.”
Even though Biden is one of the best living, breathing examples of the Peter Principle at work, that’s certainly not the way HE views the world. He hasn’t held a job yet that he didn’t think he was the best-qualified person on the planet to fill. Moreover, to turn Rushbo’s comment about Obama on its head: Joe Biden thinks he’s the smartest person in any room he enters. His arrogance is perhaps rivaled only by Barack Obama’s.
Didn't the dem wipeout teach you anything? The next general election and from this point forward, all candidates must be certified with a LFBC before proceeding to the ballot. The new congress must address this point before 2012. If that happens, the congress will, for all intents and purposes, be affirming that Obama was not qualified. Let the issue then take on a life of its own with the electorate.
My comment was in regard to the assertion that Boehner is a senator.
So I am guessing you are not happy with him being a senator. I don’t know much about him.
“Hillary has already said, just the other day, she’s not running in 2012.”
You can take that to the bank!
Good luck with that. Any of it.
In January 2009, the Congress without objection accepted the results of the Electoral College. Outside of the impeachment process, Congress has no power to vote a bill of attainder (conviction by legislative act).
It's going to be a long, two years to 2013.
“Also note she also loses her private US funded air force. With healthy expense account.”
Does she really or will she just keep it anyway?
BINGO.....
Biden would also be removed because he was the RUNNING MATE of NObama——He was not the winner of a separate set of primaries. They are tied together like a pair of shoes.
ROFLMTO...Imagine that Pres Biden, that is a scary thought, but less scary than the one we have now....lol I vote for dual impeachment, since Biden claims to have been an advisor to the President. This is just too funny.
ping...
Why is everybody so panicked by the thought of a con-con?
I keep trying to explain that there is no danger in a con-con, but nobody will listen. I keep saying that the Constitution gives us TWO avenues to propose Amendments — by a vote of Congress or (if they won’t do it) by a Convention of state legislatures. Got that? Either CONGRESS or the STATES THEMSELVES may propose Amendments. (Think “term limits” and ask yourself if Congress would support it?) But still the panic. OK then.
Let’s try this approach — why were the Federalist Papers written?
Answer: To urge citizens to support adoption of the “new” Constitution that was written by the original Convention.
But wait ... those wild-eyed radicals like Jefferson and Madison might propose crazy things! We don’t want changes to our Articles of Confederation, do we? Maybe a little tweak or two, but nothing drastic! Of course, they did propose changes, big ones, but the proposed new “Constitution” had to be approved or nothing would happen. Hence the Federalist Papers, to explain everything.
Bottom line — the Constitution had to be accepted by the states. Same for any “revised” Constitution or Amendment that a modern con-con would propose. The states would decide if they liked it or they didn’t.
A Constitutional Convention CANNOT simply write a revised constitution then throw out the old one and the new one takes effect. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. They may propose any damned thing they like, but WE THE PEOPLE decide if we accept their proposed changes or not.
Personally, I would like to see a Constitution Convention seated and have them propose LOTS of minor changes. Add term limits. Change the word “regulate” to “promote” in the Commerce Clause. Make changes to Article III and give us a judiciary that can’t legislate from the bench. Rescind the 16th Amendment (income tax) and the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) and tweak the 14th Amendment to do away with “anchor” babies.
Then we can debate and decide each and every one of those changes and vote to approve the ones we want. And reject the ones we don’t. No danger.
Sometimes, simple mistakes like that can grow legs. Our esteemed upper chamber does sometimes seem like an incomplete, run-on "sentence".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.