Some of my less learned posters need a primer on impeachable offences.

[Flash]

To Lefties, Marxists and dim wit Democrats, (obscenities help). burp...

Since I am not a lefty, Marxist, or Democrat they don't help with me.

They don't seem to help with the others, either, since they only return the favor leaving posts primarily insults with no substantive content.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Since I am not a lefty, Marxist, or Democrat they don't help with me.

They don't seem to help with the others, either, since they only return the favor leaving posts primarily insults with no substantive content.

So yer claimin' ta be a right winger, conservative or a Republican or some such? Or jus' mushy indecisive moderate? pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft...

 

[Carmine]

An American not ashamed by the presidency of Donald Pigfucker Trump is not worthy of breathing precious oxygen unattached to two hydrogen atoms. I suppose that's why they don't care about the entire planet being under water because of our lack of response to climate change. They deserve to "lie with the fishes" (sic) a lot more than Luca Brasi does.

 

[Teflon Don]

An American not ashamed by the presidency of Donald Pigfucker Trump is not worthy of breathing precious oxygen unattached to two hydrogen atoms. I suppose that's why they don't care about the entire planet being under water because of our lack of response to climate change. They deserve to "lie with the fishes" (sic) a lot more than Luca Brasi does.

Trump is the man global warming is a scam

 

[Carmine]

Trump is the man global warming is a scam

Idiotic

 

[Into the Night]

It is not always the case, but there have never been enough faithless electors to affect the outcome.

It always affects the outcome.

I said the two people the electors vote for must be from different states

No. No such requirement.

--I was referring to the vote of electors and not the individuals.

No such requirement there, either. See Amendment 12 and Article II.

There was a lawsuit in 2000 claiming electors could not vote for both Bush and Cheney because they were both from Texas,

An elector can vote for both Bush and Cheney, even if both Bush and Cheny are from Texas.

but Cheney claimed WY as his residence and the courts have said that is a rather loose concept.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no fallacy in the post saying the constitutional provisions apply to all civil officers and all those impeached and convicted and removed have been federal judges.

No fallacy--just facts.

Contextomy fallacy. You are using the wrong post. No facts. Void argument fallacy. Learn what the word 'fact' means.

 

[Into the Night]

I said the electors must vote for people from different states.

No such requirement. See Amendment 12 and Article II.

That was due to the fact that originally electors just voted for two people for president.

Nope. Only one. This is still the case today.

The person with the most votes (if a majority) became president and the person with the second most votes became VP.

No longer done this way. See Amendment 12.

Founders assumed the electors would vote for one person from their own state and the other person (not from their state) would become president.

No such requirement was put in place by the founders or was in the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

An American not ashamed by the presidency of Donald Pigfucker Trump is not worthy of breathing precious oxygen unattached to two hydrogen atoms. I suppose that's why they don't care about the entire planet being under water because of our lack of response to climate change. They deserve to "lie with the fishes" (sic) a lot more than Luca Brasi does.

Define 'climate change'. The Great Flood of Noah already happened. God promised Noah the entire Earth would never be covered with water again.

 

[Into the Night]

Idiotic

Think so? Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Flash]

An elector can vote for both Bush and Cheney, even if both Bush and Cheny are from Texas.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves

An elector could not vote for both Bush and Cheney if they were both inhabitants of Texas

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

They would not be changing the Constitution since the document does not define state residency.

 

[Carmine]

Define 'climate change'. The Great Flood of Noah already happened. God promised Noah the entire Earth would never be covered with water again.

We're talking about Noah's fucking arc?

Are you a lunatic? Obviously so.

 

[Into the Night]

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves

Read that again. Real carefully.

An elector could not vote for both Bush and Cheney if they were both inhabitants of Texas

No such requirement. Read your own quote, or see Amendment 12 and Article II.

They would not be changing the Constitution since the document does not define state residency.

The constitution defines State residency for this case.

 

[Into the Night]

We're talking about Noah's fucking arc?

'Ark' is spelled with a 'k'. I do not know Noah's trajectory when he fucked.

Are you a lunatic? Obviously so.

Hey...YOU brought it up! YOU were the one saying the world is going to be covered entirely by water.

 

[Flash]

Nope. Only one. This is still the case today.

No longer done this way. See Amendment 12.

I know it is no longer done this way, that is why I wrote "That was due to the fact that originally electors just voted for two people for president.

Let's look at the Constitution itself:

Originally electors voted for two people without specifying president or vice president: "The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves."

The person with the second highest number of electors becomes VP :"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President."

Because electors did not vote separately for president and vice president is the reason we elected a president from one party and a vice president from the other--Adams (71) and Jefferson (68) in 1796. In 1800 two members of the same party tied---Jefferson (73) and Burr (73). This was one of the reasons for the 12th Amendment. Founders did not anticipate the development of parties and candidates.

 

[Carmine]

I mispelled ark.

Acknowledging that, I stand by my point. Literal interpreters of the Bible are without exception insane.

 

[Flash]

Read that again. Real carefully.

I did. I should have clarified==electors from Texas could not vote from both Bush and Cheney if they were both Texas residents. (sorry I didn't make that clear).

The constitution defines State residency for this case.

The courts ruled as long as Cheney declared himself a resident of WY that was sufficient--he did not have to currently live there.

 

[Into the Night]

I know it is no longer done this way, that is why I wrote "That was due to the fact that originally electors just voted for two people for president.

Let's look at the Constitution itself:

Originally electors voted for two people without specifying president or vice president: "The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves."

The person with the second highest number of electors becomes VP :"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President."

Because electors did not vote separately for president and vice president is the reason we elected a president from one party and a vice president from the other--Adams (71) and Jefferson (68) in 1796. In 1800 two members of the same party tied---Jefferson (73) and Burr (73). This was one of the reasons for the 12th Amendment. Founders did not anticipate the development of parties and candidates.

Yes they did. There were parties and candidates when the Constitution was ordained into law and even when it was written.

 

[Into the Night]

I mispelled ark.

Acknowledging that, I stand by my point. Literal interpreters of the Bible are without exception insane.

I didn't quote the Bible. YOU did. You therefore just labeled yourself insane. Does the noise in my head bother you?

 

[Into the Night]

I did. I should have clarified==electors from Texas could not vote from both Bush and Cheney if they were both Texas residents. (sorry I didn't make that clear).

You argued quite the opposite actually. I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand this.

The courts ruled as long as Cheney declared himself a resident of WY that was sufficient--he did not have to currently live there.

Irrelevant. The Elector can vote for whoever he wants, so long as ONE of them is not from the State the elector is in.
Cheney was a resident of TX at the time. He does have to live there. The court broke the law (and so did that elector).