One of the folks on Bloomberg this AM said it would be a good choice.
That's a SELL signal right there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of the folks on Bloomberg this AM said it would be a good choice.
Well then yes, it makes no sense to do it in a tight race. But in theory then... LOL.... B1 is technically wrong on Constitutional law? It is legal, it's just not a strategic move. I love it!I would have to read up later. But no, I am not saying that they can only vote for one or the other. I am saying they cannot vote. I believe the constitution (would need another coffee here) says they can meet to vote for both prez and vice as a set and that one member of the set must not be from their home state in order for them to vote for the set.
Well then yes, it makes no sense to do it in a tight race. But in theory then... LOL.... B1 is technically wrong on Constitutional law? It is legal, it's just not a strategic move. I love it!
BOOKMARKED![]()
Interesting!This issue got worked over a bit in th Bush-Gore election - which as we know was tighter than a bull's arse at flyswatting time.
Some people tried to claim that Cheney was a Texas resident along with Bush, and Texas has lots of electors. Cheney had been living and doing business in Houston or Dallas or some place. But if they were both Texas residents then that would keep Texas electors out of the game.
Except Cheney had kept a home in Wyoming and still had a hunting license and driver's license or some kind of resident scam there so they avoided that disaster. But it would have been a disaster without the electoral votes from Texas.
Interesting!
I bet Cheney claimed Texas though when it came to filling out those Wyoming state tax forms.![]()
Thanks for the corroboration of my point! Appreesh!B1 is a true Orginalist
Additionally, electors may not vote for presidential and vice-presidential candidates who both reside in the elector's state—at least one of them must be an inhabitant of another state.
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia