If Biden resigns over papergate

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Well, POTUS's nominee has to be confirmed by both houses of Congress. A majority Repub House or Senate could refuse to confirm, just to throw sand in the gears.

The beauty of it is that the Speaker of the House could refuse to allow a vote on the confirmation by just never scheduling it.

Then all the little Republican reps go up for re-election and say "Who, me? I NEVER voted to deny confirmation!" Which would be true, but only because their party never let it come up for a vote.

And gullible voters would eat that up and still blame the Dems. That's why the speaker always comes from the safest of safe seats - they can be as unethical and maximally obstructionist as possible and still get reelected while those in the more competitive seats gets to claim some deniability for the dysfunction. The speaker never even needs to say he's not going to allow the vote, he just never puts it on the schedule and waffles when asked why or when.


I wish more people understood how the government actually functions, how much of it relies upon tradition, and how little regard the modern GOP has for those legally toothless traditions.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by crescent

The beauty of it is that the Speaker of the House could refuse to allow a vote on the confirmation by just never scheduling it.

Then all the little Republican reps go up for re-election and say "Who, me? I NEVER voted to deny confirmation!" Which would be true, but only because their party never let it come up for a vote.

And gullible voters would eat that up and still blame the Dems. That's why the speaker always comes from the safest of safe seats - they can be as unethical and maximally obstructionist as possible and still get reelected while those in the more competitive seats gets to claim some deniability for the dysfunction. The speaker never even needs to say he's not going to allow the vote, he just never puts it on the schedule and waffles when asked why or when.


I wish more people understood how the government actually functions, how much of it relies upon tradition, and how little regard the modern GOP has for those legally toothless traditions.

Of course, Biden could simply take a leaf from the Fat Orange Turd's playbook, and, like any Congressional appointee, the person concerned could simply be declared Acting Vice President.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Seems a strange thing to claim in the context of a president resigning and being replaced by a vice-president. It’s not really inconsequential if that in that event.

I still say it's totally inconsequential. I've already pointed out that there's half a dozen other offices with people in them, ready to succeed to the presidency. If the President disappears and the Vice President happens to be unavailable, nothing bad happens. The succession just rolls right on to the next in line and government continues pretty much as normal.

Quote:

Well, that’s not really the case. Half of Senators might oppose something on partisan lines, but it makes sense that you can have a tie breaker based on the public’s choice (*) of President.

I agree it makes sense to have a tie breaker vote, but if your initiative comes down to that one vote, you've already failed. You've failed in the worst possible way: By forcing your policy on a huge chunk of people, by the slimmest of margins, because you already completely failed to convince more of them that yours was a good idea. Sure, you can do it, but you probably shouldn't. Take away that tie-breaker, and the worst thing that happens is that your turd of a policy dies a well-deserved death on the floor of the Senate. Maybe try something with a bit of bi-partisan support next time.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I still say it's totally inconsequential. I've already pointed out that there's half a dozen other offices with people in them, ready to succeed to the presidency. If the President disappears and the Vice President happens to be unavailable, nothing bad happens. The succession just rolls right on to the next in line and government continues pretty much as normal.

Of course, it makes it consequential from the point of view that both major parties want to fill next in line with their guy or gal.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I agree it makes sense to have a tie breaker vote, but if your initiative comes down to that one vote, you've already failed. You've failed in the worst possible way: By forcing your policy on a huge chunk of people, by the slimmest of margins, because you already completely failed to convince more of them that yours was a good idea. Sure, you can do it, but you probably shouldn't. Take away that tie-breaker, and the worst thing that happens is that your turd of a policy dies a well-deserved death on the floor of the Senate. Maybe try something with a bit of bi-partisan support next time.

Come on! You're not as new to politics as this post is trying to pass itself off as.

We don't live in the world where such noble sentiment holds sway.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Forcing things half of everyone doesn't want, by the slimmest of margins, is not such a great idea anyway.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I agree it makes sense to have a tie breaker vote, but if your initiative comes down to that one vote, you've already failed. You've failed in the worst possible way: By forcing your policy on a huge chunk of people, by the slimmest of margins, because you already completely failed to convince more of them that yours was a good idea. Sure, you can do it, but you probably shouldn't. Take away that tie-breaker, and the worst thing that happens is that your turd of a policy dies a well-deserved death on the floor of the Senate. Maybe try something with a bit of bi-partisan support next time.

You do realize that half of "the Senate" =/= half of "everyone", even everyone in America, don't you? And that GOPers in the House and the Senate rejecting a policy doesn't make it a "turd", as they routinely reject anything and everything Democrats propose simply because a Democrat proposed it?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I agree it makes sense to have a tie breaker vote, but if your initiative comes down to that one vote, you've already failed. You've failed in the worst possible way: By forcing your policy on a huge chunk of people, by the slimmest of margins, because you already completely failed to convince more of them that yours was a good idea. Sure, you can do it, but you probably shouldn't. Take away that tie-breaker, and the worst thing that happens is that your turd of a policy dies a well-deserved death on the floor of the Senate. Maybe try something with a bit of bi-partisan support next time.

The party that won the election shouldn't be allowed to govern!

- Member of the party that lost the election

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Come on! You're not as new to politics as this post is trying to pass itself off as.

We don't live in the world where such noble sentiment holds sway.

It's not a noble sentiment at all. Just my knee-jerk low opinion of the value of such paper-thin majorities in support of public policy.

I know there are a lot of people on the right and the left that hold such bare margins in high esteem, when the tie-breaking votes are going their way and they get to force their unpopular ideas on people. I know it, and I don't like it. And that's why the though of not having a Vice President around to break ties in the Senate doesn't bother me as much as it might bother someone else.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The party that won the election shouldn't be allowed to govern!

- Member of the party that lost the election

Ya I don't think the need for a tie-breaker says anything about the quality of the policy in question at all these days.

Another poster liked to refer to the Herschel Walker run-off election as an attempt to show how bad Democrats are. That is not the conclusion I would draw from that spectacle.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why would they want to? Why would it matter? The Vice Presidency is almost entirely inconsequential.

One out of four presidents leaves the office early. And the last time they did, the VP replacing him was himself not elected, but a nominated VP replacment for the resigned VP.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's not a noble sentiment at all. Just my knee-jerk low opinion of the value of such paper-thin majorities in support of public policy.

I know there are a lot of people on the right and the left that hold such bare margins in high esteem, when the tie-breaking votes are going their way and they get to force their unpopular ideas on people. I know it, and I don't like it. And that's why the though of not having a Vice President around to break ties in the Senate doesn't bother me as much as it might bother someone else.

You seem to be of the opinion that the Senate is a representative body. It is not. California's 40 million residents are served by two Senators. So are Wyoming's 600,000. Survey after survey has demonstrated that large majorities of Americans support gun control, abortion rights, universal health care, higher taxes on the wealthy, etc., etc., etc. But right-wing senators ("conservative" really isn't the right word) representing a minority of Americans have worked to defeat all such programs, just as they fought civil rights laws through most of the 20th century. A Senate split of 50-50 does not mean the nation is similarly split.

[erlando]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I agree it makes sense to have a tie breaker vote, but if your initiative comes down to that one vote, you've already failed. You've failed in the worst possible way: By forcing your policy on a huge chunk of people, by the slimmest of margins, because you already completely failed to convince more of them that yours was a good idea. Sure, you can do it, but you probably shouldn't. Take away that tie-breaker, and the worst thing that happens is that your turd of a policy dies a well-deserved death on the floor of the Senate. Maybe try something with a bit of bi-partisan support next time.

The Democratic senators represent approx. 41 million more americans than the Republican senators. So why shouldn't a proposal with 50 Democratic votes be passed?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Well, that’s not really the case. Half of Senators might oppose something on partisan lines, but it makes sense that you can have a tie breaker based on the public’s choice (*) of President.

It's also worth noting that the formulation "half of everyone doesn't want" is a bit disingenuous when used with respect to the Senate. It's more a matter of what "half the Senators" don't want. With the inherent bias built into the Senate, you can have half the Senate that represents somewhat less that half the US population. And of the less-than-half of the population that they represent, at least some of them would have voted for the other candidate.

And we see just that. The Senate routinely votes against things that are supported by 60-70% of the population at large.

[mikegriffith1]

Harris would choose her own vice president, who would have to be confirmed by Congress.

I think too much is being made of Biden's admittedly careless handling of classified documents. After all, Biden is the ultimate classification authority in the government. He can declassify any document he wants to declassify.

Granted, we want our presidents to handle classified documents responsibly, but I don't see what Biden did as a serious crime.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by erlando

The Democratic senators represent approx. 41 million more americans than the Republican senators. So why shouldn't a proposal with 50 Democratic votes be passed?

That's the House's job.

[erlando]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's the House's job.

You were not talking about the House..

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by erlando

The Democratic senators represent approx. 41 million more americans than the Republican senators. So why shouldn't a proposal with 50 Democratic votes be passed?

Just to add to thepretige's answer about why population only matters in the House and not the Senate:

"Why are states equal in the Senate?

The “Great Compromise of 1787” reconciled the demands of the large states with those of the small states by establishing proportional representation of states in the House of Representatives based on population, and equal representation in the Senate."

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins...deralist62.htm

(Each of the 435 members of the House represent about 760k people now, with states sometimes gaining or losing seats when census data changes)

The word 'democracy' is used a lot when simplifying US ideals in comparison to other countries, but the US doesnt really operate that way. It is a constitutional federal republic.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

.....
The “Great Compromise of 1787” reconciled the demands of the large states with those of the small states by establishing proportional representation of states in the House of Representatives based on population, and equal representation in the Senate."
.....

Just curious (I don't know the answer). How far apart in population were the largest vs. the smallest states at the time the Constitution was adopted? I'm willing to bet the ratio was nowhere close to 40 million vs. 600,000.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Just curious (I don't know the answer). How far apart in population were the largest vs. the smallest states at the time the Constitution was adopted? I'm willing to bet the ratio was nowhere close to 40 million vs. 600,000.

You can blame congress for that as they give statehood and decide the boundaries of each one. California was odd in that it was admitted very fast before much debate about its size was done. The year it was acquired was the same year gold was discovered so the mass rush for riches also caused a rush to get California officially into the fold as a state - with north to south boundaries it had already.

It should be split, but it wont happen.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Just to add to thepretige's answer about why population only matters in the House and not the Senate:

"Why are states equal in the Senate?

The “Great Compromise of 1787” reconciled the demands of the large states with those of the small states by establishing proportional representation of states in the House of Representatives based on population, and equal representation in the Senate."

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins...deralist62.htm

(Each of the 435 members of the House represent about 760k people now, with states sometimes gaining or losing seats when census data changes)

The word 'democracy' is used a lot when simplifying US ideals in comparison to other countries, but the US doesnt really operate that way. It is a constitutional federal republic.

Actually, the compromise of 1787 had nothing to do with balancing the power of big and small states, but everything to do with ensuring the slave states had a permanent majority over New England.

And congress is no longer representative (if, indeed, it ever was). With gerrymandering and skewing the census counts, the excess number of people represented by Democrats is now of a similar magnitude as the discrepancy in the senate.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Just to add to thepretige's answer about why population only matters in the House and not the Senate:

But according to theprestige, he was talking about the population when he brought up the idea that the Dems were "forcing things half of everyone doesn't want" on the country. (my emphasis)

And of course that dishonest framing is shown to be even worse when it's pointed out that Senate Reps routinely vote against things that are supported by the majority of US citizens.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I agree it makes sense to have a tie breaker vote, but if your initiative comes down to that one vote, you've already failed. You've failed in the worst possible way: By forcing your policy on a huge chunk of people, by the slimmest of margins, because you already completely failed to convince more of them that yours was a good idea. Sure, you can do it, but you probably shouldn't. Take away that tie-breaker, and the worst thing that happens is that your turd of a policy dies a well-deserved death on the floor of the Senate. Maybe try something with a bit of bi-partisan support next time.

At face value it sounds reasonable.

Meanwhile, in the context of this world where the GOP aggressively uses the quirks of the system to attempt to cement minority rule taking it at face value would be frivolous.

The whole idea of mandates based on the will of the electorate rather than "you lost by the rules **** you" is something only taken seriously by terminally gullible centrists and the sorts of Republicans that try real hard to forget how happy they were about George W. Bush's first term and/or who want to take advantage of terminally gullible centrists.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Why in the world would President Biden resign over this? I mean speculating about how a President Harris would roll out is one thing, but can we at least propose a reasonable pretext for her to ascend? Like, he had a senior moment and made a wrong turn in the White House hallways and got mixed in with a troupe of geriatric tourists and ended up turning tricks in the Villages?

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yes. The nominee has to pass both houses of Congress according to the 25th Amendment, Section 2:



I'm in the "unlikely to happen" camp; the most likely outcome is not that Republicans call for Biden's impeachment and conviction, but that Democrats cool off a bit about Trump's classified docs.

It's not the Democrats who'd need to cool off, it's the DOJ in Trump's case.

[Sherkeu]

I think Biden will announce that he will not seek reelection- in a month or so, likely just after Valentines where he may say he had a long talk with Jill, who is recovering from skin cancer surgery and decided to step back and enjoy retirement.

Nothing will happen with the documents. No impeachment or anything. The GOP would probably rather have him run. Jill would rather have him home. It is clear he isn't fit now, let alone get through a full campaign- and 4 years after that? No way. He is being ousted.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I think Biden will announce that he will not seek reelection- in a month or so, likely just after Valentines where he may say he had a long talk with Jill, who is recovering from skin cancer surgery and decided to step back and enjoy retirement.

Nothing will happen with the documents. No impeachment or anything. The GOP would probably rather have him run. Jill would rather have him home. It is clear he isn't fit now, let alone get through a full campaign- and 4 years after that? No way. He is being ousted.

Probably as good a time as any to remind everyone that Biden had one of the most successful first-term presidencies in modern history. But sure, he's unfit.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Probably as good a time as any to remind everyone that Biden had one of the most successful first-term presidencies in modern history. But sure, he's unfit.

If his own people saw him fit to run again, he would not be half-way under the bus right now. Stories with negative impact will keep coming- from the left.

Open primary season begins in March.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Probably as good a time as any to remind everyone that Biden had one of the most successful first-term presidencies in modern history. But sure, he's unfit.

He's too old. I do not want a newly elected 82-83 year old President. We need someone young and new to energize voters, including me. He did his job now he can retire. Even if he's fine he should not run again, my opinion. No way.

On topic: if he resigns over papergate he's a fool. But he won't because there's no reason he should.

PS: I told my Dad Biden has gotten a lot done and he just laughs (he's a Fox viewer, so...). So I guess it depends on who you ask. How could the Republicans not see the great work Biden has done! Pffft. Just ask one

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

He's too old. I do not want a newly elected 82-83 year old President. We need someone young and new to energize voters, including me. He did his job now he can retire. Even if he's fine he should not run again, my opinion. No way.

On topic: if he resigns over papergate he's a fool. But he won't because there's no reason he should.

PS: I told my Dad Biden has gotten a lot done and he just laughs (he's a Fox viewer, so...). So I guess it depends on who you ask. How could the Republicans not see the great work Biden has done! Pffft. Just ask one

Someone younger doesn’t narrow it down much.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Harris would choose her own vice president, who would have to be confirmed by Congress.

I think too much is being made of Biden's admittedly careless handling of classified documents. After all, Biden is the ultimate classification authority in the government. He can declassify any document he wants to declassify.

Granted, we want our presidents to handle classified documents responsibly, but I don't see what Biden did as a serious crime.

None of the documents found were able to be declassified by Biden. These date from when he was a senator and vice president. Unlike Trump, who actually had "ultimate classification authority". Biden's having these documents is blatantly criminal.

[Athyrio]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

None of the documents found were able to be declassified by Biden. These date from when he was a senator and vice president. Unlike Trump, who actually had "ultimate classification authority". Biden's having these documents is blatantly criminal.

And Biden hasn’t been a Senator since 2009. Doesn’t anybody keep better track of classified documents? I wonder how many other Senators, retired or currently serving, have such documents stashed in the family room or in the bathroom’s magazine rack? Maybe the NARA should declare an amnesty day like the libraries do when they want their overdue books back.

[ZiprHead]

Originally Posted by Athyrio

And Biden hasn’t been a Senator since 2009. Doesn’t anybody keep better track of classified documents? I wonder how many other Senators, retired or currently serving, have such documents stashed in the family room or in the bathroom’s magazine rack? Maybe the NARA should declare an amnesty day like the libraries do when they want their overdue books back.

James Comey said it happens quite often and most all presidents have done it inadvertently

[Athyrio]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

James Comey said it happens quite often and most all presidents have done it inadvertently

Exactly what I am concerned with. Biden apparently took some of them home when he was a senator and was no longer in an elective office after January 2017. So for 4 years he retained these sensitive papers as “citizen” Biden, not being in any elected position and with no guarantee that he would be returned to a prominent position of government (or even being alive for that matter) and yet no one from the circulation desk of NARA said “Hey Joe - you got some overdue books - nickel a day for each”. I‘ll accept that some of the forgetfulness may have been inadvertent, but if these documents are so bloody important, does not someone else have a responsibility of keeping track of them? Thirteen years of such documents not being stored properly is not acceptable.

So, how many other U.S. legislators have, active or retired, such documents in their possession in an area easily compromised? To be a target, one doesn’t have to be guilty of taking home sensitive material. All one has to do is be a current or former member of the U.S. Congress.

A wingnut broke into Pelosi’s residence, but what would have happened if it had been an official operation of a U.S. enemy seeking whatever intelligence she may have laying on the coffee table?

Now all of the legislators are suspect to the possibility of possessing vital secrets in a crackerjack box and none should be surprised at being awakened in the night by someone shouting something like, “What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

If his own people saw him fit to run again, he would not be half-way under the bus right now. Stories with negative impact will keep coming- from the left.

Open primary season begins in March.

I'm not so sure that the far left were ever Biden's "own people". It's not like there weren't attacks on him from the left during the 2020 general election.

Originally Posted by Wolrab

None of the documents found were able to be declassified by Biden. These date from when he was a senator and vice president. Unlike Trump, who actually had "ultimate classification authority". Biden's having these documents is blatantly criminal.

As a VP, Biden did have the authority to declassify documents.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by wareyin

As a VP, Biden did have the authority to declassify documents.

This is true. As far as I have read, it is for things he himself classified. Or rather, the VP office he oversees must be the originator of the classification...then he can declassify.

Is that what you meant? Do you think Biden's VP office originated all of those documents?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

This is true. As far as I have read, it is for things he himself classified. Or rather, the VP office he oversees must be the originator of the classification...then he can declassify.

Is that what you meant? Do you think Biden's VP office originated all of those documents?

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that back in 2015 (or whenever those papers originated from), Biden as Vice President had the authority to declassify. In contrast to the claim made by Wolrab that Biden didn't have the ability to declassify as a veep.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Random

The order of succession just promotes the next person on the list into the Presidency. It does not promote everyone under them. If Biden were to leave office, Harris would become President, but McCarthy would not advance a step into the Vice-Presidency.

Replacing the Vice President would be separate.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

McCarthy? If the president resigns the vice president moves up to the presidency and then appoints a vice president, confirmed by Congress. Speaker doesn't move up; the speaker's in the line of succession only if both president and vice president are removed simultaneously, as in an emergency like if they're both squashed by a falling ice cream truck.

This.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why would they want to? Why would it matter? The Vice Presidency is almost entirely inconsequential. And thanks to the extremely well-established rules of succession, a gap in that office won't cause a problem even if the President suddenly disappears.

The worst thing that could possibly happen without a Vice President is that the Senate would be unable to pass a highly contentious, polarizing, divisive bill by a single vote. And that is fine with me. Forcing things half of everyone doesn't want, by the slimmest of margins, is not such a great idea anyway.

The only value you the VP has is as a running mate to get some constituency the POTUS nominee doesn't appeal to. Which in Harris's case is every constituency. The only reason a republican congress would block a nominee to prevent them from becoming a contender for the presidency.

The best thing for Dems would be to nominate Butigege. He's easilly the best politician the Dems have but he lacks much experience and is kind of a light weight. The VP post would give him a decent chance at getting elected as the POTUS later.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by wareyin

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that back in 2015 (or whenever those papers originated from), Biden as Vice President had the authority to declassify. In contrast to the claim made by Wolrab that Biden didn't have the ability to declassify as a veep.

From the usatoday link you provided it says:

Quote:

McClanahan, who also teaches at the George Washington University Law School, said that under a 2009 executive order signed by Obama, the vice president is included in a list of "original classification authorities," meaning Biden had the power declassify anything he classified.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

From the usatoday link you provided it says:

That's nice. Which part of that proves the claim the Veeps don't have declassification power? Or which part contradicts my claim that Veeps do have declassification power?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by wareyin

That's nice. Which part of that proves the claim the Veeps don't have declassification power? Or which part contradicts my claim that Veeps do have declassification power?

They do, but in a VERY limited way. The must be the originator of the document.

The veep cannot declassify something classified from the CIA or FBI or NSA, or from the President, or from the DOJ, or a cabinet member, ambassador, the IRS, the budget office, or any other intel source.

He must be the originator.


eta:You keep repeating this claim of "declassification powers" when it means near nothing in terms of the documents found.
Unless you think Biden, as VP, was the originator of ALL of those documents AND that he went through the procedure to declassify them before leaving office. Even the staunchest apologists for Biden do not make that claim. Mostly it is the bait and switch you have tried ie "he had the power'....without saying what it actually means and hoping the public swallows the misdirection.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

They do, but in a VERY limited way. The must be the originator of the document.

The veep cannot declassify something classified from the CIA or FBI or NSA, or from the President, or from the DOJ, or a cabinet member, ambassador, the IRS, the budget office, or any other intel source.

He must be the originator.

That's nice. Who was the originator of the documents in question?