No Stupid Questions

4348 readers

28 users here now

There is no such thing as a Stupid Question!

Don't be embarrassed of your curiosity; everyone has questions that they may feel uncomfortable asking certain people, so this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.

ex. How do I change oil
ex. How to tie shoes
ex. Can you cry underwater?

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca still apply!

Thanks for reading all of this, even if you didn't read all of this, and your eye started somewhere else, have a watermelon slice 🍉.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

admin@lemmy.ca

Was the 12th amendment a mistake? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.ca

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Before the 12th amendment, the presidential candidate who got the second most electoral votes became the vice president. This meant they were usually different parties.

It occurred to me that one thing this achieved was always ensuring that there was someone in the room who would be willing to disagree with the president. He couldn't surround himself with yes-men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Vice presidents don’t usually sit around the room. They’re not heavily involved in day to day decisions

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But they can if they want to be. It's not like you can keep them out of the room without explicit orders from the president. And even then, if they force their way in, what is the secret service going to do? Tackle the VP?

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 4 points 4 weeks ago

Today, that is correct, because the president and VP are generally aligned on issues so there's no reason to push them out.

On paper the VP's only real responsibilities are to cast occasional tie-breaking votes and not die.

The tie breaking vote is practically useless if the next step is a veto and you clearly don't have the votes to overturn it.

In a modern cluster fuck of a world without explicit laws assigning powers and access to the VP, a VP from an opposing party would DEFINITELY be banned from spaces near POTUS, likely under the guise of securing the line of succession.

With a hypothetical Trump/Harris ticket you can be absolutely certain he would try everything in his power to get her locked in a lightless bunker "for safety"

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yo VP's so fat, when they sit around the room, they sit AROUND the room!

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

I think it depends on the administration. They certainly should be given line of succession. Their main purpose is to carry on without missing a beat.