Turns out supporting the Constitution doesnt mean you have to READ the consistution

So everyone knows Barack Obama is flagrantly violating the US Constitution right? and if you don't just ask the far right, they will be more then happy to explain it to you. You see unlike the rest of the country, the right wing has actually read the Constitution, AND they know the intent of the founders because they did so. This is how they know the founders intended for us to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness above all else, the most common rhetorical example of their constitutional expertise. And yes I know, you think they are wrong, but a little known fact, the Declaration of Independence is actually officially titled "US Constitution: Section -I: The British Menace." and was intended as a prequel to the better known and more "US Constitution".

Well it turns out that utilizing that same constitutional expertise, the right wing has noticed two other major constitutional issues Obama's reelection has brought up:

First, the 2012 election isnt over yet, and Mitt Romney could still win.
How does this work? I mean didnt we just vote the other week? and didnt Obama beat Romney by what ironically appears to be 52% to 47%? Yep. But heres the thing, that doesnt matter worth a damn.

See the thanks to Article II of the US Constitution the popular vote is useless. See the founders figured we would be too stupid to pick the right president, so they designed a system that would actually do it called the electoral college (which of course picked Bush instead of Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the popular vote....glad to see the american people were protected from getting the stupid candidate....). And the electoral college hasn't convened yet. In fact when you thought you were voting for Obama on election day (or Romney, or Jill Stein in my case) you were actually voting for an elector from your state who will vote for a candidate, that in theory reflects your pick in the electoral college next month.

It's worth noting by the way that the electors dont actually have to follow the wishes of the people who voted for them. Notably as an example in 1820, James Monroe won all but 1 electoral vote after an elector named William Plummer said "the hell with the popular vote in my state, I think John Quincy Adams would be a better president" and cast the only opposing electoral vote against Monroe, however the instances of this happening are few and far between, and I dont believe has happened at all in the last century plus, and even when it did never really in a large amount (with the sole exception of 1876, which was a giant ball of "what the fuck?" in terms of elections).

Now you see for most people, this is where any speculation would end. Romney in theory could win, the electoral college might just say "fuck it" and vote for Romney. But doing so would likely destroy the American Election system, so I think we can all agree it's not gonna happen and move on.

Well except for the Constitutional experts over at World Net Daily (the same people who brought you the Birthers), they accept every thing I said above as true, but they noticed something all of the rest of us missed. See according to them the 12th amendment changes the rules of the electoral college (which in fairness it does, as it requires the President and Vice President to be on the same ballot) by requiring a 2/3rd majority of the Electoral College to convince to elect any President. And of course Article II and the 12th amendment both make it clear if the College cant reach a decision the choice for President goes to the US House of Representatives and the Vice President will be chosen by the senate. Now of course given the make up of the Senate that would likely result in Joe Biden remaining Vice President, however the Republican controlled house would of course select Mitt Romney for president.

And all that has to happen is for enough electors to not show up for the convening of the college, and since the republican's did win the majority of the states (even if not the electoral vote) thats easy enough to do.

So BOOM Mitt Romney is president, and its all legal.

So the real question is, how did the rest of us miss this? well see it all revolves around a typo, here verbatim is the 12th amendment

"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; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

now you'll note if you read that, the words "two-thirds" appear only twice: once in describing how many Representatives are needed to vote for President and once in describing how many Senators are needed to vote for Vice President. And note as well there are no restrictions at all in how many electors are needed to convene of the college. And that presumably was a typo. We have to assume the founders would want all the restrictions to apply to anyone picking the president right, clearly that was their intent.

Really a typo is the only option, after all given the credibility of the people who believe the president wasnt born eligible to be president, and only got there due to a 40 year pilot involving both parties, what other choice can there be?

And now the next major pressing constitutional issue: Obama is gonna win reelection in 2016.

To be fair actually this one doesnt seem to have originated with the right wing, instead it draws from the other group of constitutional scholars, the libertarians (specifically Porter Stansberry), its just being pushed by the right wing. Still though they noticed something in the law the rest of us never considered so they should likely at least split the credit. Actually to be honest the right wing should get all the credit, see if you listen to Stansberry's presentation (like I have for the last hour :/ ) you realize something really quickly....its a sales pitch to use his company to invest in oil and gas. So its was never intended to be a political theory, just a ploy to scam right wingers. See out of the hour + of the presentation about 5 minutes are actually about Obama and how hes bad, the rest is all trying to convince you that oil and gas are about to reach unimaginable heights and make a ton of money so buy now.

But the right wing is pushing it for one simple reason, they have been alerted to the idea Obama might win again in 2016. And that is a crisis you need to know about. In short the "theory" is this: Thanks to about 50 different factors all converging at once (none of which have anything to do with Obama) Obama is going to be president in 2015 when this massive historic oil boom happens. And the profits and great economy this generate will cause people to demand he run for reelection in 2016....and maybe 2020. As proof they point to the last time this happened, when the great economics of the 1930's got FDR elected 4 times (um WHAT?).

Now to the normal person there would seem to be a problem in this theory....a problem that should be evident by the 5th word that followed "issue" 3 paragraphs ago: Reelection. See according to most of us there is this thing called the 22nd amendment and it reads:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

So it would appear at first glance that your term limited to two terms (maybe two and a half if you serve 2 years of your predecessors term). But see according to right wing constitutional geniuses have a pretty obvious solution....believe me you'll be kicking yourself's for not seeing this one:

Change the Constitution. DUH!

I mean after all we've done it 27 times already, whats a 28th? and we even have a precedent for using one amendment to repeal another (18th and 21st amendments). So its all good right?

Now if your a moron like me you probably point  to Article I Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution which says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Ex post facto, means "passed after the fact" in other words if your bound by two terms when you enter office, you cant unbind yourself after you get in.

So no matter what Obama does, he would be limited to two terms. So HA I win right? Wrong.

See I forgot the most important thing, the magical thing only the right wing (and select libertarians) can see, the "founders intent" and see the thing is the 22nd amendment was passed in 1947. And clearly I'm not a historian (since I thought the 1930's were a Great Depression and not a time of massive economic growth, so what do I know?) so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure all the founders were dead by then. Which means they clearly had nothing to do with the 22nd amendment. And if the founders had intended term limits they would have done it when they were alive.

Which means terms limits arnt actually law, so Obama can violate them. Which means we need to fear a 3rd or 4th or dare I say it 5th Obama term in the future. Which is why we must boycott the electoral college so that we can make Mitt Romney the president now, before the Second Obama Term happens.

Arnt you glad we have such consistutional scholars on the right wing? looking out for us and our great country and making sure we stay focused on the important and relevant problems in the world? I know I am.