How Stupid is the Washington Times, you ask?

There is an article today in the Washington Times about the possibility of an electoral college tie. It speculates that the Democratic-controlled House would elect Barack Obama, but that the Senate, being 50/50 split (and Lieberman voting for McCain) might elect a different VP. Of course, the Washington Times apparently doesn't know that it is the NEW Congress that elects the President, not the old one. They mention that as a "possibility" raised by "some scholars" on the second page of the article. What's funny (or tragic) is that this is the same seat-of-the-pants constitutional argumentation that is common to tax protestors and people who go nuts over fringes on flags. A little education dispels the autodidact's errors.

Let's review. The operative language comes from the Twelfth Amendment:

"[the electors] 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."

This will not happen until January 6th, after the new Congress takes office. The Washington Times and its "scholars" are confused about when the H of R shall meet "immediately" after a tie. You see, the electors meet in their respective states on December 15th (the first Monday after the second Weds in December) and cast votes, and that tally is known (it is not a secret) but those vote are not formally transmitted to the President of the Senate for counting in the joint session at that time. On January 6th, according to 3 USC 15, they are opened in joint session of the NEW Congress.

Where does the Washington Times get these morons?