25th Amendment Conspiracy Options

JD Vance

Donald Trump has acknowledged he will (or may) not be on the ticket in 2028 and that there are a lot of candidates to take his place.   JD Vance and Marco Rubio are at the top of the list.

I suggest that Trump watch out for JD.

JD will be watching to see what the chances are that Trump will be out of office before his term ends. If Trump leaves the presidency early, JD will take over for the rest of Trump's term and may be able to be elected to two more terms of his own. All challenges by other candidates like Rubio will be over before they can start.

If necessary, JD can work behind the scenes very, very quietly to fuel and support the 25^th Amendment to get Trump out of office early so he can be elevated to the presidency. Maybe a leak of a bad Trump physical or mental health diagnosis would be enough to get the ball rolling. JD would initially claim that talk of forcing Trump out of office is treasonous, but after awhile he will reluctantly concede it may be best for the good of the country.

Magettes will destroy JD if there is any hint he is working to get Trump out of office early. Even more likely, if Trump decides JD is working against him, Trump will make sure JD leaves office before he does. How does Don Jr as a replacement VP sound?

Rubio has to know all this, so it will be interesting see what he does to foil JD's plans. Maybe a cabal of Republican presidential candidates would work together to block JD.

BTW, in a previous post I said I didn't want to see Trump harmed or killed because the MAGA conspiracies on what “really” happened will be insane.  Simple logic says JD will have to get his fair share of scrutiny if any thing happens to Trump while he is in office.

Voting For A Presidential Third Party Is Bad

The U.S. political system is currently structured for two parties.  Voting for a third party presidential candidate is not a good idea.

At best, a vote for a presidential third party candidate is potentially bad for one of the two major party candidates.  It is a common belief that Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from winning Florida in 2000.  The thought is that without Nader, who received thousands of votes in Florida, more Nader voters would have voted for Gore than would have voted for Bush.  We can't know that for sure, but it does make sense given the platforms of each candidate.  Bush beat Gore in Florida by only about 800 votes while Gore won the national popular vote by more than 500,000.  If Gore had won Florida he would have been the next president.  Imagine how that might have changed world history. Like no war with Iraq.

There are some people who think that third party voters kept Clinton from beating Trump in the 2016 race.

But worse than that is what happens if a strong third party candidate divides the vote totals so that no presidential ticket gets a majority of the electoral college vote (>=270).  This situation is called a contingent election and it will get ugly very quickly.  

According to ChatGPT here is roughly what would happen:

If nobody secures a majority of the electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the president from the top three vote-getters, with each state delegation casting one vote, and a candidate needs 26 state votes to win. Meanwhile, if there’s no VP majority, the Senate chooses the vice president. If the House hasn’t selected a president by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect acts as president, or if there’s no VP-elect either, the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.

Read that paragraph carefully.  It is just a summary, but even this exposes several issues with this process.  

Representatives from each state vote as a group to determine their single vote from their state to elect the next president.  Do you see any possible problems with that?  The Representatives that vote are those from the new Congress just elected.

That means in a contingent election the state of California with 54 electoral votes (and approximately 16 million voters) has the same power to elect the next president as Wyoming with 3 electoral votes (and approximately 300,000 voters).   

The vice president is selected by a similar process, but with a separate vote in the Senate.  Senators must vote for one of the top two vice presidential candidates (the House chooses from the top three presidential candidates).  Each Senator gets one vote. Fifty-one votes are needed (not just a majority of the Senators present at the time of the vote).  So the vice president selected by the Senate could come from a different party than the president selected by the House.   

I believe if the Senate selects a vice president elect, but the House has not selected a president elect by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect is the acting president until the House selects a president-elect.  If neither chamber has made their selections before Inauguration Day, the Speaker of the House is the acting president.  

The Constitution originally had the presidential election and vice presidential election as separate.  The 12th Amendment changed that.  Now a party chooses a team of a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate, but the contingent election process still sees the presidential race and the vice presidential race as separate.  

Without going into great detail, we might see candidates try to form coalitions to get the necessary votes in the House.  Building a coalition might force a presidential candidate to elevate the power of some minor party or selected Representatives just to get enough votes to win the presidency.  For an example, look at how Israel has had to suffer with the extreme religious right's hold on Netanyahu.  He absolutely needs these extremist in his coalition so he must accept some of their absurd demands.  

My point is, we don't want to ever get into a situation where the election goes to the House.  Voting for a third party presidential candidate that can't possibly win is not just your way of making a statement, it could allow a candidate you would never vote for win.

If you think gerrymandering is a hot topic now, hold your breath if no candidate gets a electoral majority.  Given that Trump thinks he is above the law, who knows how he (or a subsequent Republican presidential candidate) would deal with an election that went to the Congress. Again, it will get ugly very quickly.  And if a third party is strong enough, contingent elections could become the norm and generate seismic changes to the political landscape.  Small state Representatives will receive huge increases in campaign contributions since they will probably elect the next president.

I don't have a problem with third parties.  I think the country would benefit from a more robust discussion of issues. But we need to abandon the Electoral College and change the presidential selection process.  Allowing the House and Senate to determine presidential elections results seems like a very bad idea.  

You can double check my information by asking ChatGPT or your AI for information about Presidential contingent election rules, Election & contingent election timeline, Electoral College rules.

Don't Give In To Threats Of Political Violence

I've been seeing comments that using the 14th Amendments to keep Trump off the ballot is unconstitutional and will lead to violence.

As everyone should know, the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.  So using the 14th Amendment is literally constitutional!

As for violence, Trump lied about the 2020 election being stolen from him and then attempted to stop the transfer of power and in doing so incited violence.

So if he is kept off the ballot we can expect violence.

If he loses the 2024 election we can expect claims the election was stolen again and violence.

If he wins the 2024 election he will implement the plans he has been telling about and we can expect violence.  Violence from Trump's retribution and, possibly, violence from people who refuse to let him: 

 

* Destroy the non-partisan FBI

* Destroy the independent DOJ

* Destroy the rule of law

* Destroy our non-partisan and independent judiciary (he will ignore the courts)

* Use the military for domestic control

* Put his political opponents in jail

* Shut down media that criticize him.

Basically the same goals he had for his first administration, but now with better execution and still no Republican party that will rein him in.

Threats of violence should not be allowed to further any domestic political goals. So I vote to keep him off the ballot and use our intact FBI, DOJ and independent judiciary to handle any domestic violence he incites.

14th Amendment Was Written For Trump

After carefully reading the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, I was struck by how it seems to be perfectly written to fit the situation we currently find ourselves in.

I'm obviously not a Constitutional or legal scholar, but as I hear the comments from people who are experts I'm taken by how we are facing issues similar to those that legislators faced after the Civil War when the 14^th Amendment was written and adopted.

The South was defeated and brought back into the Union, but there were many southerners who would never concede they were wrong or they actually lost (sound familiar?). What was to stop these people from picking up where they left off before the war started and again elect people to state and federal offices to continue to try to break or harm the Union?  Congress believed laws were needed to prevent this. I've heard several ideas were floated and rejected before the 14^th Amendment was adopted (with some later changes). I'll admit the amendment language seems somewhat out of step with other parts of the Constitution, but I think it was intentional.

Let me conjecture why I think the amendment was written as it was and so clearly matches our current needs. The 14th Amendment applies to certain federal and state office holders (civil and military).  For this discussion I'm focusing primarily on the presidency.

The amendment says people are disqualified from holding office again "if previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.".

These are people who have shown they can't be trusted.   They broke their oath.

The amendment does not require that an insurrectionist be convicted of a crime. I'm guessing that this may have been for several reasons.  The number of people who could have been taken to court for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion after the civil war would have been in the millions.  How could you find enough unbiased jurors in the south to hear the cases?  Most southerners were themselves insurrectionists or had given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

Another reason for not requiring a conviction was that in general it was obvious who was an insurrectionist.  Most people did not hide what they believed and what they did.  In fact they were defiantly proud of their actions.  Again, sound familiar?

Since the vast majority of the population of much of the country were obvious insurrectionists the authors set the bar low for disqualification. If a person has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. the 14^th Amendment finds the person is disqualified from holding office again. That disqualification could then be appealed to Congress. This put the onus for prompt action to reverse their disqualification on the insurrectionist rather than on election officials or courts.

Why didn't the authors add text that said if an insurrectionist were elected by voters, that should override the disqualification language of the 14^th Amendment? As stated above, in former Confederate states, how many Confederate officers (civil or military) would be overwhelming elected or selected again?  Many voters would clearly believe that insurrectionists had done nothing wrong. They agreed with the insurrectionists. So the 14^th Amendment does not disqualify insurrectionists from voting, it just says you can't vote for a former insurrectionist. Punish the oath breakers not the average voter.

Trump brags that he could shoot someone in a public space and his followers would still vote for him. Or he could be convicted of a felony and they would vote for him. Those supporters are telling us clearly that many of them will vote for him even though his participation in an insurrection is obvious to anyone willing to objectively look at the facts. These voters seem to believe that a person who did not honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or the rule of law should be allowed to further damage our country.

Donald Trump publicly tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. If you don't believe that, you have to be willfully ignorant. On an almost daily basis he tells us how little he believes in the Constitution and the democratic institutions that have made us the leader of the world. He tells us how he will use his presidential and political power to remake our country. He had one term as president and we know how it went.  It ended with him trying to stop the peaceful transfer if power, a hallmark of our country

If we allow him to be elected again, and he begins to reshape our country in the illegal ways as he is promising, what do we do? (And no, he is not joking. Trump is only about Trump. Anything he says or does is just to help Trump.). Unless Democrats have super majorities in the House and Senate the constitutional solution of impeachment will not be an option (remember, we already tried that).  That will leave Donald Trump free to work very hard to remake this country in his image (as he is telling us he will) with few restrictions on his efforts. 

The Constitution make is clear that there are some candidates that are disqualified from holding office (age, citizenship, impeachment conviction, insurrection). Why should we make an exception for an insurrectionist Donald Trump?

14th Amendment Is Not Unfair to Trump Or Voters

This blog entry is a follow-on to my previous blog on whether the 14^th Amendment should be used to prevent Donald Trump from being president again.

Many Republicans believe that voters should be allowed to make the decision about Trump's fitness to be president again. They think it is unfair and possibly undemocratic to keep him off the ballot using the 14^th Amendment.

Of course they know that the Constitution disqualifies people from the presidency who were not citizens from birth or who are less then 35 years of age. I can only guess why the authors of those provisions thought it was important to include those restrictions in the Constitution. Certainly there are many foreign born, naturalized citizens who are obviously fully qualified to run for the position, but those restrictions are in the Constitution and will be enforced until they are amended.

Conviction in the Senate of impeachment carries the possibility of a sentence that includes the disqualification from holding office again.

So the argument that the use of the 14^th Amendment is merely a political maneuver by Democrats is false. Using the 14^th Amendment is proper use of Constitutional law just as disqualification based on age or citizenship status.

Should Voters Determine Trumps Fate?

Many Republicans are upset with the possibility that Donald Trump may not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his participation in an attempted insurrection. They believe the voters should decide whether or not he is fit to be president.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. But then I believe Al Gore and Hilary Clinton should have been president because more voters voted for them then for their opponents. Unfortunately, the Constitution and the archaic Electoral College dictated different winners.

I would be more sympathetic to Republican voter complaints of the unfairness of the 14^th Amendment if they coupled it with calls to replace the Electoral College with a simple counting of the votes for each ticket. 

I think the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically meant to exclude voters being allowed to vote for an insurrectionist candidate.  More to come...

14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump From Presidency

You don't see presidential candidates who are less than 35 years old or who are not US citizens by birth because those qualities are required by our constitution. Thanks to former president Trump there is another constitutional requirement that applies to presidential candidates that needs to be considered this cycle.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution makes it clear that a former office holder who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then participates in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to a participant is disqualified from holding office. The 14th Amendment does not specify the criteria for imposing disqualification. It also does not require the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or a conviction. We may eventually want an amendment, law or Supreme Court ruling to make this more clear, but for now we are faced with an immediate need and the Constitution provides a solution.

One obvious answer of who would enforce this requirement and decide what criteria they would use might be the person or offices in each state who would determine if a candidate meets other requirements to be on the ballot (such as age and citizenship).  I think the person who makes those decisions in most states is the Secretary of State.

Another option is a court ruling. A court in Colorado was asked to remove Trump's name as a presidential candidate from the Colorado ballot. The judge agreed that former president Trump “incited” the January 6, 2021 riots and backed that with evidence including testimony given to the House January 6^th Committee.

After clearly stating that former president Trump had participated in an insurrection, the judge accepted the defense claim that the presidency was not an office as required in the amendment. The judge agreed that if the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a former president they would have explicitly said that. The judge then refused to remove Trump from the ballot.

Granted that the amendment wording is very vague, but that sounds like a judge searching for a way to not remove Trump's name from the ballot. This will have to go to the Supreme Court and would have even if the judge's decision had gone the other way and had removed Trump's name from the ballot.

The most important thing is the judge clearly said former president Trump had participated in an insurrection. Of course, the January 6^th Committee also proved he incited an insurrection. I would argue there is stronger and more timely proof that Trump incited an insurrection.

Former president Donald Trump was impeached by a bipartisan majority in the House (including ten Republicans) for “incitement of insurrection”. Although there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict him, there was a bipartisan majority in the Senate (including seven Republicans) who believed he was guilty as charged. Every Representative and Senator who voted to impeach or convict knew that their vote would not remove former president Trump from office. President Biden had already been sworn in before the final Senate impeachment vote. However, their vote did show they believed former president Trump had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to be president again (impeachment conviction means the person is removed from office and disqualified from holding office again).  Their votes had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but they clearly declared he had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to serve again.

I believe the bipartisan majority votes for impeachment in the House and Senate are enough by themselves to satisfy the constitutional requirement to disqualify former president Donald Trump from becoming president again on a national basis, not just the state level. As I said, this will need Supreme Court approval, but a clear reading of the text should support his disqualification.

I hear a lot of claims that Trump's fitness to hold office again should be decided by voters.  I'm sympathetic to that claim, but the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to prevent southern sympathizers from electing people to offices in a government they violently tried to destroy.  That sounds close to the situation we face today.  We have a large segment of the citizens who seem very willing to re-elect a man who lies that the last presidential election was stolen, incited an insurrection, tried to overthrow the validly elected government (as certified by all state governments and many court cases) and continuously brags he will take unconstitutional actions if re-elected. The 14th Amendment is still in the Constitution and until it is revised  or revoked we should use it to counter a charlatan who seriously threatens our country.

 

Text of the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, to the United States Constitution

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

The highlights are mine.

I'm The President! Get Off My Yard Or I'll Nuke You!

Hey you kids, get off my yard!

When I first saw Trump's mug shot I started laughing.  My first thought was he looked like some grumpy old man yelling at the neighbor kids who were walking on his grass again.  

I'm sure he spent a lot of time thinking about what image he wanted to project and then practicing that glare until he got it just right.  He wanted to make sure that his first mug shot looked presidential.  

What a clown.

Presidential Bathroom Reading Material

Mar-a-Lago bathroom reading material.

I've heard of people keeping reading material in their bathroom for when they expect to be in there for a while, but this is ridiculous.

I know political pundits have been wondering why former president Trump took so many presidential documents to Mar-a-Lago, but who would have guessed this is answer?

No Get Out of Jail Free Card for Trump

As one of the justifications for his vote against conviction during the second impeachment of former president Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell said that the acquittal did not allow Trump to escape consequences for his actions before and during the January 6th insurrection. McConnell correctly said Trump could be prosecuted for any crimes committed during or after his presidency after he was no longer president.

Donald Trump faces indictments this year from the DOJ and/or the state of Georgia. Convictions on any one of these additional indictments would be serious enough to disqualify him from ever holding office again. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says any federal office holder, like Trump, who engages "in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who give aid or comfort to enemies of the United States" is prohibited from holding office again.

Trump is no longer president, but he is already complaining that any legal actions against him should not be allowed since he is a presidential candidate.

By DOJ rules, but not by the constitution, Trump had a "get out of jail free" card for prosecution of any federal crimes while he was in office. (Note, this GOOJF card never applies to state or civil court cases.) Now that he is out of office, we need to make it clear that these cases will go forward whether or not Trump is a candidate or even if he is again elected president.

A wealthy person can't suddenly file for the presidency to delay any federal indictments or convictions until the next presidential election. 

I am not aware of any laws on this subject, but Trump and voters should expect that any indictments this year will be be handled as they would for any other citizen. They won't be delayed by campaign contingencies, the actual election or, should he win, by any responsibilities of his new status as president-elect or president.

Trump and his supporters have to accept the possibility that Trump could be inaugurated in a jail cell or the Oval Office moved to Leavenworth.  

We've all seen enough of Trump's play book to know that once he is indicted he will use every opportunity to slow down the judicial process. He is entitled to the same legal options as any other defendant, but he and his supporters need to accept that these slow downs increase his chances that the legal processes against him will interfere with what they see as his need to campaign or serve. If you can't accept that, don't vote for him in the primary.

Trump supporters have been able to turn a blind eye to Trump's inadequacies for years. From the day he walked down the escalator it has been been very clear that Trump lies about anything and everything. He has only a superficial understanding of the Constitution, science or the Bible. He has no idea of what is expected of a US president who is responsible for the entire country. He does not understand the concepts of independent and impartial judiciary system and justice department. He has practically no understanding of the US place in the world as an advocate and defender of democracy and as a leader who protects us, our allies and and world from countries and organizations that would harm us. Laws and norms that have guided us for centuries mean nothing to him.

Trump believes the world exists to serve him. He has repeatedly shown he is willing to sacrifice the constitution or country if he thinks that is needed to further his goals. His supporters must believe this also since nothing he does seems to affect their fealty. That is why he must face the law as any other citizen would until he is acquitted or convicted and his sentence is completed.

 

President Trump's Troubling Projection

 There are several things we know about President Trump.  

 He seldom tells the truth.  The more impassioned he is about an issue, the more likely it involves a lie.

He has mental health issues.  He is a narcissist and is very insecure. One of his coping mechanism is to project what he believes are his issues and weaknesses onto others.

It is therefore very troubling that President Trump has, without any proof, accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to sharpen his public speaking.

We need to watch how often President Trump makes this baseless claim.

Hunt And Peck Works

Twice in the last few weeks (once on Fox) I heard outrage over comments from people who criticized Senator McCain for his lack of knowledge about "the email." The outraged response was something about how Senator McCain's war wounds prevented him from using a keyboard.

Aren't these comments demeaning of people with disabilities? We've all worked with people, or seen their stories on TV, whose disabilities are much worse than Senator McCain's. Many of them have made the effort to learn and utilize new technologies. I've been watching Senator McCain and it sure looks like he can use his arms and hands well enough to send an email.

Sending and receiving email may not be a good use of Senator McCain's time, but to blame his lack of knowledge about a basic technology that billions of people use on his war wounds is disingenuous.

Grandpa and Ellie Mae in '08

I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but then again who does? Probably not even John McCain. But what little I know takes my breath away.

The man who famously says he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war has chosen a neophyte to join his ticket. Wasn't Ann Coulter available? Was Angelina Jolie already under contract? Why not Phyllis Schafly? And there were would be the added benefit that it would make him look young!

For all his straight talk and claims that given his age and prior health issues he would choose someone who would be ready on day one, John McCain panicked. He went for the “Hail Sarah” in desperation. Is this an example of how he puts the country first?

Governor Palin has said she hasn’t focused much on Iraq. Here is her widely quoted statement from 2007:

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

Governor Palin has a son who will soon deploy to Iraq. Governor Palin is in charge of the Alaska National Guard. The Iraq War has been the major issue facing this country over the past five years. If she hasn’t put much thought into the Iraq war, what else hasn’t she thought much about? What business does she have being a heart beat away from the Presidency?

In August, 2008, when asked about being considered by McCain to be his Vice-President, she said,

But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question. (Kudlow & Company)

Really!

It is bad enough that our current Vice-President doesn't believe he is part of the Executive Branch. John McCain chooses a person who wants to know how taking the job will help the people of Alaska.

Somebody wake me up! This nightmare has to end!

I’ve said several times that Republics and Democrats think differently, but there must be millions of Republics who are ashamed, dismayed and embarrassed but this obtuse selection. But then again, I’ve already heard from some die-hard Conservatives who can’t wait for the chance to vote for Grandpa and Ellie Mae.

Clinton For Vice-President

It is long past the time that Senator Clinton should have thrown in the towel. She has waged a magnificent campaign and we all know the best candidate doesn't always win. She needs to graciously concede after the final primary on June 3rd.

Senator Obama should offer Senator Clinton the vice-presidency, if they can come to a few agreements.

They each must be able to forget the rancor and anger of the primary campaign. Senator Clinton must agree to work whole heartedly for Obama's election, success as president and reelection and he must promise to support her presidential ambitions when his terms are complete.

Finally, Bill Clinton must never publicly offer political or policy advice during an Obama administration. He can work with his foundation and he might be called upon for special projects, but he is to stay out of the political limelight and preferably well away from the White House.

I'd have a prenuptial drawn up for everyone to sign. That includes President Clinton.

Would God Be Your Vice-President?

All the presidential candidates seem happy to talk about their religion and faith. While I think such matters are personal and private, they feel it is politically advantageous to make their religious beliefs public.

If a candidate's life and actions are as dependant on their religious beliefs as most profess and many seem happy (and some eager) to tell us about, shouldn't we be asking them tough questions? If a candidate's daily life and decisions are guided and affected by their religious beliefs, aren't these principles and beliefs just as important as their stands on health care or Iraq? If a candidate, for example, says they don't believe in evolution, we need to find out why. If their belief is based on religion, what other strange beliefs might they have? Do they believe in the Rapture?

Personally, I would rather have a president who deep down believes "God helps those who help themselves." more than they believe in the power of prayer. I want a president who believes the fate of the country is in our hands and not a god whose actions are often beyond our understanding.

I would have no problem with a candidate who says something like - "I have strong religious beliefs that have helped shape who I am. Those beliefs can be seen in the decisions I've made and the actions I've taken in my life. My religion and faith continue to be a source of comfort and strength in my daily life, but they are personal and not open to public discussion. While I will always be a person of faith, as president of a secular country I will make presidential decisions based on reason, logic and the interests of all the citizens of the United States."

For those candidates not willing to make such a statement, I have a few questions.

How much would your faith and religious beliefs influence your decisions as President?

As President, which would be more the more important guide when making decisions, the Bible or the Constitution?

Do you believe that non-Christians are as moral as Christians?

Is your God the only true God?

Does your God treat non-believers the same as believers?

Would you treat non-believers the same as believers?

Is your God active in the world? That is, does your God, on a daily or regular basis, change the course of events?

Does your God change the world in response to prayer?

If so, does your God change the world in positive response to prayers from people of other faiths or religions?

How often do you pray?

What do you pray for?

Have you ever asked God for guidance with a problem?

When confronted with a large problem, have you ever "turned it over to" God?

Has God ever given you guidance?

Have your prayers ever been answered?

Has God ever spoken to you directly?

If so, how do you know it was God that spoke?

Have you ever prayed for God to change or influence events?

What is a miracle?

Can you describe a recent miracle you believe God made happen?

This list may sound like a lot of gotcha questions, but so many candidates are treating religion like just another focus group issue. If they really believe religion is another tool to attract voters, then we need the details.