Balkinization: Choosing a Vice President

Choosing a Vice President

Sandy Levinson

One of the most truly dubious features of a generally defective Constitution is the vice presidency. Under the original scheme, which was exposed as making no sense even by 1796, when the establishment of a party system was well underway, electors would vote for the two people they believed best equipped to become president. This made a modicum of sense in the absence of political parties, but no sense otherwise, so we ended up with Adams and Jefferson in 1796. And then, of course, there was the fiasco of the 1800 election, with the tie vote and Burr's (and the Federalists') machinations to deprive Jefferson of his victory. That was rectified by the Twelfth Amendment, but it in fact legitimized picking second-raters as VPs as part of a political strategy to gain support from key states or blocs. Is it a coincidence that the first three VPs to become president because of death or assassination were John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, and Andrew Johnson, all of whom would be on a list of our worst presidents? We've done better in the 20th century, but recall some of the idiotic choices of running mates, including, most memorably for anyone alive today, McCain's unforgivable choice of the totally incompetent Sarah Palin in 2008. Whatever explained Donald Trump's choice of Mike Pence, it was certainly not a defensible belief that he was truly equipped to be President (unlike, one has to admit, Dick Cheney, a person with truly appalling views but with the experience one seeks in a president, as was the case, for that matter, with Reagan's decision to choose Bush as his own running mate in 1980.

I find myself thinking of such things because of the fact that it now appears quite likely that the two candidates in November will be septuagenarians. One should at ponder the possibility that the VP will succeed to the office because of the death of a then-octogenarian. So that brings me to the increased speculation about whom various Democratic candidates might choose as their running mates. Chuck Shumer has suggested, for example, that it would be a really good idea to pick an African-American woman. One of the persons he suggested was Kamala Harris; the other two, however, were Stacey Abrams and an obscure member of the House of Representatives. Let me suggest that he could not possibly believe that the latter two are equipped to become President at the present time, even if one concedes, arguendo, that isn't the case with Sen. Harris. I greatly admire Ms. Abrams; I wish very much she had chosen to run for one of the two now-open Senate seats in Georgia. I can easily see her as a national leader in the future. But it simply is not serious to say that she is capable of entering the Oval Office right now. Barack Obama, whom I avidly supported over Hillary Clinton, certainly could have been more seasoned in terms of relevant experience. It speaks very well for him that he chose Joe Biden, who complemented him in many important ways. Obama was truly serious in picking a VP; I fear that Senator Shumer is not. Or, to be fair, he is serious only about winning back the White House, a worthy goal. But single-minded focus, however understandable, is also a symptom of what Jack aptly terms "constitutional rot" inasmuch as it is evidence of reckless indifference about the actual ability of the person named to take on the awesome responsibilities of a president on literally a moment's notice.

Indeed, I think it is highly desirable if the various remaining candidates indicate well before Milwaukee whom they will pick as their running mates. And, as I've argued earlier, I wish that candidates for the presidency would also indicate during the campaign their intended cabinets. We have drifted into a terrible form of an elective monarchy, something none of the candidates wish to talk about even as they justifiably denounce the sociopath in the White House as unfit for the office. But, frankly, that's like shooting fish in a barrel. It allows us to pretend that there are not truly serious problems with our entire constitutional order that need to be addressed.

Actually, though, my preference would be that the VP, assuming we choose to retain that office in my constitutional convention, be chosen after the election along the lines set out in the 25th Amendment: I.e., the new president, even before inauguration (which I hope would be sooner than the present January 20) would nominate a VP, who would have to be confirmed in a joint session of the House and the Senate by a majority vote. This would, I am relatively confident, assure the selection of someone competent to enter the Oval Office if need be. I would also make the VP fireable by a similar vote, since I see literally nothing to be said for giving the VP the same assurance of tenure in office as the president now has. (I would, of course, much prefer a process by which we could also fire a president in whom we had lost confidence.)

Posted 12:17 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Sandy: But single-minded focus, however understandable, is also a symptom of what Jack aptly terms "constitutional rot" inasmuch as it is evidence of reckless indifference about the actual ability of the person named to take on the awesome responsibilities of a president on literally a moment's notice....We have drifted into a terrible form of an elective monarchy...

Once again, if you return to the Constitution as written by eliminating the progressive bureaucracy exercising absolute power and the large standing military, the powers of the POTUS and VPOTUS would collapse back to their limited scope and who we pick would not be a life and death decision for the Republic.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:29 PM

Another option is to let people run for VP. The way I envision it, each party could hold an election for VP on Election Day. The winner in the party which wins the presidency becomes VP.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:39 PM

If you did it that way, you'd have people voting for President without knowing who the VP would be for each candidate.

# posted by

Brett : 12:58 PM

That's right. The people would choose instead of the candidate.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:01 PM

Important post. Experience, is important. But not the utmost important thing. More important, is the personality, and not less: being a legal expert. That is what made Obama, such a successful president, despite the fact, that he lacked any experience almost ( in governing ).

It seems that the respectable author of the post ( and not for the first time) finds it hard, to comply with the presidential regime reining the US. But, this is what it is. The US constitution, provides, I quote relevant part (Article 2, Section 1 (The Executive Branch)):

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America....."

So, it is the president. Nothing or no one else. In the Israeli state for example, It is provided by the " Basic law.The Government " so, I quote article 1:

" The Government is the executive authority of the State."

So, it is the government as a whole rather,but, in the US, it is the president. However, the point is, that it does bear, great advantages. Why? Well, stability. Yesterday, elections in Israel held , for the fourth time ( sequentially ). Hell of mess. Why ? simply, parliamentarian regime. The public elects, not one candidate or person, but, between parties ( or sort of). That is a real mess. While in the US, it is clear,who is the winner, and, up to the president to form cabinet, as he finds fit, and deem, and right,and, in accordance, to dismiss who ever and whenever he wishes to.

So, he is bound only by one thing. The rule of law, and in accordance, obeying courts. That's it. So, why to reveal in advance, who would be the cabinet members, or the VP ? Anyway, he acts proprio motu. If he has gone to far, there are courts, or, impeachment.

There are problems with the US constitution, but , not this one in particular.

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 1:39 PM

I would also make the VP fireable by a similar vote, since I see literally nothing to be said for giving the VP the same assurance of tenure in office as the president now has.

This would be a crisis waiting to happen. Imagine both houses controlled by the President's opponents. The President falls ill, and Congress removes the VP, thereby putting the Speaker next in line. Even if you change the succession so the Secretary of State is next in line there would still be an enormous political fight, though an intraparty one in some circumstances.

# posted by

byomtov : 2:35 PM

In Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand the shadow cabinet does not automatically become the cabinet when a new prime minister is appointed. Indeed if a shadow minister commits a gaffe during the election campaign, there is often a rather vicious game of trying to force the party leader to confirm that the gaffee will be the foreign minister, treasurer, or whatever. Otherwise shadow ministers are generally almost complete unknowns. Boris Johnson made large cabinet changes very soon after the general election, although none of them had been announced in advance or discussed int he election campaign.

All four countries have a deputy prime minister, but without any succession rights. Deputy Prime Minister Frank Forde was appointed Prime Minister of Australia on the death of John Curtin on 2 July 1945 and served until 12 July 1945 when the Labor caucus elected Ben Chifley as the new party leader. Forde immediately resigned and advised the governor-general to commission Chifley to form a government.

I'm afraid this is a case where what actually happens in countries with a parliamentary government is significantly different from what most Americans expect.

# posted by

Alan : 3:57 PM

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:51 PM

el roam: More important, is the personality, and not less: being a legal expert. That is what made Obama, such a successful president, despite the fact, that he lacked any experience almost ( in governing ).

Ummm... Apart from personally earning election and reelection (while voters fired over 1,000 of his Democrat comrades because of his policies), by what objective measure was Obama a "successful president?"

Obama's complete lack of executive and sparse governing experience was large contributing factor in his various failures. Sara Palin had far more executive experience running a government.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:55 PM

Just correcting my comment above:

Not as has been written, the election in Israel, held yesterday, was the third one ( within one year, and not four, or the fourth as has been written ). Governments there, can't hold simply.

Apologizing ......

# posted by

el roam : 5:00 PM

Bart DePalma , it is very simple:

First, you would hardly be able, to suggest, even one scandalous affair under his leadership. Neither sexual , corruption, abuse of power etc... Surly his personal integrity was obvious. That has to do , with his personality, and the fact that he was a legal expert ( contributing indirectly at least to his success).

Second, You may read critiques at that period. Maybe you find a lot of critiques concerning his policies, but, personally few could criticize his integrity.

Third, observing, his discretion. That was never almost, just shooting all around, or impulsive decisions. But, after dedicating, a lot of discretion or profound thinking and planing. Also has to do, with the fact, that he was legal expert.

For the rest, we won't stay young here....

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 5:12 PM

Bart DePalma ,

Just some few illustrations, suggesting, what is impulsive discretion, over, profound and carefully designed policy or action:

Take the trade war with China. Generally speaking, let alone, in the International arena, first you talk, then you shoot all around. Trump, preferred to shoot first, then to talk with the Chinese. That has caused severe economic damage to the world,to the US, etc... setting back, natural evolutionary development of acceptance of rule of law, in International relationship or among nations. But:

Obama, even with the enemy ( Iran) preferred first to talk, then to shoot. First to negotiate, yielding so with great patience the JCPOA agreement ( nuclear agreement) yet, always emphasizing, all along the way, that " all options are on the table " . And well done indeed.

Take Bush, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. He had a plan. To establish democracy there, and defeat so terror. That is good, or bad , depends upon the viewer. What is bad, is that he couldn't realize the meaning of military or marshal ruling. You need to maintain and sustain, occupation, all over huge territories. That was a hell of mistake, without planing it, very,very carefully.

Take Trump. As reaching the oval office, one of the first things he has done, was to show that he is a real badass. So, he has ordered, raid in Yemen, targeting, groups of Al Qaeda, ignoring any advice ( it seems) had been given to him, that it is risky and useless.At least, he has learned his lessons since then.

That is the difference, between Obama and the others, or, between, planing carefully, being sensitive, lawful etc.... or, simply relying on hunches or instincts.

Here for example, in Wikipedia, the raid on Yakla ( in Yemen):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Yakla

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 6:09 PM

And here:

"Pres. Obama on Iran: All options on the table

President Obama says it is his goal to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon diplomatically. It is important for the U.S. to test if this is possible because the alternative is a conflict, the President says."

Here:

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2013/12/20/pres-obama-on-iran-all-options-on-the-table.html

And yet, finally, he has made it, with the JCPOA. He had the right balance, between, aggressiveness and diplomacy.

Here, about the JCPOA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 6:17 PM

And just some reading, about the trade war with China, and its impacts, here:

https://time.com/5645964/donald-trump-china-trade-war-crisis/

Aggressiveness may be beneficial sometimes, but, far greater better, is the right delicate balance between, talking, diplomacy, and aggressiveness, finally, and the right doss.

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 6:35 PM

"First, you would hardly be able, to suggest, even one scandalous affair under his leadership."

Could you possibly actually believe that? I realize that the media here are somewhat reluctant, (To say the least!) to actually report on scandals during the Obama administration. But it was scarcely scandal free.

Operation Choke Point, where threats of abusive regulatory action were used to coerce banks into cutting off financial services to legal industries his administration disliked.

Fast and Furious, where the administration compelled gun stores along the border with Mexico to facilitate illegal purchases, allegedly to trace smuggling networks, except that no effort was made to actually follow the guns, they just vanished until they were found at crime sites. Obama's AG was referred to the DOJ for contempt charges for his refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas concerning this.

The IRS targeting scandal, where the IRS subjected applicants for non-profit status to political tests, directing the conservative applicants into an unending series of delays and statutorily unjustified inquiries, and then leaked information from their filings to liberal groups.

This is just a partial listing.

Yes, if you ask Democrats, including Democrats in the media, they will say there were no scandals. It's a lie.

# posted by

Brett : 6:41 PM

Re: Method of selection.

A Democratic president and a Republican Speaker would be a guarantee of no VP being selected. The only result of a constitutional convention would be the discovery that we will never agree and divorce would be a good idea (not complaining - I live in CA and CA, WA, OR, HI, and NV would make a nice sized nation).

# posted by

aall : 6:44 PM

el roam: "First, you would hardly be able, to suggest, even one scandalous affair under his leadership. Neither sexual , corruption, abuse of power etc..."

Obama led the most corrupt and abusive administration in modern history. I wrote a book covering his first administration. Here are just a few of the lowlights from both administrations:

(1) Obama stole tens of billions from the TARP fund appropriated to buy bad mortgages and instead used it to nationalize GM and Chrysler, then illegally gave away several billion dollars of what was then taxpayer property to Democrat unions and Fiat.

(2) Obama's "porkulus" was a slush fund which funneled a couple hundred billion dollars to public employee unions and green corporations, who donated to Democrat campaigns. Much of this graft was made part of the ongoing budget.

(3) Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as his Sec State, even though she and Bill were operating the most lucrative influence peddling operation in American history, earning them a seven figure fortune. Much of this was made while Hillary was part of the administration.

(4) Obama appointed Joe Biden and John Kerry to his administration, both of whose families then started selling access to world plutocrats.

As for abuses of power...

(1) The Obama administration's spy and dirty tricks operation against Trump is under expanding criminal investigation. The Recently released IG report covering a part of that investigation noted that the perps fully briefed Obama.

(2) The Fast and Furious operation supplying firearms to Mexican drug cartels resulting in hundreds of deaths on both sides of the border.

(3) Obama illegally granted a defacto amnesty and welfare state access to millions of undocumented Democrats, er illegal aliens.

(4) Obamacare granted over 1,000 waivers to donors to Democrat campaigns.

There is far more.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:16 PM

el roam:

Obama had the most inept foreign policy since Carter.

(1) Withdrew from Iraq and allowed al Qaeda in Iraq reforms as ISIS invade and start a barbaric caliphate, then did next to nothing to remove them.

(2) Allowed the Russians to set up shop in Syria, then allowed their client state to cross his red line using chemical weapons.

(3) Openly cheered on Islamic fascists exploiting the the Arab Spring to take over Libya and Egypt.

(4) Funded the Iranian terrorist regime's war across the region in exchange for slow tracking their nuclear weapons program until after he left office.

(5) Refusing to arm Ukraine after Russia conquered its Crimean province and invaded its easter borders.

Etc, etc, etc...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:24 PM

"CA, WA, OR, HI, and NV would make a nice sized nation"

We could add NM and CO to these to make it even better.

Brett, as usual, lives in an alternate universe. Not one of his examples was a scandal at all, and even if they had been, they pale in comparison to those of any R president since Ike.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:12 PM

Bart DePalma ,

You point to events, you consider subjectively of course, as scandals. But you have asked at first place, about objective criteria. And indeed, I have given them. Most of your list, is very subjective, and irrelevant simply. This is not about appointments, this is not about policy, this is about the person, his capabilities as a leader, his personality, his fitness to serve as a president. Just some few baseless here with all due respect :

You write:

" Refusing to arm Ukraine after Russia conquered its Crimean province and invaded its easter borders."

But this is a matter of policy. Not of capability. You can read here some suggestions, why (already as Senator) he was favoring disarming Ukraine.

Your can read here:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/obama-wont-arm-ukraine-because-he-led-disarming-ukraine-andrew-c-mccarthy/

You write:

" Funded the Iranian terrorist regime's war across the region in exchange for slow tracking their nuclear weapons program until after he left office."

This is not even a fairy tail. The sanctions, been imposed by Obama on that regime, were so hard, that they have brought down even their supreme leader, to yield, and finally sign the nuclear agreement. If you mean access to frozen assets in the US, well, that was part of the nuclear agreement ( aborted meanwhile). If you mean ballistic missiles, then, has nothing to do with the nuclear agreement, because, it wasn't part of it.

We could spend here more and more. For example:

" Obama stole tens of billions from the TARP fund appropriated to buy bad mortgages and instead used it to nationalize GM and Chrysler, then illegally gave away several billion dollars of what was then taxpayer property to Democrat unions and Fiat."

But, it was under Bush and Ben Bernankie those policies of nationalizing simply ( during the subprime crisis).And Ben Bernankie, the chairman of the Fed, continued to serve under Obama. Here I quote from Wikipedia ( concerning AIG):

"During the financial crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve bailed the company out for $180 billion and assumed control, with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission correlating AIG's failure with the mass sales of unhedged insurance.[13] In 2011 the nationalization of AIG was ruled illegal,[14] and after regaining autonomy, AIG repaid $205 billion to the United States government in 2012.[15]"

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

So, with all due respect:

You must provide here, not long lists, but rather, links, comprehensive explanations, and not vague arguments, nothing of it has been proven, or , simply irrelevant to what you have asked.For, so many scandals as stated by you, well, I don't recall any impeachment or initial talks about it, while serving two terms, as Obama did.

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 8:18 PM

By the way Bart DePalma, it seems that you have missed, the most strongest one in that list:

And it is, that he fraudulently became president, for, not been born in the US. Until he had to, actually, present to the media, the certification that indeed born there.

Bunch of fairy tails, all around. Very characteristic, not only concerning Obama by the way.

Here:

" Barack Obama releases birth certificate

The White House has released President Barack Obama's birth certificate, in response to persistent rumours he was not born in the US.

Mr Obama had previously released an official "certification of live birth" showing he was born in Hawaii."

here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-13213810/barack-obama-releases-birth-certificate

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 8:37 PM

Our Birchers are busy Birching. Just remember these two conspiracy theorists argued recently that the prosecutions of Lev Parnas and Michael Cohen were political hits on Trump. They were spinning their webs oblivious that the U.S. Attorney in charge was a Trump appointee who worked on Trump's transition team and donated thousands to Trumps campaign. These are not serious men, they are krazy konspiracy kooks. Partisan incoherents.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:39 PM

el roam:

(1) You brought up foreign policy, I didn't. Bush initiated the Iran sanctions and then the new GOP House strengthened them during the Obama administration. As part of his surrender deal, Obama gave Iran back all of the money Bush froze and pallets of US cash as well.

(2) Bush bailed out AIM to keep it from failing, then forced the firm to liquidate assets at a loss to pay back the government. I am not a fan of Bush's bailouts, but he did not steal public property and give it to campaign contributors.

(3) If you want sources, my book Never Allow a Crisis to Go to Waste has 750 of them, none of which are Wikipedia.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:16 PM

Bart , well this is not serious with all due respect. Sanctions, imposed far before Bush. Here quoting from Wikipedia:

" The first sanctions were those imposed by the United States in November 1979 after a group of radical students seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took the people inside hostage. The sanctions by Executive Order 12170 included freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties, and a trade embargo. These sanctions were lifted in January 1981 as part of the Algiers Accords, which was a negotiated settlement of the hostages’ release.
The second sanctions by the United States were imposed under Ronald Reagan in 1987 because of Iran's actions from 1981-1987 against the U.S. and other shipping vessels in the Persian Gulf and support for terrorism.[1] The sanctions were expanded in 1995 to include firms dealing with the Iranian government.[2] "

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Your write that Obama stole money then. You need far greater than that, in order to start proving such thing.

You know, I could grant you fair chance. Choose one item, and write in lengthy manner on it, as much as you can. Give us, refer us to documents. Choose your best one, if you are so sure. But, first, check facts please. And maybe, we shall change our mind. I doubt it. But, fair chance, I am willing to grant you. One item. Your best.

But in such manner, this is really useless.But if you can't, maybe we shall read your book, and better realize your perception.Like that with all due respect, won't do.

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 5:16 AM

Since the Constitution gives the Vice-President nothing to do except the sinecure of presiding the Senate, it's not clear what the qualifications for the job might be. The President can create actual work round the abilities of the incumbent. The main function of the post is as a reserve who can take over at a heart attack's notice - a significant risk for Biden and odds-on for Sanders. The waiting is a fantastic vantage-point for learning. Stacy Abrams would learn fast. just now, Kamala Harris is a better bet on the Biden ticket, if Biden is big enough to put her debate attack behind him.

# posted by

James Wimberley : 7:42 AM

El roam:

You fashioned Obama’s payoff of Iran in exchange for slow walking their nuclear program as a “success.”

I am, thus, discussing the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, which Bush started in coordination with the UN in 2006.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:27 AM

"Since the Constitution gives the Vice-President nothing to do except the sinecure of presiding the Senate, it's not clear what the qualifications for the job might be."

On the contrary. Since the VP's only real job is to be a replacement President in an emergency, the qualifications for the position are, trivially, exactly the same as for the President. The Constitution, (As amended) even unambiguously states this: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

I certainly would agree that whichever of the current possibilities ends up elected this fall, who occupies the office of the VP will be unusually important, thanks to their high chance of ending up President, possibly even shortly after the inauguration. In fact, given the age and health of some of these guys, we should probably start thinking about contingencies for what to do if the Presidential candidate croaks between the nominating convention and general election.

As for Stacy Abrams, surely you're joking.

# posted by

Brett : 9:37 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:40 AM

el roam:

FWIW, the vast majority of my book's sourcing is based on hardcopy and is not available online without paid subscriptions.

However, the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court did issue an opinion available online where the court briefly describes how the Obama administration gave the UAW retirement fund a note backed by taxpayer cash and an equity stake in the now taxpayer owned "New Chrysler:" Under the UAW Retiree Settlement, the 2008 Settlement Agreement would be modified and VEBA would be funded by a combination of a 55% equity interest in New Chrysler and a new $4.587 billion note. The U.S. government required that 50% of the funding for VEBA be in the form of equity of Chrysler.

The way this corrupt two-step worked is the beneficiary sues the government without any legal basis and the government settles the claim out of court with taxpayer cash. In this case, the UAW was an unsecured creditor of Chrysler and was last in line with their claims. Obama threatened to dissolve Chrysler unless the bankruptcy court agreed to wipe out the secured creditors with claims ahead of the UAW and approve the above plan to make the UAW whole with taxpayer cash and equity.

Obama used the same technique to send taxpayer cash to Iran by simply conceding all of Iran's baseless claims against the United States.

There is far more.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:41 AM

Bart DePalma, we don't live solely in cyberspace ( despite the Corona). I hope, that first chance I have, I shall by the book.Thanks for the opinion. I shall read it.

# posted by

el roam : 1:34 PM

el roam: we don't live solely in cyberspace

Amen.

This old school 59 year old much prefers paper over screens. Far easier for my aging eyes to read and I think a superior technology for moving around the text.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:58 PM

Superior for moving around the text, but, speaking as somebody who once had to move while in bad economic straits, and ended up selling a 5000 volume book collection to a used book dealer for pennies on the dollar for lack of room in the moving van, inferior for moving around the texts.

# posted by

Brett : 3:05 PM

Brett: Superior for moving around the text, but, speaking as somebody who once had to move while in bad economic straits, and ended up selling a 5000 volume book collection to a used book dealer for pennies on the dollar for lack of room in the moving van, inferior for moving around the texts.

Been there often.

Every time we moved, my wife made me cull my collection, which has grown exponentially once I started researching and writing books.

In about eight years, we are thinking about retiring to Italy for a few years. That move will force me to eliminate everything I have not or will not read recently.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:36 PM

I feel your pain on the books. I know that one day I'm going to have to sell mine (about 8000 volumes right now). It's going to hurt.

# posted by

Mark Field : 6:09 PM