On January 20, what then?

Samuari

Twice Blessed
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Posts
4,072
I have been seeing a distirbing trend that basicly boils down to regardless who is sworn in on the capital steps, half the country will think that he stole the election, and is there because his lawers were better, not becuse it was the will of the peaple.

This country has usally been able to develop a consensus and accept whatever president we were handed. Will we be able to accept a president handed to us in this way?
 
throw out all the votes in florida, and have a whole new vote, much simpler much quicker, much easier
 
how is it unconsitutional?

people would get to vote the same way they did before, just with out all the descrepensy{sp?}
 
CelestialBody said:
Umm, Hayes-Tilden and Nixon-Kennedy, I thought that's what happened during both of those elections?

You forgot Andrew Jackson won the popular vote the first time he ran, also. But in none of these cases did the election end up in court as this one is. Richard Nixon refused to allow a suit to filed to contest the Illinois and Texas votes, where the irregularities were far more flagerent than what is coming out of florida. The ballot boxes form 3 suburbian Chicago precincts disapeared, and were never counted. I don't remember the controversy in Texas, but I think that it had something to do with Dallas.

That still doesn't get to the problem of how do you unite the nation, or do you bother?


[Edited by Samuari on 11-20-2000 at 06:12 PM]
 
CB, of course we will have a president. My concern is will the counrty allow him to lead it? Can we stand being as divided as we are now for four more years? What will the new president do to pull us together, or will he bother?
 
Of course he will try. I know that I wondered eariler if he would try, but that was just retorical. With the shrinking of the country due to instent comunications, it seems to me that we are faced with an all together different situation. One in which the providers of information have more power than ever before, because the imediatcy (sp) multiplies the effect.

Well one thing is for sure, we live in interesting times.
 
I warned you

Pudds out! Out on the porch, now! I will do my own posts.
Sorry the critter is to smart for my own good.
 
nobody has explained yet why it would be unconstitutional for Florida to just revote and get it over with, instead of this drawn on highly debateable method currently in use
 
its the same path your just backing up and cleaning up the litter and walking it agian.
 
Bobtoad777 said:
nobody has explained yet why it would be unconstitutional for Florida to just revote and get it over with, instead of this drawn on highly debateable method currently in use

I'm not sure that is unconstitutional, but It would definitely not be a fair representation of the will of the voters. Only if you could guarantee that everyone would vote the same way they intended to the first time would it be a fair option.

A revote would allow voters in Florida to change their minds and vote based on the issues raised since the national election. An option not provided to the rest of the country, hence an unfair election.

A re-vote could be considered unconstitutional because it would'nt take place on "the tuesday after the first monday of November" as specified for the presidential election.
 
Thank you for takeing the time to explain. I apprieciate that.

how bout we just pose a whole nation revote for next tuesday then, now that everyone know how to use the ballots?
 
Not to be a pain in the ass, CB, but this part of the 12th Amendment that you quoted:

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 case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

Was superseded by Sections 1 & 3 of the 20th Amendment:

Section 1
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.


Section 3
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Now, that last part of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment was fairly ambiguous and was further clarified by an act of Congress, USC Title 3 Chapter 1 Sec 19, which provides for filling a vacant office of President in the event that neither a President nor a Vice President is able to serve.

So, if Noon, January 20th, 2001 rolls around and we still have not elected a President, this is what would apply:

(a)
(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.


So, to make a long post short, LOL. If neither Bush or Gore has been elected President by Noon on January 20th, then the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, will be required to resign from the House of Representatives and assume the office Of Acting President.

LOL, isn't this fun?
 
Back
Top