Question about postponing the election.

[Killarney]

I'm starting to really worry about this. A rethug told me it will never happen because a law to postpone the election would require a constiutional amendment and that would never get done in time.

Is that true? That it would require a constitutional amendment?

[Bluzmann57]

1. Other people who are smarter than I can answer that

but these people don't seem to care a lot about the constitution, so it may not make any difference.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. They can do just about anything under the guise of ...

a national emergency. The presidential election has constitutional time limit for certain things to happen. If things don't go on schedule then the election would be thrown into congress. With a republican congress it's easy to guess who wins.

[JLuckey]

3. White Hot Light..

Keep the White hot light shining on these attacks on our freedoms, we are getting results. The Florida voter Registrations, postponing elections, and questionable terror alerts. The media has to address these issues when they are forced to by our various efforts. Keep that bright hot light shining on the dark corners of this administration.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi JLuckey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Eloriel]

4. All it would take is another terror attack

They've been PROMISING us another terror attack; now they're suggesting it will be in time for the elections -- "to disrupt the elections." I guess they would know.

If there's another terror attack, they'll impose martial law and suspend the Constitution. I can't remember whether it was retired Genl Zinni or Franks who told us that.

Bush has quite enough power accrued to him via Executive Orders and so forth to do those things easily, and if the populace is terrified, they'll go along. I see posts from people saying Americans would take to the streets. Don't bet on it. Not nearly enough people suspect BushCo. complicity in 9-11 to ever imagine they'd allow (or manufacture) another one.

Imagine the level of terror with a really nasty biological weapon unleashed on a big city, or a dirty bomb.

Count on it, it's coming. These people didn't steal one election just to roll over and play dead while a fair election puts them out of power.

[kayell]

6. That was Tommy Franks

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
(sorry about the source, but that is who broke the story :shrug: )

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

snip

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

more

[kayell]

5. Everything is different now after 9/11. Hadn't you heard?

Apparently fearing terrorism is far more important than a couple of centuries of constitutional democracy.

[nickinSTL]

7. election

I'd hope that people would see through this crap, but I think most people will just sit back and say, "oh, they're doing what's best for the country. I have to believe that."

I emailed my rep and senators about this shit. I do NOT want to sit back and let these bastards steal the election.

If everyone steps up and opposes it, they can't do it. I'm not too hopeful, though.

[Goldmund]

8. This is what I understand:

A consitutional amendment mandates that the new administration takes power on Jan. 20th next year, and that elections are held sometime before then. The only thing that mandates elections be held on the first Tuesday of November is a 19th-century law, and that is much easier to change than a constitutional amendment -- but constitutionally elections must be held before Jan 20th 2005.

Your friend is right as long as we assume that this crowd will work within the bounds of the constitution. I'm not so sure.

[Killarney]

9. thanks for this info

[oly]

10. Great post at Balkinization.

The Bush Administration is now considering contingency plans for postponing the November 2nd, 2004 elections if a terrorist attack should occur in the fall immediately before or on Election Day. Several readers have asked whether this would be constitutional. The short answer is that appropriate legislation passed by Congress could change the day of the election, but there are important constitutional limitations on how this could be done.


Here are a few of the relevant constitutional and legal issues.

Here is the link...

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/07/postponing-election.html

[kaitykaity]

12. Thanks for the info!

This is good stuff.

:thumbsup: