QUESTION: Someone else takes office until election is legitimized?

[Not a Sheep]

I was told by "keepthemhonest" that if congress contests the vote, the next step we could hope for would be that:

"Someone else takes office until they can prove the legitimacy of the election."

Could someone please tell me if this is possible? I have no idea who is supposedly going to take office in this scenario and what laws/rules is being relied upon for this info but I'm told I could find it if I checked and I have not been able to.

Thanks!

[bemis12]

1. No, can't happen

A president will be selected on the 6th. Federal law, and the Constitution, requires it.

[Chimpanzee]

2. yup

[Garbo 2004]

7. Please explain how, given Federal law and the Constitution. n/t

[Chimpanzee]

15. I was agreeing - yup means yes

[Sandy_0]

10. Actually, unless I'm reading wrong

The Constitution says:

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

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am12

[Walt Starr]

12. That was superceded by the 20th Amendment

The 12th is older. The 20th specified the new term of office as beginning on January 20th, superceding the March date set forth in the 12th amenedment.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brundle_Fly]

5. no shi-ite.

I expect it will be a bad month for that.

[femme.democratique]

6. you got that right! eom

[Walt Starr]

8. If electoral votes are challenged

Then at best, the election is thrown to the House of Representatives for the presidency where each state gets a single vote and to the Senate for the vice presidency where each senator has a vote.

If nobody achieves a majority of the 50 votes in the House, whomsoever the Senate chooses becomes president.

Most likely, however, Bush would win handily in the House.

[Not a Sheep]

13. Thnaks for clearing this up Walt /eom

[seito]

9. Try this on for size

I'm not a lawyer, but I do respect some that post here. I would also appreciate it if you would take it easy on my fellow believer, KeepThemHonest. Last I checked we are all on the same team...Yes?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=196204#196272

Happy New Year, all You Believers :party:

Flame away if you dare, but I must post and run....I am off to see "The Incredibles"

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chimpanzee]

16. Funny - I said the same thing and my post was deleted!

[zann725]

27. Yeah, I remember this thread, and feel that "Ol Lefty Lawyer" has insight

on this that others have not addressed...that technically the entire reading of the votes on Jan. 6 can be held up due to Fraud allegations. If Ohio's holding them up, then maybe another State in question...NM, FL, WA?

That scenario I think would be more favorable for the Dem's than to go ahead with the 2-hour discussion on Jan 6 with both House and Senate...in which Bush would probably only win again. Don't want that.

Or if the Jan. 6 meeting/decision appears to be proceeding, could it be sort-of 'Filibustered' by the Dems...to hold up things, and get the media attention this deserves? Since Blackwell and the Repugs in the Courts in Ohio are delaying things themselves to "get past" the Jan. 6 and 20 deadlines, why not even the playing field with a major delay of our own.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Amaryllis]

17. I asked the Dean People about this and here's what they said:

The members of Congress need only make a clear position statement that they will (1) object to electors from states that have failed to conduct elections that have instilled confidence in the results, or any state that has failed to resolve questions of fraud and discrimination, and (2) are making this statement to put election officials on notice that risk their electors if they fail to resolve questions or remedy problems.

Of course, to maximize impact, they ought to support their statements with media interviews, actions that publicize the extent of the problems, their own efforts to pressure other members of Congress, and so on (sort of like the 911 committee did), but we believe that the action of standing up and drawing a line is the spark we need to set off a REAL public debate, one that has the potential to mobilize and engage many, many more people.

Ultimately, whether or not a state does anything to address problems before January 6th, or the methods that states use to resolve problems will be up the states (i.e., the officials and the public -- us -- pressuring them.). I think the problem states definitely include OH, FL, NV, CO, and NM. Essentially there are two phases. The first phase, the days leading up to January 6th. The second, the period after, where in response to an objection that is upheld by a sufficient number of members, the Congress could come out of it's deliberations with a proposal of some sort to the states with problem electors or to the nation as a whole (e.g., appoint an acting President and specify actions that states can take and a date by which they must finalize results and resubmit electoral votes or some such).

[bemis12]

18. What would be..

.... Congress' statutory authority for appointing an "acting President"?

[Amaryllis]

20. I don't know. Just reporting what they said. They seem to be up on all

the legal stuff but I wonder the same thing. We are all getting a hell of a civics lesson here.

[keepthemhonest]

21. Here is the original poster of this thread

trying to "simply question" TIA, you tell me what the motives are of this person.It is pretty clear.The poster appears to be just simply asking questions everywhere.Then simply attempts to requote your opinion in disbelief. I am surprised that the poster was willing to take one of the above posters at his word.

We know this is leaked data AND Mitofsky/MSM won't release it.

Edited on Sun Jan-02-05 11:04 AM by TruthIsAll
Please, don't bother to respond.

I won't get caught in a manufactured web of spin.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.- John F. Kennedy


Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top



Not a Sheep (82 posts) Sun Jan-02-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #5

8. I asked how we know it's correct and you say "we know this is leaked" ?...


So, we know because we know?

So the real answer is we don't know for a fact that this is the correct data we are ASSUMING it is.

Why don't you simply say that and be honest?

[corbett]

31. The Dean People Are Correct

I'm no constitutional scholar but I will add one quick note:

The facts as they've laid out are precisely why the other angles of proving Kerry's victory are so important, the hand recount in Ohio and the Civil Rights lawsuits. When you add the Florida and New Mexico fraud evidence, Bushco could see this blow up in their face in a hurry. Under a best case scenario, Cheney and Hastert would have to separate themselves from KKKarl and allow Kerry to be inaugurated.

[Doctor O]

33. Not true, according to the process set down by law, the objection must

be dealt with in a two hour debate by each house separately. Their is no but ifs, the objections must be dealt with and the EVs rejected by a majority vote of each house. If one house rejects and the other accepts the EV, the EVs are automatically certified.

Full information here
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2004/04electionbrochure.pdf

[Not a Sheep]

19. Looks like I was given WRONG info. Hmmm, Thanks. /eom

[rodriguez94]

22. what happens even if we do have one senator object...

Vacancy in Offices of Both President and
Vice President; Officers Eligible to Act
§ 19. (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.

Looks like the speaker of the house would be president...not sure that is what we want????? He is just another Republican!!

check out this link...

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2004/04electionbrochure.pdf

[keepthemhonest]

23. Thanks for the link

and the info.Get ready for the spinner to come after you now

[rodriguez94]

24. you are welcome...i think

you the hell is the spinner...this blog stuff is somewhat new to me..I just figured out what a freeper was yesterday...lol...

[rodriguez94]

25. sorry

my question was what the hell is a spinner? sorry

[keepthemhonest]

26. If the poster does not like

what you said tries to draw you in to harmless questions and reqoutes yoou and puts a spin on it.You know like the media does.


The original poster tries those types of tactics.

[keepthemhonest]

28. same thing

trying to be vague

[rodriguez94]

29. gotcha

[newyawker99]

30. Hi rodriguez94!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rodriguez94]

34. thanks for the warm welcome

:toast:

:yourock:

[corbett]

32. That's Correct But Since Kerry WON Hastert's Home State

If Bushco were to be blown out because of the massive civil rights violations in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio and South Dakota, Hastert would be eligible to take over. I'm not sure what to make of that scenario, except that he's not quite as bad as Delay and Frist.

He Was A Centrist In A Previous Life!

My guess would be that he would call either for a revote of a hand count of the contested states which I listed above.

[rodriguez94]

35. many thanks

my God...someone that actually knows a political scenario that makes sense...thanks for the info...

if there is fraud in New Mexico..would that make Hassert ineligle to serve...then it would be Speaker Pro Tem I think.....who is that???