How Kerry Becomes President

[garthranzz]

I've thought about this a lot. Mark Crispin Miller (and others) are right: once the theft of the last election (two elections) becomes common knowledge and "conventional wisdom" Bush/Cheney may be impeached (if they are still in office) but the Constitution does not seem to provide for installation of Kerry. Either the scene will play out as in Watergate: Cheney goes first, Bush appoints a successor, Bush goes and the successor becomes president. Or, it plays out along Constitutional lines of succession: even if Cheney goes first, Bush gets impeached and convicted before Cheney's successor can be confirmed, and Hastert, as Speaker, becomes president. (Idle, tangential speculation: would Bush appoint McCain (or Giuliani) in Cheney's place, either of whom would be instantly confirmed, or his brother Jeb, who would have trouble?}

But I think there may be another way, one which a Constitutional lawyer should investigate. Ironically, it might rely on Bush vs. Gore for precedent. The scenario goes as follows: Using the Conyers report and the Boxer-Tubbs-Jones protest, a citizen, preferably from Ohio, sues under Bush-Gore 2000 that he or she has been disenfranchised by the illegal seating of the Ohio electors. The Supreme Court agrees to review the case. Based on the evidence, five justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens and Souter) conclude that the Republican slate of electors was illegally seated and disqualifies them retroactively. Since there is an alternate, legitimate slate of electors, they - the Democratic slate - are seated and the Electoral College, or at least the Ohio electors, are reconvened. They of course vote for Kerry, who wins Ohio's electoral votes and the election.

An unlikely scenario, I admit, but legally and politically feasible. The legal basis for reversing an election, disenfranchisement, has been set. There is no statute of limitations. While electors have been challenged only twice (according to Miller - once in 1877 and once in 1968), those challenges have occurred, I think, in the Congress based on the U.S. Legal Code. This would be a challenge in the Supreme Court, which has already asserted is "supreme" authority (Bush vs. Gore, at the very least) in determining the legitimacy of elections - and electors.

[babylonsister]

1. I wish it would happen; Kerry would be a damned sight better

than the pretender we're stuck with, and his minions.

[Dunvegan]

2. Might be well worth a try AFTER the mid-terms.

I down for anything that ends this horror before 2009.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

3. It's Over!

They cheated in 2000 and got away with it. They cheated in 2002 and got away with it. They cheated in 2004 BIG and got away with it. They'll probably cheat in 2006 and get away with it.

Time to start getting ready for losing in 2008, when they'll get away with it again. Better shut your mouth, or they'll come after and eliminate you, or make you like like some conspiratorial idiot.

I know you're right, you know you're right, but unfortunately anyone important enough to do something about it could care less, so enjoy life in Amerika. Your voice is irrelevant.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. Except, no. Once the election is certified

and a President identified and sworn in, the only sucession allowed is the Constitutional one, and this don't make it.

[Wilms]

5. Not only have the electors made their choice, and the results certified...

...but * has been sworn in.

It's over.

He can resign, get impeached, shoot himself in the head, or get "peppered". All that will remove him from office.

You're schema, I don't believe, would.

[garthranzz]

8. I didn't say the scenario was likely...

only that it's legally feasible. There are always two sets of electors. That's what we vote for. If the wrong set is seated, their votes can be discounted. The only question is, can it be done retroactively? And that's a court decision. So theoretically, since as far as I know there's no precedent, the SC could say yes to that. And the results were certified by Congress. If this scenario played out, it would raise an interesting Constitutional question, a potential conflict between Congress and the Supreme Court.

And the idea behind the scenario was - is there a way that if Shrub is removed, Kerry gets in?

Thanks to all for the responses.

[Wilms]

9. I didn't say the scenario was unlikely.

I said I don't believe there is a legal mechanism.

You state:

"If the wrong set is seated, their votes can be discounted. The only question is, can it be done retroactively?"

Answer that question before you go any further. I already did. The inauguration happened.

[cureautismnow]

6. Don't count on "Justice" Kennedy.

That traitor was a member of the Felonious Five. He installed the Chimp and would unlikely de-install him. Hopefully, he has trouble sleeping at night with innocent blood still all over his hands.

[saltpoint]

7. Well, it's well past my legal understanding except when you explain it

so well. Thanks for that.

And can we get Kerry in there by tomorrow noon?

I'm REAL sick of the Bush administration.

[eomer]

10. Not constitutional. Here's a way that is constitutional, but...

is not likely:

1. Cheney resigns.
   
2. Bush appoints Kerry as VP.
   
3. Congress confirms Kerry as VP.
   
4. Bush resigns.
   
5. Kerry becomes President by succession.
   
6. President Kerry appoints Edwards VP.
   
7. Congress confirms Edwards as VP.
   

I think I'll patent it and call it the 7-step plan for unstealing an election.

[ISUGRADIA]

11. The court got into the election fray before the electoral votes

were counted. There is no way in hell they would touch such a case and try to remove a president 2 years plus after an inaguration. Talk about a constitutional crisis.