Replies

Ladies & Gentlemen,

The Presidential Succession Act has NOTHING to do with this scenario, since a sitting President and Vice President are NOT involved. The Speaker of the House has nothing to do with this. If Bush and Cheney were assassinated before the election, Speaker Hastert would become President, but ONLY until the end of Bush's existing term. That's all.

As I said in my first post, the Presidential Electors are the key to resolving this problem, in accord with the Constitution. If the assassinations occurred BEFORE the election, the candidate's party's National Committee WILL choose new candidates, and the existing Electors (who are still very much alive) will be repledged to the new candidates (the Eagleton scenario).

If the assassinations occur after the election, the Committee will choose new nominees, and the existing Electors will be re-pledged to them (the Greeley scenario).

Both situations HAVE occurred before. History, of which the writer is ignorant, provides the answer.

John / Billybob

Back before so much power was concentrated in the Federal government, the stakes were a lot lower. The public would accept the scenarios you lay out because they didn't feel all that connected with the decision. They knew their Electors as well as they knew who the Presidential candidates were, and they had already accepted the idea of trusting the Electors to use judgment in their decisions.

None of that applies anymore. There would definitely be lawsuits in the cases you outline. Do we want to rely on precedent many (especially many in the media) would consider irrelevant?

I'd rather see it codified into law (and I agree the current Presidential Succession Act does not apply).

Just as a sign of where we've come, remember Gore's strategy for the 2000 election. He wasn't counting on winning Florida (though of course that would have been acceptable to him). He was counting on delaying the decision in Florida until after the Electoral College met. If the Florida vote were still in contention, he could challenge the Electors from Florida - and with them out of the count he'd win. After that, he could challenge any meeting or vote of the Florida Electors on the basis that the Electoral College had already voted. That's the sort of trickery that the parties (at least the Dems) play now.

And that was why the Supreme Court prevented any further recount. The recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was clearly unConstitutional, but why not order one that provide for all voters to be treated equally? Because if it delayed past the meeting of the Electoral College - and it would have - then there's a whole new Constitutional issue in question.

It's not as neat as it once was because the Dems are in a win-at-any-cost mode. They'd challenge Electors who voted at all if they voted for dead men. They'd challenge Electors who voted for replacements the people never got a chance to vote for. They'd do whatever they could to steal the election.

And I assume over at DU they think the same thing about Republicans. So there should be a clear, recognized method for addressing the problem - and one that is established ahead of time.

"........in accord with the Constitution."

But, the Constitution has been silent, or more properly the USSC has been silent and therefore accepts the power of the almighty Executive Order. The disaster EO's would be inevitably tripped in the event of such an attack. In that case, FEMA assumes total control of the country ~tinfoil hat begins to glow, propeller on top spins madly~ and get's to keep it until Rapture.

The was a thread on FR some time ago, maybe somebody can find it and post a link? "FEMA: The Dark Underbelly" was the title.