Posted on 12/04/2019 6:08:35 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
You are absolutely incorrect. Concessions are simply not legally binding anywhere. They aren’t even required. People concede and withdraw those concessions all the time. It actually just happened in Virginia. Siobhan Dunnavant conceded, but it turned out there was a mistake in one of the precinct tallies and she ended up winning.
https://twitter.com/rtdschapiro/status/1191909859828150272?lang=en
You can’t cite a single legal precedent that indicates that a “concession” involves the things that you suggest, because one doesn’t exist.
In fact, Al Gore DID concede the election, and then withdrew it. His concession had no effect on the case that followed. All that mattered is at the end of the day, Bush had more votes.
Andrew Gillum and Bill Nelson both conceded and then withdrew their concessions in Florida in 2018. Stacey Abrams still hasn’t conceded the Georgia’s Governor’s race.
Despite what you suggest, even a candidate withdrawing from a race wouldn’t have the effect that you suggest. If they got more votes, they would be elected. They could refuse to take the office, but the opponent doesn’t automatically win like you suggest.
The U.S. Constitution governs who will become president. The process for electing a President has nothing to do with a concession. I am sorry that you are mistaken, but you are.
While I believe there are a lot of GOP Senators (like McConnell) that aren’t passionate Trump supporters, when it comes down to choosing sides, they’ll choose Trump over the Democrats. There’s no way they’re going to hand the Democrats a victory, especially in an election year.
....And who’s on Dancing With the Stars..............and what about The Bachelor ending.................
Georgia Governor and Trump supporter, Brian Kemp, just defied Trump's recommendation of conservative House Judiciary Committee member, Doug Collins and appointed a RINO, pro-choice, Atlanta business woman, Kelly Loeffler, as Senate replacement for Georgia's soon-to-be vacated Senate seat.
👎
Gore lost by a few hundred votes. It had nothing to do with Clinton’s Impeachment It is not normal for a 2 term President to be succeeded by a member of his own party.
Bush I beat the norm because he was riding the coattails of a hugely popular Ronald Reagan. Gore did better then he should of mainly due to the last second DUI hysterics in the US Fake Media against Bush going into election day.
He appointment her because the RNC Senate Committee wants her.
She can self fund her campaign and they have convinced themselves that “women are leaving the GA GOP”. It an idiot move totally devoid of sound data analysis. It just the latest bit of idiocy our weak minded Gov has sucked up from the morons in the DC Political Consultant class.
The “logic” in GA has to do with election strategy locally not some dark plot to “get Trump”
The establishments voices, although a minority, are louder than ours.
Since the dems in this Congress have shown they completely disregard and purposely misinterpret the Constitution and are looking to throw President Trump out of office at all costs, don’t be surprised if they go to extra-Constitutional lengths to do so by manipulating the 2/3 vote in the Senate:
ARTICLE I, SECTION 6, CLAUSE 1
The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same....
The Privilege from Arrest Clause provides a Member of Congress a privilege from civil arrest only, but not from other civil processes. Even the privilege from civil arrest would be valid only while Congress is in session.
Civil arrest is the physical detainment of a person, by lawful authority, to answer a civil demand against him. At the time the Constitution was adopted, civil arrests were common. Long v. Ansell (1934). The Framers likely feared this tool could be misused to interfere with the legislative process. Civil arrest is rarely, if ever, practiced, so this clause is virtually obsolete and has little application today.
I was responding to the original point that Dick Cheney would have become president in Bush v. Gore if Bush had conceded. There is no precedent or scenario where that could have happened. Bush was ahead in the election eve count and all recounts. The reason the whole mess dragged on as it did is precisely because Gore withdrew his concession and decided to fight all the way through the courts. Concessions do matter.
Stop drooling on an open thread. It’s unseemly.
Concessions do matter.
If "concessions do matter," then why was Al Gore allowed to retract his concession. Shouldn't it have been "game over" once he conceded, and no amount of retraction would have mattered once he conceded?
-PJ
Pulled your head out of...the sand long enough to come visit I see.
You haven’t figured out yet, that GEOTUS is immune to political shame?
But again...the original point to which I responded is the claim that one possible outcome of the Bush v. Gore dustup is that Cheney could have become president. Not true under any circumstances except one. If something happens so a president-elect could not be inaugurated on Jan. 20, the vice president-elect becomes acting president.
I think most people would say "yes," that the concession was premature and that the law would recognize the vote count, not the concession. This is backed up by examples of retracted concessions, meaning that a concession is not a permanent decision.
Add to this the Electoral College. If Bush were to concede and Gore still failed to win 270 Electoral Votes (because Florida still voted and certified for Bush), then he does not win just because Bush conceded. He would have failed to win the majority in the Electoral College, and the House of Representatives would choose the President.
Where the 20th amendment would apply is if the winning candidate declines the office (which is not the same thing as conceding the election). If Bush were to decline to serve after winning the election, then Cheney would become acting President until a permanent President is chosen.
The actual vote is the law, not the candidate's words.
-PJ
Nowhere in any of the posts I wrote on this topic did I even allude to the scenario you described. Such a scenario when the actual winning candidate concedes is exceedingly rare and when it occurs I’m sure the juristicional laws and regs would apply. I have said multiple times that concessions are PRECEDENT. If you and others can’t get that, oh well.
The scenario that you laid it is this:
If Bush had conceded, Gore would become President, not Cheney. Is that correct?
So, we follow that. If Bush had conceded, Florida would still have finished its recount and certified him. Yes or no?
If Bush conceded, does that mean that all counting still going on stops and the states all certify for Gore regardless of who won, or do they all still certify for the highest vote-getter?
So, you see that the scenario being discussed is implausible, because even if Bush were to concede, Gore would never have gotten to 270 Electoral College votes. Just being the last man standing doesn't make him President if he doesn't get 270 Electoral College votes.
If you and others can’t get that, oh well.
-PJ
Hi.
It’s called a quorum.
McConnell runs the Senate.
He decides if a quorum is present.
5.56mm
If Bush had conceded, Gore would have become president-elect. That is the reality. Deal with it or not. I don’t care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.