Posted on 08/21/2020 11:24:33 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
At present, the partisan split of the state House delegations is 25 states each for both parties.
re 2 I believe it’s a majority of the electors, not electors attending. 270 are required, Gore wouldn’t have had that nor would GWB without Florida, so it would have gone to the house.
“I believe it’s a majority of the electors, not electors attending. 270 are required, Gore wouldn’t have had that nor would GWB without Florida, so it would have gone to the house.“
Half right. It’s a majority of the electors APPOINTED, but in a case where there are competing slates (Louisiana 1876, potentially Florida 2000) its the special joint session that decides which ones to count.
IF the special joint session on January 6, 2000 had rejected both slates, a majority of electors appointed would have been 254 and Gore with 266 would have been elected.
However, the GOP has a strong majority in the special joint session so it is very unlikely that this would have been the outcome.
There is a big flaw in the Constitution, allowing the Speaker who is NOT elected by the citizens of this Country, to become President.
Oh, I would not put it past them. It would be their ultimate revenge on Trump.
I don’t think its the future house members that decides but rather the current house members.
******************************************************************************
Amendment XX to the Constitution provides that Terms of the Senators and Representatives expires on the 3rd day of January, and the terms of their successors shall begin. POTUS term ends at noon on Jan. 20.
So I think it would be the new Congressional members.
This is an important point, if true, which we need to research. I certainly hope it doesn’t mean that Nancy P. becomes president for the entire four year term.
******************************************************************************
Well, NaziNan would first have to be elected again and chosen again as speaker. However, if things are so messed up, that we don’t know who is President, wouldn’t it be likely that we also would not know for sure who was elected to the House? It would be kinda like no election-so here’s a legal opinion on that:
TheHill.com
Who takes control if there is no presidential election this year?
BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/16/20 10:00 AM EDT 1,122THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
What if the pandemic were to become so bad that the election could not be held? There is no acceptable reason for this to happen, since there are alternatives to voting in person on a single day. But it is possible, although unlikely, that voting by mail will be unrealistic if the pandemic were to get so much worse that it endangered the lives of postal workers. So it is not too early to ask this question. What does the Constitution provide in the event that an emergency precludes an election before the end of a term of the president? It has never happened, and it will likely not happen this year, but law professors like hypotheticals, so here is my assessment.
We begin, of course, with the words of the Constitution. They provide no definitive answer, but they do provide some clear conclusions. Absent an election, the incumbent president does not continue to serve in an interim capacity until an election is finally held. Unlike parliamentary democracies such as Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to serve until his replacement has been selected, the term of our president ends on a specific date, regardless of whether a successor is chosen.
Indeed, the 20th Amendment says “the terms of the president and vice president shall end at noon” on January 20. Nothing could seem clearer. Yet the end of that paragraph provides that “the terms of their successors shall then begin.” But what if no successors have been elected? Does the president continue to serve as an interim officeholder? The answer is no because his or her term will definitely end at noon on January 20. If not reelected, the president becomes a private citizen on that day. So who then serves as president? The Constitution provides no solid answer.
Unlike when a president is impeached or dies, there is no set succession plan for a situation with no election. The 20th Amendment speaks to the issue of when neither a president nor a vice president have been chosen “before the time fixed for the beginning of his term,” but it still refers to a somewhat different scenario. “Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a president elect nor a vice president elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as president, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a president or vice president shall have qualified.”
But if there is no election, there is no president elect nor vice president elect. Congress does provide for a line of succession to the White House “if by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify,” there is neither a president nor a vice president. This also does not appear to encompass the absence of an election. There is an obvious gap in our Constitution as the Framers simply did not contemplate a “no election” scenario. However, even if Congress has the authority to fill this gap in the Constitution, it is unclear that it has done so with the existing law, because the line of succession begins with the House speaker.
But there would be no House speaker if there were no election, because there would be no House, all of whose members would be up for election in November. The terms of all members of the House would end, as stated in the Constitution, on January 3. There would, however, be a Senate, with a majority of its members not up for election in November and, therefore, still serving their terms. This is important as the next in line would be the president pro tempore of the Senate, which is Charles Grassley. However, if there were no election, there may be a Democratic majority among the remaining senators not up for reelection, unless sitting governors or state legislators were allowed to fill vacant seats, which is another issue.
Maybe consider this: The election has to be certified by the states—that means the House, the President and VP, and some of the Senate - there is no provision for partial certification.
So no President-no House. However, there will still be members of the Senate that were not up for election. So maybe the Senate chooses the VP, and the VP is president until it all gets sorted out?
Or maybe the states simply choose new electors-I think the Courts have already ruled it’s ok to do that to meet the deadline?
Speaker and President Pro Tem of the Senate being in the line to be ACTING President is unconstitutional because they are not executive “officers”.
In any case, McCarthy (or Scalise) should be Speaker.
Where does the Constitution forbid it?
Except that if the elections aren't certified and the House doesn't exist then one-third of the Senate will be missing as well. Chuck Schumer will be majority leader and will no doubt pick Vice President Harris.
This is all idiotic because at worst the election will be called within days of November 3rd. Now the losing side can file all the challenges they want but the Supreme Court knows the deadlines and they’ll issue their rulings with an eye on the date. The Electoral College will meet as scheduled. The President and Vice-President will be declared then.
Article 2 section 1 and the 25th amendment both state Congress chooses which “Officer” would be Acting President. “Officer” means someone in the executive branch.
As serving in more than one branch of government (other than the VPs unique Senate duties) is forbidden, the Presidential succession act of 1947 requires the Speaker to RESIGN from Congress and as Speaker before taking office, this creates a legal absurdity.
An Acting President would hold power by virtue of whatever position they held (Eg Secretary of State), even IF the Speaker of the House is an “officer” under article 2, a Former Speaker is certainly not.
Maybe the way to elect Trump is to clog the system with email votes as he has said and then wait til March.
this is all too much for me. WTF is happening in this country?
Why? Swear them in as President and then resign as Speaker. Problem solved.
According to the law they would resign FIRST.
A FORMER Speaker is still NOTHING and not entitled to be Acting President. You can only be “Acting” anything by concurrently holding a subordinate position.
It’s silly, Federalists put President Pro Tem (and then Speaker) in the line at the beginning because Federalists held those positions and their foe Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State, the logical position to be next in line.
Finally they were removed in the late 19th Century.
Harry Truman had Congress put them back in 1947 (with Speaker first this time then Pres Pro Tem) because he was a moron and figured it was very important that an acting President be “elected” (by one Congressional district).
Republicans didn’t object because they held Congress at the time and the new law made the House Speaker Joe Martin (R) next in line instead of Truman’s SOS (recall the Vice Presidency was vacant,despite Truman serving almost the entirety of FDR’s final term it wasn’t until Kennedy was killed that they figured they ought to get around to allowing a VP vacancy to be filled by passing the 25th amendment)
The central point remains however is that, the Speaker is not an “Officer”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act#Constitutionality
It needs to be amended with a footnote:
Not Crazy Nancy!
Well, I know that 2/3 of the Senate is a Quorum-but I haven't actually looked to see the Red State vs Blue State numbers for the Senate that would be remaining.
At any rate, it is not up to Schumer, McConnell or any other leader - it's a vote not an appointment is it not? And maybe the Senate Pro Tem would actually be in Charge? If so, I think that would be Grassley. That position is first in line in the Senate if the VP is not available and holds the office until a successor is elected. So he would conduct Senate business I think. And Grassley might also have a role as POTUS:
Here's what I found on Wikipedia:
Since the enactment of the current Presidential Succession Act in 1947, the president pro tempore is third in the line of succession to the presidency, after the vice president and the speaker of the House of Representatives and ahead of the secretary of state.
Since there would be no house, No Pelosi on Jan. 3, and No POTUS AND NO VP on Jan 20--then maybe Grassley is the in charge guy in the Senate and maybe even POTUS?
A 65 seat senate would have 30 Republicans, 33 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. A quorum would be 44.
And maybe the Senate Pro Tem would actually be in Charge? If so, I think that would be Grassley.
It would be whoever the Democrats chose to be President Pro Temp on January 2nd. I highly doubt it would be Grassley.
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.