Started By
Message
Hypothetical Constitution discussion.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 8:56 am
Posted on 8/1/20 at 8:56 am
I recently read an article, which I will link to at the bottom of this, about what would happen in the event that, for whatever reason, we did not have a Federal Election.
I'm not going to put this in the Politics forum because its how our Constitution would handle such a thing not the current political situation. That and people would absolutely lose their minds and start babbling about HCQ and QAnon.
If we do not have a Federal Election than the President is out of a job on January 20, 2021. That isn't just Federal law, that is in the Constitution so changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. The Presidency can't pass down to the Vice President because he's legally out of office on the same day.
So the next in line is the Speaker of the House right? Not in this scenario. With no Federal Election there would be no House of Congress and no way to choose a Speaker of the House. They are all elected to two year terms and by law all of those seats would be vacant.
Which means we would move down to the next option, the president pro tempore of the majority party of the Senate. Because Senators serve for 6 years and have staggered elections we would have a functioning Senate with legally elected Senators.
President pro tempore is, by tradition, the longest tenured member of the majority party. Right now that would be Grassley from Iowa, in this scenario that would change to Pat Leahy from Vermont (by luck of the draw Democrats would control the Senate if there was no Federal Election as the Republicans are defending quite a few seats).
I'm not trying to get into the politics of the current situation, I just think it is fascinating to see how our Constitution would operate if such a highly unlikely situation were to come to pass.
LINK
I'm not going to put this in the Politics forum because its how our Constitution would handle such a thing not the current political situation. That and people would absolutely lose their minds and start babbling about HCQ and QAnon.
If we do not have a Federal Election than the President is out of a job on January 20, 2021. That isn't just Federal law, that is in the Constitution so changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment. The Presidency can't pass down to the Vice President because he's legally out of office on the same day.
So the next in line is the Speaker of the House right? Not in this scenario. With no Federal Election there would be no House of Congress and no way to choose a Speaker of the House. They are all elected to two year terms and by law all of those seats would be vacant.
Which means we would move down to the next option, the president pro tempore of the majority party of the Senate. Because Senators serve for 6 years and have staggered elections we would have a functioning Senate with legally elected Senators.
President pro tempore is, by tradition, the longest tenured member of the majority party. Right now that would be Grassley from Iowa, in this scenario that would change to Pat Leahy from Vermont (by luck of the draw Democrats would control the Senate if there was no Federal Election as the Republicans are defending quite a few seats).
I'm not trying to get into the politics of the current situation, I just think it is fascinating to see how our Constitution would operate if such a highly unlikely situation were to come to pass.
LINK
3
Posted on 8/1/20 at 9:26 am to Arksulli
The 10th amendment to the Constitution clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved therefore to former Nirvana bass guitar player Krist Novoselic."
Posted on 8/1/20 at 10:26 am to Arksulli
quote:
how our Constitution would operate if such a highly unlikely situation were to come to pass.
Assuming the current administration would follow the Constitution in that situation. They haven't seemed too concerned with the Constitution so far.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 11:55 am to BowlJackson
quote:
They haven't seemed too concerned with the Constitution so far.
Care to show me when, in the past 100+ years, our government actually followed the Constitution? Here's a huge one for ya:
Only congress has the authority to declare war. How many wars have we been involved in since 1945 drew to a close?
Korea
Vietnam
Middle East involvement in Beirut
Desert Shield/Desert Storm
Bosnia
Iraq (2002 - present)
Afghanistan (2002 - present)
Syria
And that's only the issue regarding making war. And, if you want to take a look at it, the "War Powers Act" flies in the face of constitutionality.
How about the use of federal agencies to enforce state and local laws?
What about Title 9 school programs?
Our federal government hasn't adhered to the Constitution since before the 1860s. It has very little to do with only the current administration.
It may be in vogue to be a Trump hater, but apparently there is no call for actually being a constitutionalist.
Posted on 8/1/20 at 12:28 pm to Swamp Angel
Don't forget the CIA regime change in Iran, propping up Islamic extremists to take down the moderate Shah, and don't forget Clinton allowing American soldiers to be ordered to their deaths by NATO in the 1990's
Posted on 8/1/20 at 2:34 pm to Arksulli
That's pretty interesting and something I never even remotely considered or thought about before.
Posted on 8/2/20 at 8:13 am to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
Don't forget the CIA regime change in Iran, propping up Islamic extremists to take down the moderate Shah, and don't forget Clinton allowing American soldiers to be ordered to their deaths by NATO in the 1990's
Or when the peace prize winning constitutional law professor decided we can execute us citizens, via secret FISA trials, where they aren't even afforded due process... despite the fact due process is found in 2 amendments. Also we'll kill children and civilians carrying out this illegal execution.
Posted on 8/3/20 at 6:36 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
They haven't seemed too concerned with the Constitution so far.
You fricktards that keep saying this are deranged. Give us one example, just one.
Posted on 8/3/20 at 8:27 pm to RTRinTampa
quote:
You fricktards that keep saying this are deranged. Give us one example, just one.
Well just the other day Trump said he was going to write an executive order to ban Tik Tok with emergency powers.
I have no clue if it should be banned or not, don't use it. But I do know it's not something the president can constitutionally ban with the stroke of a pen.
He's also said some other things. But I don't know of anything that he has actually been allowed to do that were unconstitutional. I pay very little attention to him however for the sake of honesty.
I could easily make longer lists with presidents before him while on the topic of presidents who don't give a frick about the Constitution.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News