US Politics: Time to Stock Up

[Kalbear]

Yep. The constitution mandates that on Jan 20 the current potus steps down, period. If there isnt anyone else elected the speaker of the house would become potus until elections can take place. 

[Ran]

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Basis for that?  It’s not textual as far as I know.

As others say, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 takes hold, with the Speaker of the House becoming interim president until there's a proper election since in this scenario the offices of the President and Vice-President are vacant.

I have seen some scholars question whether it's at all really constitutional that the Speaker -- someone not even in the executive branch -- should be ahead of, say, members of the Cabinet, but that's neither here nor there. It's not going to happen.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

I have seen some scholars question whether it's at all really constitutional that the Speaker -- someone not even in the executive branch -- should be ahead of, say, members of the Cabinet, but that's neither here nor there. It's not going to happen. 

On the other hand, the executive is elected four a certain period. So if the POTUS and VP are supposed to step down on January 20th, why should another member of the executive be allowed to stay in office after that point, and even get promoted to the position of the President?

DOesn't make much sense to me either.

[Ran]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On the other hand, the executive is elected four a certain period. So if the POTUS and VP are supposed to step down on January 20th, why should another member of the executive be allowed to stay in office after that point, and even get promoted to the position of the President?

DOesn't make much sense to me either.

This is true! Probably you'd be looking at peole arguing that someone like ... FBI Director should become president?

I guess the constitutional question is more to do with the President and Vice President being killed or resigning during a term. But this does explain a bit of why the earliest succession act had the Senate's president pro tempore and then the speaker -- they were forseeing a situation where the inauguration itself couldn't be sorted out due to disputes or whatever, and a new election would have to be held for whatever reason. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Accordint to the leading legal source on the net.

Yes.

I see it.  
 

If no election takes place then the   President and Vice-President’s terms expire in January the year after the election was to take place.  Under the terms of Presidential succession if there is no President or Vice-President the only person in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House. 
 
That said there is another problem.  If there is no election the terms of every member of the House of Representatives expires before the President and Vice-President’s terms expire.  However, the President Pro Tempor of the Senate’s term may not have expired.  If that is the case I would think they would be the person to take the office.  

In any event it will be a gigantic mess.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

This is true! Probably you'd be looking at peole arguing that someone like ... FBI Director should become president? 

Fundamentally the same problem with legitimacy. The public did not vote de Vos into office as education secretary, and the public did not vote for the FBI director (too lazy to look up the name).

Pelosi or McConnel at have at least some sort of democratic mandate. Even if they were only voted into their position by a minority of the electorate.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That said there is another problem.  If there is no election the terms of every member of the House of Representatives expires before the President and Vice-President’s terms expire.  However, the President Pro Tempor of the Senate’s term may not have expired.  If that is the case I would think they would be the person to take the office.  

So you assume there'd be no House election? Going by theMO of that administration I'd say, different standard for them, than for anybody else.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Fundamentally the same problem with legitimacy. The public did not vote de Vos into office as education secretary, and the public did not vote for the FBI director (too lazy to look up the name).

Pelosi or McConnel at have at least some sort of democratic mandate. Even if they were only voted into their position by a minority of the electorate.

So you assume there'd be no House election? Going by theMO of that administration I'd say, different standard for them, than for anybody else.

If there is no General election there is no General election.  Everyone who’s term ends in December 2020 or January 2021 will end.  That includes every member of the House of Representatives.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Please tell me Malware Mitch is up to relection, too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Please tell me Malware Mitch is up to relection, too.

He is.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Anyway, going back to your argument.

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If there is no election the terms of every member of the House of Representatives expires before the President and Vice-President’s terms expire.

Is that so? I mean is there a legal basis for that claim, or just your legal instict?

I'd argue that members in teh house stay formally in office, until the next election takes place.

I mean, otherwise you just don't hold a midterm election, the house members terms end, and you govern without a working legislattive branch. So unless there's an equivalent that forces members of the house to step down the same way it forces the POTUS, I'd go with (temporal) President Nancy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, going back to your argument.

Is that so? I mean is there a legal basis for that claim, or just your legal instict?

I'd argue that members in teh house stay formally in office, until the next election takes place.

I mean, otherwise you just don't hold a midterm election, the house members terms end, and you govern without a working legislattive branch. So unless there's an equivalent that forces members of the house to step down the same way it forces the POTUS, I'd go with (temporal) President Nancy.

Art. I of the US Constitution sets House Members terms as 2 years, the same way Art. II sets the President and Vice-President’s terms at 4 years.  Because terms are explicit in the US Constitution they expire when they expire.  

If there is no election their terms expire.  The same logic applies to any office that has a set term be it the President or a member of the House of Representatives.

Okay, I see what you are saying now.  This is Art. I Section 2:

 

Quote

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.[emphasis added]

That’s interesting.  It implies a set term without making the expiration of the term explicit without an election.

Very interesting.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ok. I think you have just been promoted to the second legal source on the internet.

This administration has been one ongoing contitutional crisis, so seems fitting for them to go out that way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ok. I think you have just been promoted to the second legal source on the internet.

This administration has been one ongoing contitutional crisis, so seems fitting for them to go out that way.

Take a look at my edit.  This is mighty interesting.

[Martell Spy]

What more could he do? A look at Trump’s extreme powers
Trump has claimed he can “do whatever I want, as president.” That may not be true, but in a public health emergency, he can do a lot.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-extreme-powers-coronavirus-129176

Quote

 

The Centers for Disease Control, however, maintains that its quarantine powers go quite far. Regulations finalized by the Obama administration claim that federal officials can detain individuals if their illness could spread to other states. The rules essentially give the federal government the authority to stop and seize commuters in a bid to halt the spread of contagious disease.

Whether it could allow a president to use the military to cordon off a city or a whole state is less clear, but experts say that the statutes and regulations could be read to allow for that.

“The ability to restrain interstate travel is something that could be done, but the question is would it be done?” said Jennifer Nuzzo of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “These are the kinds of scenarios that you think would never happen but here we are.”

 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That said there is another problem.  If there is no election the terms of every member of the House of Representatives expires before the President and Vice-President’s terms expire.  However, the President Pro Tempor of the Senate’s term may not have expired.  If that is the case I would think they would be the person to take the office.  

This is the most logical explanation off the top of my head in such a hypothetical.  If elections are canceled meaning the president and VP's terms have expired, it stands to reason the Speaker's term has expired also - as well as the entire House and a third of the Senate.  Moreover there's a strong argument to be made that any officers - i.e. the entire Cabinet - should be invalidated if the POTUS that appointed them has been removed due to an expiring term.  Which makes virtually the entire 47 succession act moot other than maybe the Senate pro tem.  If it happened in 2022-3 and the Republicans still held the Senate, then Grassley's term will have expired as well and the entire act would be moot.

Anyway this is a pretty silly way to think about it.  If there's a legitimate reason to cancel elections that is widely agreed upon, then Congress and the president would simply pass a law or even amendment extending their terms until the state of emergency is resolved.  Even autocrats throughout the world increasingly employ this type of legal legitimacy - like Putin just did.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is the most logical explanation off the top of my head in such a hypothetical.  If elections are canceled meaning the president and VP's terms have expired, it stands to reason the Speaker's term has expired also - as well as the entire House and a third of the Senate.  Moreover there's a strong argument to be made that any officers - i.e. the entire Cabinet - should be invalidated if the POTUS that appointed them has been removed due to an expiring term.  Which makes virtually the entire 47 succession act moot other than maybe the Senate pro tem.  If it happened in 2022-3 and the Republicans still held the Senate, then Grassley's term will have expired as well and the entire act would be moot.

Anyway this is a pretty silly way to think about it.  If there's a legitimate reason to cancel elections that is widely agreed upon, then Congress and the president would simply pass a law or even amendment extending their terms until the state of emergency is resolved.  Even autocrats throughout the world increasingly employ this type of legal legitimacy - like Putin just did.

It would require an amendment to extend terms as they are Consititutionally expressly defined.  Could such an attempt pass quickly enough to matter?

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It would require an amendment to extend terms as they are Consititutionally expressly defined.  Could such an attempt pass quickly enough to matter?

Like I said, if it's for a legitimate reason that is widely agree upon, yes.  If there is opposition between the two parties?  Well, that's when civil wars happen.  And/or violent suppression.  Either way, the winning side would still in all likelihood get around to legally justifying their authority eventually, one way or another.

Further thinking about the purely academic aspect of the hypothetical running through the succession act, I suppose if the pro tem's term expired during the same cycle as the president and VP, then the longest tenured Senator from the majority part that's term has not expired would become the pro tem on January 3 then resign and become acting president on January 20.  So, if Grassley's term expired this cycle - along with McConnell's - it'd be Dick Shelby.  Heh.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Like I said, if it's for a legitimate reason that is widely agree upon, yes.  If there is opposition between the two parties?  Well, that's when civil wars happen.  And/or violent suppression.  Either way, the winning side would still in all likelihood get around to legally justifying their authority eventually, one way or another.

Further thinking about the purely academic aspect of the hypothetical running through the succession act, I suppose if the pro tem's term expired during the same cycle as the president and VP, then the longest tenured Senator from the majority part that's term has not expired would become the pro tem on January 3 then resign and become acting president on January 20.  So, if Grassley's term expired this cycle - along with McConnell's - it'd be Dick Shelby.  Heh.

Which party loses the most seats in the Senate if there is no election and to which Parties do the Governors of the States with Senators whose terms expire belong?  This could change the 2020 Calculus completely.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which party loses the most seats in the Senate if there is no election and to which Parties do the Governors of the States with Senators whose terms expire belong?  This could change the 2020 Calculus completely.

Hm, interesting.  Well, in 2020 the GOP has 23 seats up while the Dems have 12.  So that would change the composition of Senators still with an active term to GOP 30 to Dem/Independent 33 35.  Which I suppose one could argue would make Pat Leahy president (yay for Batman and Ben & Jerrys!!!).  As for the second part, that'd take a long time to look up.  I assume you're asking based on the assumption that the Governors would appoint an interim Senator?  But is that legally justifiable based on a Senator's term expiring?  I don't think that should qualify under the standard provisions of the governor's authority to fill a vacancy.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I assume you're asking based on the assumption that the Governors would appoint an interim Senator?  But is that legally justifiable based on a Senator's term expiring?  I don't think that should qualify under the standard provisions of the governor's authority to fill a vacancy.

It’s actually based on the final clause of Art V of the US Constitution:

and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If Senators lose office because their terms expire without election it would mean those States without Senators are being denied equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent, therefore, they should be able to appoint Senators.