4 ms·

Here's one: A conversation about whether allowing this to turn into a national emergency could allow the cancelling or postponement of elections or executive ha

by jrs235 7y ago

Here's one: A conversation about whether allowing this to turn into a national emergency could allow the cancelling or postponement of elections or executive hand over.

Simulacra 7y ago
Highly unlikely. In fact it really can't happen as elections are defined in the constitution. They would have to suspend the constitution, or pass some monumental law that would lead to not only a monumental meltdown at the court, but chaos in the streets. Good thought, fun conspiracy theory, but really so far out there it's unlikely.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think it's more likely that low voter turnout in November (if this lasts that long) allows the administration to reject the results on the basis that "the people's voice was suppressed" - I agree they're not just going to call off the election, but I think it's pretty likely they'll try and cast doubt on the results if it goes against them.
  - hammock 7y ago
    Wouldn't be the first time
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > but I think it's pretty likely they'll try and cast doubt on the results if it goes against them. That is certainly true whether or not there is a pandemic. I don't think that inevitability really has anything to do with pandemics; they'd blame it on the phase of the moon if nothing else came to mind.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    What area is more likely to have low turn outs due to a pandemic, densely populated areas or rural areas? How think about how each area tends to vote. This is probably moot because many states would likely go to mail in ballots. In Georgia you can already request an absentee ballot without being required to give a reason. States with more restrictive absentee rules would be under heavy pressure to change them.
- sambull 7y ago
  Or test this: "is a Presidential Directive establishing a comprehensive policy on the federal government structures and operations in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland... It organizes the three branches under the President.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    However, given that such an action is patently unconstitutional, if that were done it would be effectively the same as dissolving the nation.
  - Simulacra 7y ago
    How long would you remain under a government ordered quarantine, or restriction of movement, before you did something about it?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Giuliani did it. If anyone reminds Trump of this he might just get ideas in his head.
jerf 7y ago
It's fairly likely that this will no longer be "a pandemic" by November, and that nobody will even be able to raise this as a concern in any sense. The bigger problem is really with the Democratic primary, which is happening now. A critical element of elections is that they have to not just be fair, but be seen to be fair. How is the primary going to be seen to be fair if some significant number of the delegates are elected from elections that occurred while the electing states are essentially locked down? No matter what you do, it will be seen as unfair somehow.
- samstave 7y ago
  Correct. They are using this to again snuff Bernie.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    What "they" and how are they using it? I have to assume you don't mean "The Democratic National Committee infected people with COVID-19." But I don't think I can puzzle out what you mean.
    - samstave 7y ago
      The DNC doesn't want bernie to have the nomination. The want status quo Biden.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        It's really uncharitable to suggest they're "using" it then, since they don't control the pandemic. What should they do differently from what's being done right now?
      - catalogia 7y ago
        Doesn't Bernie's supporter base skew younger than Biden's? It seems to me the average Bernie supporter has less to fear from corona than the average Biden supporter. If anything, fear of corona should suppress turnout for Biden more than for Bernie.
mullen 7y ago
You can't cancel or suspend the elections, there is no provision for it in the Constitution. Also, Trump could never extend he time in office unless he is re-elected since there is literally nothing in the Constitution to extend a Presidential term unless elected.
- pasquinelli 7y ago
  The constitution doesn't actually decide what we do. Elections could be postponed, probably not all of them but enough that you wouldn't have real results. States would sue, it would make its way to the supreme court. The supreme court might find in the administration's favor, because they vote how they like; they aren't required to follow the constitution. They may rule against trump and trump ignores them; if the military is on his side, does he need anything else? I'm not saying any of that will happen, but you talk as if our social constructs and institutions are barriers that limit where we can go, when in actuality they're breadcrumbs that we choose to follow. Societies have flipped out before.
  - OrangeMango 7y ago
    > The constitution doesn't actually decide what we do The 20th Amendment: Section 1: The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January... Section 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the 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. If there's no election, he stops being President at noon on the 20th of January.
    - tropo 7y ago
      Sure, but that 20th day of January might come really late. The constitution does not define a calendar, time zone, or second. Suppose we add 80 more months. The 13th month is Trumpuary, the 14th month is Trumpember, and so on. Another option is to put Washington D.C. in a timezone that is off from UTC by 50000 hours. Another option is to make December 1000 days long. Reading over your quote, it actually seems that a simple law could keep the president in power as long as no President elect or Vice President elect exists. As it says, "the Congress may by law provide for the case", "declaring who shall then act". Nothing says it can't be the old president.
24gttghh 7y ago
This didn't happen in WWI at the same time as the 1918 Flu pandemic, so I don't see it happening now. It was not a presidential election year, but elections were not cancelled from what I can find.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  A much smaller and less urbanized population.

by jrs235 7y ago

Here's one: A conversation about whether allowing this to turn into a national emergency could allow the cancelling or postponement of elections or executive hand over.

Simulacra 7y ago

Highly unlikely. In fact it really can't happen as elections are defined in the constitution. They would have to suspend the constitution, or pass some monumental law that would lead to not only a monumental meltdown at the court, but chaos in the streets. Good thought, fun conspiracy theory, but really so far out there it's unlikely.

munk-a 7y ago
I think it's more likely that low voter turnout in November (if this lasts that long) allows the administration to reject the results on the basis that "the people's voice was suppressed" - I agree they're not just going to call off the election, but I think it's pretty likely they'll try and cast doubt on the results if it goes against them.
- hammock 7y ago
  Wouldn't be the first time
- catalogia 7y ago
  > but I think it's pretty likely they'll try and cast doubt on the results if it goes against them. That is certainly true whether or not there is a pandemic. I don't think that inevitability really has anything to do with pandemics; they'd blame it on the phase of the moon if nothing else came to mind.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  What area is more likely to have low turn outs due to a pandemic, densely populated areas or rural areas? How think about how each area tends to vote. This is probably moot because many states would likely go to mail in ballots. In Georgia you can already request an absentee ballot without being required to give a reason. States with more restrictive absentee rules would be under heavy pressure to change them.
sambull 7y ago
Or test this: "is a Presidential Directive establishing a comprehensive policy on the federal government structures and operations in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland... It organizes the three branches under the President.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  However, given that such an action is patently unconstitutional, if that were done it would be effectively the same as dissolving the nation.
- Simulacra 7y ago
  How long would you remain under a government ordered quarantine, or restriction of movement, before you did something about it?
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Giuliani did it. If anyone reminds Trump of this he might just get ideas in his head.

jerf 7y ago

It's fairly likely that this will no longer be "a pandemic" by November, and that nobody will even be able to raise this as a concern in any sense. The bigger problem is really with the Democratic primary, which is happening now. A critical element of elections is that they have to not just be fair, but be seen to be fair. How is the primary going to be seen to be fair if some significant number of the delegates are elected from elections that occurred while the electing states are essentially locked down? No matter what you do, it will be seen as unfair somehow.

samstave 7y ago
Correct. They are using this to again snuff Bernie.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  What "they" and how are they using it? I have to assume you don't mean "The Democratic National Committee infected people with COVID-19." But I don't think I can puzzle out what you mean.
  - samstave 7y ago
    The DNC doesn't want bernie to have the nomination. The want status quo Biden.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      It's really uncharitable to suggest they're "using" it then, since they don't control the pandemic. What should they do differently from what's being done right now?
    - catalogia 7y ago
      Doesn't Bernie's supporter base skew younger than Biden's? It seems to me the average Bernie supporter has less to fear from corona than the average Biden supporter. If anything, fear of corona should suppress turnout for Biden more than for Bernie.

mullen 7y ago

You can't cancel or suspend the elections, there is no provision for it in the Constitution. Also, Trump could never extend he time in office unless he is re-elected since there is literally nothing in the Constitution to extend a Presidential term unless elected.

pasquinelli 7y ago
The constitution doesn't actually decide what we do. Elections could be postponed, probably not all of them but enough that you wouldn't have real results. States would sue, it would make its way to the supreme court. The supreme court might find in the administration's favor, because they vote how they like; they aren't required to follow the constitution. They may rule against trump and trump ignores them; if the military is on his side, does he need anything else? I'm not saying any of that will happen, but you talk as if our social constructs and institutions are barriers that limit where we can go, when in actuality they're breadcrumbs that we choose to follow. Societies have flipped out before.
- OrangeMango 7y ago
  > The constitution doesn't actually decide what we do The 20th Amendment: Section 1: The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January... Section 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the 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. If there's no election, he stops being President at noon on the 20th of January.
  - tropo 7y ago
    Sure, but that 20th day of January might come really late. The constitution does not define a calendar, time zone, or second. Suppose we add 80 more months. The 13th month is Trumpuary, the 14th month is Trumpember, and so on. Another option is to put Washington D.C. in a timezone that is off from UTC by 50000 hours. Another option is to make December 1000 days long. Reading over your quote, it actually seems that a simple law could keep the president in power as long as no President elect or Vice President elect exists. As it says, "the Congress may by law provide for the case", "declaring who shall then act". Nothing says it can't be the old president.

24gttghh 7y ago

This didn't happen in WWI at the same time as the 1918 Flu pandemic, so I don't see it happening now. It was not a presidential election year, but elections were not cancelled from what I can find.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
A much smaller and less urbanized population.