4 ms·

"If a President shall not have been chosen before ..." "If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify ...” So Bid

by jariel 6y ago

"If a President shall not have been chosen before ..." "If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify ...” So Biden will not have been 'chosen' or did not 'qualify' ? If the Jan 6 vote did not happen or if the results were not approved - Joe Biden was still unambiguously 'chosen' by in a free and fair election by all accounts? Would the factual legitimacy of his election result in SCOTUS validating his claim to the Presidency? Can the voting procedure (Act of 1887) [1] meaningfully deny the Biden his ascension to President? VP Pence himself (a lawyer) indicated that he did not have the authority to stop the process. It seems pretty ambiguous, and that legal scholars would be all over the place with this, no? But my question was rhetorical - to illustrate that there's a wall of legal ambiguity in that situation, enough to enable considerable populist rancour to take hold, whereupon the winner may not have enough political momentum to actually take power, irrespective of what some entity like SCOTUS says. Would Democrats even remotely accept anything other that Biden as President? Why would they ever submit to 'Pelosi' as being President - which would be an admission of defeat, or even or possibly another election? If the 'election was rigged' - doesn't that invalidate the entire Congress as well? Including Pelosi? And all the Senators? If a free and fair election were already held in November, and it was overturned for political reasons, what would be the point of having another one, if the results can be ignored on the basis of populism? It would be total chaos. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

dragonwriter 6y ago
> If the Jan 6 vote did not happen or if the results were not approved - Joe Biden was still unambiguously 'chosen' by in a free and fair election by all accounts? The only account that has any force under the Constitution is the one made by Congress of the electoral votes cast by the States. That's why it was the target of the insurrection; if that could be manipulated, whether by giving courage to secret allies who might otherwise have a failure of conviction in Congress (what Trump overtly called on the crowd to do), or intimidation, or by forcibly removing members who were obstacles, then the election results could be undone; the “steal” could be “stopped”. > Would the factual legitimacy of his election result in SCOTUS validating his claim to the Presidency? Almost certainly not, and if it did it would be the Supreme Court voiding the Constitutional reservation of the role of judging electoral results from Congress, a different kind of coup. > Would Democrats even remotely accept anything other that Biden as President? No, if it was clear that the count was going to be obstructed and incomplete, rather than completed with a different outcome, but the House was capable of acting, they'd probably just elect Biden Speaker. > If the 'election was rigged' - doesn't that invalidate the entire Congress as well? Including Pelosi? And all the Senators? Legally, they are separate elections held at the same time, so, no, not in the eyes of the law, even if the first part was a conclusion of law, rather than a propaganda point to rationalize an application of raw power, which is what it would be. > If a free and fair election were already held in November, and it was overturned for political reasons, what would be the point of having another one, if the results can be ignored on the basis of populism? The same reason authoritarian regimes usually have elections; purely performative, rather than substantive. > It would be total chaos. Well, yeah, that's not really in dispute.
- jariel 6y ago
  Ok, well it seems you have a lot of faith in the clarity of some of those Constitutional scenarios, which I guess is good.

by jariel 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If the Jan 6 vote did not happen or if the results were not approved - Joe Biden was still unambiguously 'chosen' by in a free and fair election by all accounts? The only account that has any force under the Constitution is the one made by Congress of the electoral votes cast by the States. That's why it was the target of the insurrection; if that could be manipulated, whether by giving courage to secret allies who might otherwise have a failure of conviction in Congress (what Trump overtly called on the crowd to do), or intimidation, or by forcibly removing members who were obstacles, then the election results could be undone; the “steal” could be “stopped”. > Would the factual legitimacy of his election result in SCOTUS validating his claim to the Presidency? Almost certainly not, and if it did it would be the Supreme Court voiding the Constitutional reservation of the role of judging electoral results from Congress, a different kind of coup. > Would Democrats even remotely accept anything other that Biden as President? No, if it was clear that the count was going to be obstructed and incomplete, rather than completed with a different outcome, but the House was capable of acting, they'd probably just elect Biden Speaker. > If the 'election was rigged' - doesn't that invalidate the entire Congress as well? Including Pelosi? And all the Senators? Legally, they are separate elections held at the same time, so, no, not in the eyes of the law, even if the first part was a conclusion of law, rather than a propaganda point to rationalize an application of raw power, which is what it would be. > If a free and fair election were already held in November, and it was overturned for political reasons, what would be the point of having another one, if the results can be ignored on the basis of populism? The same reason authoritarian regimes usually have elections; purely performative, rather than substantive. > It would be total chaos. Well, yeah, that's not really in dispute.

jariel 6y ago
Ok, well it seems you have a lot of faith in the clarity of some of those Constitutional scenarios, which I guess is good.