2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Timsup2nothin]

If Trump cancels the November election, it looks like Senator Chuck Grassley (87 years old) will become President on inauguration day if I'm reading the rules correctly.

My reading is that if Trump cancels the election then Chuck Grassley will be one of only sixty some odd senators in office on January third, and there will be no house at all. That circumstance assigns a constitutional duty to the governors of the states to immediately set forth elections to select representatives to the house. When that house convenes, which happens as soon as there is enough for a quorum, they will select a speaker and if there's no president elect by the time Trump's term expires in March that speaker would be president.

If this is what you TRULY believe in your heart, then you are a disturbed, paranoid, and troubled man, and I do not have the professional qualifications to offer you any help.

Fortunately I seem to be doing fine without any. Do you get anything from calling me names?

 

[Patine]

Fortunately I seem to be doing fine without any. Do you get anything from calling me names?

Your still obsessively determined to carry this on. I find your definition of "doing fine," dubious, but I don't know you personally, and you might just be one of those people, who seem to be large - and growing - in number, who have a separate "social venting," persona online than how they are in real life. I fully admit to that the fact that often I do.

 

[Takhisis]

The amendment in question SPECIFICALLY says "Senators." But I hope you are correct. What would they do in Argentina (or will do, if you happen to be having an election this year - I hadn't checked)?

Well, Argentina's a different case. Its constitution is a modified version of the US'. Namely, both houses are renewed by halves (the lower house) or thirds (the Senate) every two years. There was a general election last year. The president took office in December and, as I've described in the dedicated RD thread for the continent, promptly forced through ‘extraordinary’ sessions i.e. outside the usual timeframe in order to grant himself emergency powers with which to brutally reduce the state's expenditure. Retiree pensions, the judicial apparatus, law enforcement, etc. all were to be decreased, with the full agreement of the IMF and suchlike. Suddenly they've found out that those sectors are the most vulnerable (retirees) and/or the most necessary (law enforcement, health, emergency services).

My reading is that if Trump cancels the election then Chuck Grassley will be one of only sixty some odd senators in office on January third, and there will be no house at all. That circumstance assigns a constitutional duty to the governors of the states to immediately set forth elections to select representatives to the house. When that house convenes, which happens as soon as there is enough for a quorum, they will select a speaker and if there's no president elect by the time Trump's term expires in March that speaker would be president.

So in effect a (delayed) house election would amount to an indirect presidential election akin to parliamentary appointment of a prime minister?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your still obsessively determined to carry this on. I find your definition of "doing fine," dubious, but I don't know you personally, and you might just be one of those people, who seem to be large - and growing - in number, who have a separate "social venting," persona online than how they are in real life. I fully admit to that the fact that often I do.

I don't. I would keep going back and forth with a real life blowhard until they quit or explode the same way I keep doing with you. One of my great joys in life was being described by someone who visited me as "IRL just like he is here, only more of it."

So in effect a (delayed) house election would amount to an indirect presidential election akin to parliamentary appointment of a prime minister?

Yes, effectively. The constitution's direct input on the matter is limited, but unambiguous. It doesn't provide a lot of clarity on when or how elections get done, but it is crystal clear about when terms expire.

 

[Takhisis]

So… what happens if there is an elected body of sorts in place, and then it is wiped out by this disease or Martians shouting ack-ack-ack? How are they replaced? One feature of Argentina's modified knockoff of the US Constitution is that elections include also ‘stand-in’ candidates who are basically benchwarmers who wait to take office should anything happen to the first team.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So… what happens if there is an elected body of sorts in place, and then it is wiped out by this disease or Martians shouting ack-ack-ack? How are they replaced? One feature of Argentina's modified knockoff of the US Constitution is that elections include also ‘stand-in’ candidates who are basically benchwarmers who wait to take office should anything happen to the first team.

All covered in that one line assigning responsibility to state governors to hold elections to fill vacant house seats.

I guess that would call for examining the various state constitutions to see what happens in the event the governor and all the designated successors got wiped out at the same time as well.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, you don't need them all to die, just to be incapacitated. Effectively administrative agencies could end up running the country.

 

[Patine]

I don't. I would keep going back and forth with a real life blowhard until they quit or explode the same way I keep doing with you. One of my great joys in life was being described by someone who visited me as "IRL just like he is here, only more of it."

You know, I think I've made it very clear that I wasn't interested in carrying on this exchange. For all the FALSE accusations of schoolyard name-calling, "hate-screeds," and "only talking about you," it is you who is currently guilty of not letting this go and harassing me about this - on a premise I've made very clear you're incorrect about anyways. NOW STOP!

 

[Takhisis]

You know, I think I've made it very clear that I wasn't interested in carrying on this exchange.

Then please, both of you stop? Agree to disagree, that sort of thing?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You know, I think I've made it very clear that I wasn't interested in carrying on this exchange. For all the FALSE accusations of schoolyard name-calling, "hate-screeds," and "only talking about you," it is you who is currently guilty of not letting this go and harassing me about this - on a premise I've made very clear you're incorrect about anyways. NOW STOP!

Actually, you haven't made that clear at all. If you stopped quoting my posts and talking about me that might be a sign...but you seem disinterested in stopping. For my part it's just another workout on the speedbag.

Yeah, you don't need them all to die, just to be incapacitated. Effectively administrative agencies could end up running the country.

Well, the constitution is really about as well formatted against that as it can be. It basically opens with "there must be congress" and everything flows from there. The founding assumption that the states will somehow manage to have governors is perhaps a weak point.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Patine, Tim, knock off the arguing please.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"I'm done with this conversation!... As long as I get the last word...I'm not engaging with you any more!... As long as I get the last word... I'm not interested in this exchange any longer!... As long as I get the last word."

The gift that keeps on giving... Never gets old.

Protip - If you're "done with the conversation" then muthereffing STFU. Thanks.

But it is how bourgeois democracy works. Comes with the territory. My point is leftists need to figure out how to win in spite of this, not lose and then whine about it like we didn't know it all along. As others have pointed out if Bernie had been able to get a majority of votes/delegates in the primary contests, the consolidation of moderate candidates behind Joe Biden would have been irrelevant. Leaving aside the fact that young people and non-voters did not turn out in droves to vote for Bernie and give him a delegate majority, Bernie's apparent strategy of hoping the moderate field would remain divided long enough for his plurality to carry him into the convention with the more delegates than anyone else simply failed. That's all there is to it.

I think that if the Democrats manage to get something resembling a supermajority... that will be the ideal time for the more progressive folks to truly splinter and start forcing big concessions for continued support. As long as the Democrats are only winning by the skin of their fingernails, "bold new direction" is constantly going to give way to "just win baby".

The rare exception being, when you can get an exciting, young, charismatic, universally appealing candidate to be the flag-bearer... Still holding out hope for AOC in that regard.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The rare exception being, when you can get an exciting, young, charismatic, universally appealing candidate to be the flag-bearer... Still holding out hope for AOC in that regard.

She needs a few years of seasoning and congressional experience.

 

[Takhisis]

"I'm done with this conversation!... As long as I get the last word...I'm not engaging with you any more!... As long as I get the last word... I'm not interested in this exchange any longer!... As long as I get the last word."

cofcofroyalyoucofcof

Well, the constitution is really about as well formatted against that as it can be. It basically opens with "there must be congress" and everything flows from there. The founding assumption that the states will somehow manage to have governors is perhaps a weak point.

Basically here there are specific electoral courts (not ad hoc but permanent ones) and a federal law called ‘ley de acefalía’ which is basically a succession law. Don't you have those?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

cofcofroyalyoucofcof

Basically here there are specific electoral courts (not ad hoc but permanent ones) and a federal law called ‘ley de acefalía’ which is basically a succession law. Don't you have those?

Nope. While we have the whole "checks and balances" thing and talk about "rule of law," our ultimate authority really rests with the legislature more than with the courts.

 

[IglooDame]

My reading is that if Trump cancels the election then Chuck Grassley will be one of only sixty some odd senators in office on January third, and there will be no house at all. That circumstance assigns a constitutional duty to the governors of the states to immediately set forth elections to select representatives to the house. When that house convenes, which happens as soon as there is enough for a quorum, they will select a speaker and if there's no president elect by the time Trump's term expires in March that speaker would be president.

Critical question (which I haven't yet looked up): what's the makeup of the remaining 60ish senators, R/D-wise? A quorum is 51 Senators, so in theory Senate business could still be conducted at that point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Critical question (which I haven't yet looked up): what's the makeup of the remaining 60ish senators, R/D-wise? A quorum is 51 Senators, so in theory Senate business could still be conducted at that point.

I tried to figure that out, and did read what I figured were the relevant articles, but on this the constitution seems vague. I think that a case could be made that with the expiration of terms there is no congress, period. The Senators who have time left on their term are automatically going to be in the next congress, but until that congress is seated they really can't do much of anything and that congress can't be seated until both houses are represented. That was my take on it and I'd argue it, but if someone finds something applicable and can make a better case I'm not gonna fight it.

For the record, there are 33 democrats, 30 republicans, and 2 independents carrying over into the next senate. Currently. At this point it is realistic to note that some of them may die between now and January.

 

[Sommerswerd]

She needs a few years of seasoning and congressional experience.

She'll get that between now and the next cycle... then its on like popcorn.

cofcofroyalyoucofcof

Critical question (which I haven't yet looked up): what's the makeup of the remaining 60ish senators, R/D-wise? A quorum is 51 Senators, so in theory Senate business could still be conducted at that point.

It's too late and I'm enjoying coronaisolation too much (ie drinking) to look it up, but my hot take is that if it comes to that... 60ish Senators amending the Constitution and such... that's a paddlin' Civil War

 

[IglooDame]

It's too late and I'm enjoying coronaisolation too much (ie drinking) to look it up, but my hot take is that if it comes to that... 60ish Senators amending the Constitution and such... that's a paddlin' Civil War

Well, the Senate can't amend the Constitution by themselves no matter what, but I specified "Senate business" for a reason - they can't even pass laws, without a House or President in place. I suspect electing a new Senate President Pro Tem falls within Senate Business. So with 33 Dems, two Dem-leaning independents, and only 30 Republicans (notwithstanding any coronavirus casualties in the meantime), I would expect the senior surviving Democrat to quickly replace Grassley.

Is it just me that thinks it ironic that that path to the presidency is also effectively barred to Sanders, as presumably the Democrats would stay within their caucus for such a thing?

 

[Hrothbern]

Is Trump heading to become the strongman saviour ?
or the authoritarian weakman ?