• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Of course he can't delay elections. That's nonsense just being perpetuated by people who are ignorant of how American elections work while also being superstitious about Trump being somehow covered in real life "Plot Armor". Trump personally CANNOT delay elections.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
People who know what they're talking about?

Article 1 of the Constitution:

'Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary.'
...what?

What does habeas corpus have to do with this discussion?
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
He does not have any authority over elections. He can't stop them.

I'm not asking if he can put am order out to with intent to cancel elections (he can't), I am asking about issuing executive orders that make it impossible to vote. He could, it's hypothetical, deploy the national guard to prevent the spread of e.g a virus under state of emergency to contain a national emergency? And say it has nothing to do with the elections.
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,053
...what?

What does habeas corpus have to do with this discussion?

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November (the first Tuesday after November 1), in the year before the president's term is to expire. The electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December (the first Monday after December 12) of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the vice president, as president of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.

Expanded in Article 2, Clause 4
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
I'm not asking if he can put a bill out to cancel elections, I am asking about issuing executive orders that make it impossible to vote. He could, it's hypothetical, deploy the national guard to prevent the spread of e.g a virus under state of emergency to contain a national emergency? And say it has nothing to do with the elections.
No, he can't. The states run elections, they would hold them as usual, and the Natinal Guard aren't about to shot people for trying to vote.

And that's just one reason why that won't happen.
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,649
Kinda feel like we're missing the concerns a bit here. So the election happens, Trump is no longer President, then what? He doesn't go away. He maybe primes the pump with conspiracy, he activates his followers either directly or through dogwhistling, we may have a new person in the White House but near-same damage is done to our society and confidence is eroded in our electoral process. A coup can still take place, Republicans in Congress can band together and you'll never hear the end of Biden or whoever being a phony President, proclaiming Trump is the real person people need to be listening to.

So, it may not happen exactly the way some people are concerned about, but it's similar enough that we should take that into consideration if we're going to quibble over it. It's still a really dicey situation.
 
May 26, 2018
24,003
I'm not asking if he can put a bill out to cancel elections, I am asking about issuing executive orders that make it impossible to vote. He could, it's hypothetical, deploy the national guard to prevent the spread of e.g a virus under state of emergency to contain a national emergency? And say it has nothing to do with the elections.

I'd have to imagine that'd be pretty obvious, because the only thing Trump can be is obvious.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November (the first Tuesday after November 1), in the year before the president's term is to expire. The electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December (the first Monday after December 12) of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the vice president, as president of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.

Expanded in Article 2, Clause 4
...and?

The date of the election is already set. Congress would need to move the day, and the House isn't doing that.

And moving the Election Day does not change the end of the President's term of office.

Also, what does that have to do with habeas corpus?
 
May 26, 2018
24,003
Kinda feel like we're missing the concerns a bit here. So the election happens, Trump is no longer President, then what? He doesn't go away.

The moment he steps out of office he is no longer afforded the legal protection of that office, and will be hit with so much shit in courts you won't believe it.

Well, unless there's a movement by the Democratic Party to instantly absolve Trump of any responsibility out of some feeling of peacekeeping.
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,053
Where did you read that it only went through the Senate?

I stand corrected:

'Extending the president's term by amending the Constitution would require two-thirds of the House and the Senate. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who runs the Democrat-controlled House, didn't answer questions about her willingness to postpone the election.'

We good.
 
May 26, 2018
24,003
I stand corrected:

'Extending the president's term by amending the Constitution would require two-thirds of the House and the Senate. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who runs the Democrat-controlled House, didn't answer questions about her willingness to postpone the election.'

We good.

I'm sorry, I do not fully understand this post. What are you saying?
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,053
I'm sorry, I do not fully understand this post. What are you saying?

That it requires 2/3rds of both the House and Senate.

Not just a simple majority of the Senate.

...and?

The date of the election is already set. Congress would need to move the day, and the House isn't doing that.

And moving the Election Day does not change the end of the President's term of office.

Also, what does that have to do with habeas corpus?

Article 1 says that it can be postponed during 'rebellion or invasion'.
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
No, he can't. The states run elections, they would hold them as usual, and the Natinal Guard aren't about to shot people for trying to vote.

And that's just one reason why that won't happen.

More blatant voter suppression happens in every election. But hey, not trying to bust your balls here - just trying to understand how executive orders run in relation to the constitution under state of emergency, and I guess it's a bit unchartered.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
More blatant voter suppression happens in every election. But hey, not trying to bust your balls here - just trying to understand how executive orders run in relation to the constitution under state of emergency, and I guess it's a bit unchartered.
Umm, no, no more blatant voter suppression happens in the United States than armed, uniformed soilders physically preventing every single American from reaching the polls.
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
Umm, no, no more blatant voter suppression happens in the United States than armed, uniformed soilders physically preventing every single American from reaching the polls.

Yeah, I mean I don't think it would be every single American more like certain well-chosen regions that are showing unusually high infection rates. Of lib...corona
 

RedMercury

Blue Venus
Member
Dec 24, 2017
17,649
The moment he steps out of office he is no longer afforded the legal protection of that office, and will be hit with so much shit in courts you won't believe it.
That doesn't take away his voice though. There would be a trial, and even if he were jailed not only would he be considered a political prisoner by many people, he would still be able to get his message out, someone would still operate his twitter account. He's not going away unless he passes away.
 

Deleted member 14459

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,874
No, that's not going to happen for many, many reasons.

again, I am simply asking about the power of executive orders (for "unrelated" emergency issues that have effects on the constitutional right) in relation to the constitution under state of emergencies. the examples can be changed to something else. He could legally deploy the national guard. He won't for many reasons. if simply looking at the legal process, through what means can his executive orders be challenged (impeachment, SC..)?
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,053
Max, the suspension clause refers to suspending the right of habeas corpus, as I have said many times.

What does this have to do with the election?

How far does the power extend?

From what I've read (with Congressional approval), the election date can be deferred if 'extraordinary' circumstances surround it.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
again, I am simply asking about the power of executive orders (for "unrelated" emergency issues that have effects on the constitutional right) in relation to the constitution under state of emergencies. the examples can be changed to something else. He could legally deploy the national guard. He won't for many reasons. if simply looking at the legal process, through what means can his executive orders be challenged (impeachment, SC..)?
What you describe would be a coup. There wouldn't be any middle ground, it would be a coup. It would be stopped in a million ways, down to the fact that no one would execute that order.
How far does the power extend?

From what I've read (with Congressional approval), the election date can be deferred if 'extraordinary' circumstances surround it.
Do you know what habeas corpus is? Because it is not relevant to this discussion.

Congress has the power to move the election (a power that has nothing to do with the suspension clause). But A, they aren't going to for any number of reasons, and B, the President's term of office will expire anyway. Moving the election to after 1/20/21 would just mean Nancy becomes the President.
 
Jan 4, 2018
1,158
Is there a number of states required for an election to takes place (such as two-thirds)? For instance, hypothetically, what if a number of states loyal to Trump delayed or refused to hold their own? Because if it did come down to congress to decide, it seems like there could be some major fuckery (I'm not saying I think this is going to happen, btw):
Contingent presidential election by House
The Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to vote for a president if no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc — each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not get to vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., at present, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.

The House of Representatives has chosen the president only twice: in 1801 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; and in 1825 under the Twelfth Amendment.

Contingent vice presidential election by Senate
If no candidate for vice president receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the Senate must go into session to elect a vice president. The Senate is limited to choosing from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes for vice president. Normally this would mean two candidates, one less than the number of candidates available in the House vote. However, the text is written in such a way that all candidates with the most and second most electoral votes are eligible for the Senate election – this number could theoretically be larger than two. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by each senator, not by state delegations). However, two-thirds of the senators must be present for voting to take place.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states a "majority of the whole number" of senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for election.[101] Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of Senate votes precludes the sitting vice president from breaking any tie that might occur,[102] although some academics and journalists have speculated to the contrary.[103]

The only time the Senate chose the vice president was in 1837. In that instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical roll call and voting aloud. The rules further stated, "f a majority of the number of senators shall vote for either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally elected Vice President of the United States"; the Senate chose Johnson.[104]

Deadlocked election
Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon EST on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House would become acting president until either the House selects a president or the Senate selects a vice president. Neither of these situations has ever occurred.
If I'm reading this right, the House would vote for president. But they vote as delegations (so 1 vote per state) rather than individuals, and in order to win you need a majority of state votes (26). Both of those, as usual, unfairly favor Republicans. And since two-thirds of states must be present for the vote to happen, they could also presumably refuse to allow it at all in the first place.

And if the House is unable to elect a president, the Senate votes to elect a vice president to temporarily assume the role of president until the House could decide. Senators vote individually and a candidate only needs a simple majority of 51 votes to win. Again, given the current structure, this is advantageous for Republicans. But also again, two-thirds of the Senate is required to participate. So I suppose if Republicans denied the House vote, Democrats would deny the Senate vote (if it even got this far).

And it seems like only then regular presidential succession would kick in and the Speaker of the House would become the acting president.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Is there a number of states required for an election to takes place (such as two-thirds)? For instance, hypothetically, what if a number of states loyal to Trump delayed or refused to hold their own? Because if it did come down to congress to decide, it seems like there could be some major fuckery:

If I'm reading this right, the House would vote for president. But they don't vote as individuals and instead as state delegations (so 1 vote per state). And in order to win this vote, you need a majority of state votes (26), which as usual unfairly favors Republicans. And since two-thirds of states must be present for the vote to happen, they could also presumably refuse to allow it at all in the first place.

And if the House is unable to elect a president, the Senate votes to elect a vice president to temporarily assume the role of president until the House could decide. Senators vote individually and a candidate only needs a simple majority of 51 votes to win. Again, given the current structure this is advantageous for Republicans. But also again, two-thirds of the Senate is required to participate. So I suppose if Republicans denied the House vote, Democrats would deny the Senate vote.

And it seems like in that case, regular presidential succession would kick in and the Speaker of the House would become the acting president. (Also I don't know why this is italicized, I can't change it)
Congress sets the day of the election. States not holding the election would be in violation of both state and federal law.

But the public election does not choose the President, the electoral college does. That would still be called, and if they have 270 votes for someone, that person will be President.

If they don't, the House would pick the President as you said, with the Republicans controlling 26 states as of now. But yes, the response of Democrats at this point in this fantasy would be to boycott the vote, and the same would happen in the Senate.

So yes, that means President Nancy.

But again, none of this is going to happen.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
I'm 100% sure your priorities at the first sign of a complete collapse of a federal election system that has survived two world wars, a great depression and several assassinations will be:

1. Log onto forum and say 'haha told you'
2. Secure food and shelter
Well obviously not hence my post. This shit isn't funny.