1. No one cites you as an authority or cares about your opinion.
2. Thread closure is not required just when your panties get in a bunch.
Constitutional Question....?
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
1. No one cites you as an authority or cares about your opinion.
2. Thread closure is not required just when your panties get in a bunch.
This is patently false. In addition, I am a Constitutional Scholar and my opinion is respected by a great number of individuals.
Last edited:
Oh, so you are actually Trump, just using Buy1 Sell2 as your elite trader I.D. That explains everything.
The founders did not plan for such a scenario, however the
20th Amendment (ratified in 1933), answers the question of what should happen under the circumstances you describe.
...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.
However in Bush v. Gore (2000) the Supreme court intervened in the 2000 Presidential election in a way that had the effect of making the 20th Amendment moot. The Court in a 5-4 decision acted as though the the 20th Amendment did not exist. The case revolved around a recount in Florida, the results of which, if allowed to be completed, would determine the election outcome. What should have happened is the manner of recounting the votes should have been left to the State to decide, with the Court providing guidance as to the means of avoiding violation of the equal protection clause. Instead, the Court in a per curiam decision, stayed the recount and ,in effect, placed U.S.code above Constitutional law. The Court should either have refused to intervene in the Florida recount or should have provided instructions to the State that would have satisfied the Equal Protection Clause in carrying out it's recount, and then the recount should have been allowed to proceed until the outcome was known according to the rules established for the recount. In the meantime, in accordance with the Constitution, the Congress would decide who was to serve as acting President until the outcome of the election was known.
Bush v. Gore is regarded by some as among the three worst decisions in the history of the Court, the other two being Dred Scott and Citizens United.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Last edited:
I would love to know the writer who put Dred Scott decision on the same footing as Citizens United and Bush v. Gore. Maybe they never read Dred Scott...
I at least took Con Law, he was most likely a con who pretended to study law...
FUCK OFF.
No. it should be closed as I already had give the correct answer. The point is, that there will be no martial law, no current president will "stay on" and the presidential term ends and starts on Jan 20 every 4 years irregardless of your circumstance.