It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Presidential Election 2016: What if...

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
As I said in my previous post, there really is no constitutional avenue that a sitting president could use to cancel an election because he doesn't like the candidates, nor is there an avenue that would allow a two-term-elected president to remain in office after the second term. Any possibility that may exist for either of those would require an amendment to the constitution, and that does not happen easily or quickly enough to take effect by election day or inauguration day.

HOWEVER...
....This raises an interesting question for any students of the U.S. Constitution out there.

Let's say that the president-elect -- AFTER the electoral college voted in that president-elect, but BEFORE inauguration day -- is found to be guilty of a felony, or some similar egregious offense that would seem to render that person incapable or undesirable of being president, or at least raise SERIOUS questions among a large consensus of Americans, the Legislature, and the Supreme Court about that person's ability to be president.

My specific question is this: If the above scenario were the case, does the constitution allow for an impeachment (or similar procedure) against that president-elect, or does the president-elect first need to be sworn in as president before impeachment proceedings could begin, or any procedure could begin to take away the Presidency from that person?

I am simply asking the question as an academic exercise; I'm not necessarily talking about any specific candidate out there right now.


edit on 2016-9-14 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I think it is the crackpot theory for a reason personally. And honestly? Ill bet Obama has a calender on his bedroom door and is eagerly marking off each day left of his presidency. He is counting the days and waiting to breathe again. Who wouldnt be?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JetBlackStare

Crazy? Maybe. Plausible? I think it is. Been thinking that for a while now, honestly. Now, we have one candidate vanishing from public view, with a double running around, and rumors she died. I see to recall reading about someone attempting to shoot Trump, at some point recently. What if she did die, and someone succeeded? Or, she died, and they concealed it to the last minute, and O claimed the election had to be "postponed", since there would be no time to choose a replacement candidate?

Very feasible, and more so by the day! Time will tell. At any rate, it's proving to be one of the most interesting elections in history! What a show!



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU0408
I believe the OP was leading up to the election being suspended and asking what would happen then.


Dear Leader cannot just willy-nilly suspend the elections because the candidates suck (which they do), there are procedures available to replace them if they are unable to fulfill their obligations from the nominating process.


There are procedures for lots of things, that he's ignored, though. Add in some sort of disaster, planned, or unrest, planned, and anything could happen.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Add in some sort of disaster, planned, or unrest, planned, and anything could happen.


That was not the premise of the Original Post. The question they asked was about both candidates being indicted or some sort of similar scenario.

Even if there were a disaster or 'unrest' I doubt the elections would be postponed, we hear the same things every four years.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Add in some sort of disaster, planned, or unrest, planned, and anything could happen.


That was not the premise of the Original Post. The question they asked was about both candidates being indicted or some sort of similar scenario.

Even if there were a disaster or 'unrest' I doubt the elections would be postponed, we hear the same things every four years.


The point is, if something happened to both, that might not be enough, but toss in some emergency, and ad it to that, and you'd have a different scenario. Just speculation, at this point, but people have considered the possibility for years now. Since '08, actually.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The point is, if something happened to both, that might not be enough, but toss in some emergency, and ad it to that, and you'd have a different scenario. Just speculation, at this point, but people have considered the possibility for years now. Since '08, actually.


How so? Are they the only two candidates running?

Even if they were their respective parties have mechanisms in place to find new nominees. Dear Leader would be irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The point is, if something happened to both, that might not be enough, but toss in some emergency, and ad it to that, and you'd have a different scenario. Just speculation, at this point, but people have considered the possibility for years now. Since '08, actually.


How so? Are they the only two candidates running?

Even if they were their respective parties have mechanisms in place to find new nominees. Dear Leader would be irrelevant.


Legally, he should be, I agree. The problem is, we are talking about someone who has demonstrated that he doesn't believe the law applies to him, and thus other possibilities have to be considered.

And, here we are, a week from the debates, with a gravely ill candidate, and there are now three terrorist attacks within a day. The UN is already discussing this.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Legally, he should be, I agree. The problem is, we are talking about someone who has demonstrated that he doesn't believe the law applies to him, and thus other possibilities have to be considered.


This has nothing to do with any law, these are private entities with their own rules.
We here the same thing on this site every four years, this is my third time through now and everyone is going to go all martial law and postpone the elections.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join