Funny, whacked-out freaky conspiracy theorists “could see” the same thing about Clinton.
Still sounds totally out of touch.
I’ll offer 100,000,000 to one odds against (I get the “no election suspension” bet). Who will take me up? Put your money where your mouth is.
What the hell.
I’ll put a dime on it.
That way, if our tyrannical overlords DO pull off a coup I’ll have the scratch to buy my way into the ruling clique.
Wait…
Do you HAVE $10,000,000?
Well, it’s degenerated from off-topic to cock waving. Ftr, the General Question was:
Can – that is can - President Bush suspend the 2004 Presidential Elections?
In other words, what is the Constitutional position, not what will Bush do.
I read an interesting and well nuanced cite on FindLaw last night which laid out the constitutional position . . . but, of course, I can’t find it now.
To paraphrase, it’s possible to drive a coach and horses through the Constitution, the question is whether a president would do it and what would then happen – and no one actually knows.
As an aside, from recent experiences an awful in the US seems to depend on what the subservient media don’t say. YMMV.
Anyone find any constitutional lawyer-type cites on subject ?
Dear Fellow Conservatives:
Yes, yes, I KNOW the original post was ridiculous. We all know that there's no chance that any U.S. president could or would suspend elections. We all know that only the dimmest of bulbs and nuttiest of tin-foil hat wearers would ever raise the question.
But why should we tell THEM that? Sure, we all know that the worst case scenario for the Left is that GWB will be replaced by somebody else on January 20, 2009 (perhaps 4 years sooner than that). But why would you want to reassure THEM?
Their paranoia and Chicken Little-esque fear of Dubyah are a hoot to watch! I rather ENJOY watching such folks wetting their pants in fear of the big coup they're sure Halliburton's minions are planning.
So why tell them the truth? Why try to console them and reassure them that everything's going to be okay? They'll never believe you, in the first place. And in the second place, who wants a healthy, CONFIDENT Left in the U.S.? Better for us that they shiver in fear, hiding in their basements, sneaking out just long enough to post anti-GOP messages on the SDMB.FTR, I was not so much aiming my remarks at the OP, as I was at some of the subsequent posts by other members. The OP was the first SDMB post from Jacl, so he may have accidentally posted his mini-rant in the wrong forum, or just not understood what GQ is all about.
You mean the USA is exactly like every other industrialized country, in that case. I have never encountered a single country wherein the majority of the media was not subservient to the dominant prejudices of that particular country, reality be hanged.
That one’s easy.
1.) Confiscate their SUVs.
2.) Confiscate their tvs, especially right before the Super Bowl
3.) Don’t allow them to water their lawns
4.) Don’t allow any shopping except for necessities. Close the malls.
Bottom line: To get Americans really fired up, you have to really oppress them. Civil liberties as they are usually understood are really not that important.
Anyone else notice that the OP apparently signed up to the SDMB for the sole purpose of posting this question and has never been heard from again? Hmmm …
FTR, I wouldn’t take Dogface’s 100,000,000:1 odds on the election being cancelled. There is no way it is gonna happen.
BUT, a thought exercise.
What if there were credible intelligence that terrorists were lacing the ballots with anthrax or sarin? Or planning to nerve gas random voting locations around the country? What if two days before the election, part of a terrorist cell was uncovered that had built bombs to plant at voting places, and there was evidence there were dozens of others like them?
In NYC on 9/11, IIRC the mayoral elections were indeed suspended for a few weeks. Could the federal government act to suspend voting for a month or so while they cleaned things up? Could they suspend them for a year? What do you realistically think the biggest length of suspension could be in this country at this time without protest?
Like rjung, I would be much more suspicious about the Diebold voting machines. While that is a tinfoil hat conspiracy, it is one that could be done surreptitiously and therefore not engender immediate revolution. But I would be willing to put a buck down on 100,000,000:1 odds on that…
US Presidents have ignored the rule of law in the past and gotten away with it.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed by Congress, challenged in court by the Cherokee Indians and the USSC overturned it. Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and forcibly removed the Indians anyway.
President Lincoln:
I find the last sentence in the quote above interesting as regards Padilla.
The Feds could interfere only if there were voting rights violations. In the case of terrorism, the feds could shut down some transportation facilities and effectively force the states to alter election plans, but ultimately it’s a state decision.
I doubt if there would by any problem so long as the transfer of power date in Janurary was not affected. If Bush was down in the polls, and the election had to be pushed back a few weeks, that would cause an uproar, and it would be hard to get a coordinated effort from the states.
The following scenario might be of interest to this discussion:
Suppose NY got hit real hard by terrorism a week before the election, and tried to petition for a change of date. It would have to get the other states to agree.
The factual question has been answered about as well as it can be, so I’ll close this thread. I’ll take this opportunity to remind folks that this is not the forum for debating Jose Padilla, European vs. American attitudes towards the state, or anything else for that matter.
Politicking is expressly forbidden. “Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote GOP!” is over the line, so Jinx may consider himself officially warned.
bibliophage
moderator GQ