Not for the first time, I voice my concerns for the peaceful performance of our biennial democratic rituals .
By way of variation, however, on my prior posts in this vein which always postulated some sort of quasi-black ops fake emergency what have you, I ask:
Under the standards enunciated of late in justification of the president’s stand vis-a-vis the NSA, Congress, and the mandates of the Constitution, what would prevent W from making an “executive decision” on November 1, to the effect that holding an election would impair his ability to "keep the people safe’ (you know where I’m going here…).
To vindicate his supervening obligation (as currently stated) to defeat the evildoers, what if he simply announced,
“No federal elections–go ahead with your statewide races, no problems there, but we are not changing representatives and senators just now. Of course, I can’t divulge the operational details of the threat that we are facing and why this remedy is necessary, but trust me…I am fulfilling my consitutional obligations as Commander in Chief. War is hell. God Bless.”
one would HOPE so–but implicit in your reply is the acknowledgement that the fate of the Republic would be in the hands of the very same folks whoc to date have not been moved to check some extravagant claims of executive autonomy…
I should have said anyone running for Congress-- esp those not already in office.
But you’re really just throwing a huge strwaman out there. If you want to argue that no Republican would vote to impeach Bush over this, then how are you going to prove that?
I’m not saying that NO repug would vote to impeach–it’s the mechanics that trouble me. Consider that until the senate vote to convict following a sucessful vote to impeach in the house, the status remains quo
And after we concede that some (or maybe even MOST repugs) would be on board for removal, there is the passage of time to consider, the interaction of the press and the wingnut divisions while the pot boils, and the basic vote counting in the senate, which, if one were to sit down with the list of names, could be a very depressing exercise.
As for the judicial remedy, let us suppose a suit is filed on the afternoon of Nov. 1 by an aspiring congressman, seeking a writ of mandate to force the secretary of state of his jurisdiction to go forward with the election.
The Department of Justice intervenes as a party; The Federal Judge hearing the case dismisses the pleading of the D.of J. as of no standing. The D. of J. appeals. The election is now on hold–we have seen how this admin. deals with adverse judicial decisions at the trial and even the appellate level.
I don’t think the Republicans lan to use such crude methods just yet, or that they’re even on the books.
Much more likely is to continue the process Karl Rove is started: use Republican control of the electoral machinery in states where they have been elected to see that in the event of close national elections in those states, the Republican candidate will win, whether they get the most actual votes or not. Use the power of Congress and the Presidency to further extend Republican control over the states. Extend control over the media as far as is possible, and gradually build the Republicans into a PRI-style machine which cannot be removed from power short of That Means Which Cannot Be Discussed on the SDMB.
I think the biggest problem with this is that there really IS no such thing as a “federal election”. ALL elections, from presidential to congressional and otherwise, occur at the state level and are scheduled, overseen, and tallied by state authorities. The federal government’s jurisdiction over elections extends only to ensuring that they occur on the same day and, in the case of presidential elections, setting a deadline for electors to vote and certifying the results thereof. Unless Bush’s plan is to revoke federal highway funding of any state that holds elections, a statement like this would have pretty much no standing under the law.
This is what would be considered a constitutional crisis. It’s something that we aren’t too sure what would happen because the machanics of it have never been tested. The constitution is structured with some degree of assumption that 1) the elected officials aren’t batshit crazy and 2) they aren’t going to actually try to overthrow the government.
There’s a huge number of things that could happen. I can’t say whether or not elections would actually be delayed, it is possible they could be.
The ultimate result, after all was said and done would be this:
Bush would no longer be President of the United States
Specific statutes and possibly a constitutional amendment would be passed so fast your head would spin that all but makes anything like this completely impossible in the future.
There’s many possibilities.
The individual states could simply ignore Bush, they could continue to conduct elections as usual (the federal government conducts precisely 0 elections.) Bush could use his powers as President to try and stop the states. He could file suit in court or he could use military/police to physically try and stop the elections.
Depending on what happened the SCOTUS would quash Bush’s legal attempts to halt the elections and within the military and police community the officers would refuse to comply with his unlawful orders.
One very likely thing that could happen is the cabinet and Vice President would put into effect the 25th Amendment and have Bush removed and Cheney appointed as acting President on the grounds that Bush had gone insane.
Not to say it’s beyond them, but this is batshit insane. As others have correctly mentioned, even those politicians who are foursquare behind every Bush policy and ideology have their own political power to look to. Most wouldn’t take kindly to this, especially when the outcry from nearly every single American sector hits them.
Press? Hahahahaha. They would have a field day with this, exacerbating the dangers to democracy (if that’s possible in this situation,) to drum up outraged viewers and readers.
Simply adding the term ‘repugs’ to a thread seems to completely invalidate all other arguments…
Is there a difference between one side believing in their superiority over the other?
Just as a point of reference… Congress (right or wrong) gave the President these powers under the Patriot act… as such, the system is working as it was designed to… no need for subterfuge… the Legislative Branch makes the laws… the Executive enforces them… the Judicial decides if those laws follow our ruling document
Don’t believe for a second that the press is going to stand up for what’s right. They report on what the administration wants them to and not on what the administration doesn’t want them to. Cases in point:
Former vice president accuses administration of illegal acts: Ignored in mainstream press.
Former president accuses administration of illegal acts: Ignored in mainstream press.
If the administration made the case that cancelling elections was vital in the war on terror, the people and the press would roll over like the obedient dogs that they are.