# Find the necessity for congressional elections inconvenient? Don't fret--you are Prez
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 8, 2006, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512 "2006-02-08T05:40:31Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/21 "2006-02-08T16:50:39Z")
> [@EEMan](#):
>
> thinking the american people would stand for this for ONE second is silly… thinking a President would be so innane to suggest such a thing is silly…
I used to feel the same way about torture.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/22 "2006-02-08T18:57:58Z")
They’re thinking about it in the U.K.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/4694410.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694410.stm)
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/23 "2006-02-08T19:50:38Z")
_President would be so innane to suggest such a thing is silly…_
not in **n** ane…
---
### Author:  [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/24 "2006-02-08T19:51:06Z")
Has there been a recent election in which this tired old conspiracy theory hasn’t been mentioned?
Clinton was going to declare martial law and cancel the 2000 elections
Bush was going to cancel the 2004 elections citing “homeland security.”
Elections were held during the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/25 "2006-02-08T19:52:33Z")
oopa. inartful coding. Let’s try again.
not in **n** ane
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/26 "2006-02-08T19:54:12Z")
ak. last time. without the artfulness.
not “inane”, insane.
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/27 "2006-02-08T19:59:19Z")
I would like to direct attention away from analysis of whether Bush WOULD do such and such to the question of whether the doctrines thus far enunciated to defend the NSA frolic would not serve equally well to justify even what to us appears a blatently illegal overreach.
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/28 "2006-02-08T20:19:04Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> There would be no House of Representatives (and only 2/3rds of the Senate) on the afternoon of January 3rd.
>
> Amendment XX, dealing with Presidential, Vice-Presidential, and Congressional terms of office:
> One of these days I’m going to bookmark [usconstitution.net](http://usconstitution.net)
There is also something in there aboutCongress having the power to declare war…
They have not.
And yet, we have a “wartime” president.
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/29 "2006-02-08T20:22:31Z")
A Law Review article somewhat on point
Summary
The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be
exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency
circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such
powers maybe stated explicitlyor implied bythe Constitution, assumed bythe Chief
Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified bystatute.
Through legislation, Congress has made a great manydelegations of authorityin this
regard over the past 200 years.
There are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of
emergencypowers. With theexception of thehabeascorpus clause, theConstitution
makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national
emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of
emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and
Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency
powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been
subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated
emergency authority. The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651)
eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority, required the
President to declare formally the existence of a national emergency and to specify
what statutory authority, activated by the declaration, would be used, and provided
Congress a means to countermand the President’s declaration and the activated
authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent
declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report, which is updated as
events require
[http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:bDpyNtJgvXcJ:www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/98-505GOV05132004.pdf+review+"Emergency+Powers+Continuation+Act"+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3](http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:bDpyNtJgvXcJ:www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/98-505GOV05132004.pdf+review+%22Emergency+Powers+Continuation+Act%22+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3)
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/30 "2006-02-08T20:28:52Z")
_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._
Excuse me.
CHENEY?
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/31 "2006-02-08T20:31:17Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#):
>
> I would like to direct attention away from analysis of whether Bush WOULD do such and such to the question of whether the doctrines thus far enunciated to defend the NSA frolic would not serve equally well to justify even what to us appears a blatently illegal overreach.
Indeed. It is not clear that even some Republicans were aware that their vote after 9/11 gave the administration the authority to violate the law and the Constitution. I’m also not interested if he could get away with it, but how the legal theory allowing the wiretaps does not also allow the cancellation or postponement of elections.
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 8, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/32 "2006-02-08T20:38:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Indeed. It is not clear that even some Republicans were aware that their vote after 9/11 gave the administration the authority to violate the law and the Constitution. I’m also not interested if he could get away with it, but how the legal theory allowing the wiretaps does not also allow the cancellation or postponement of elections.
what he said (more clearly than my clumsy attempts…)
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/33 "2006-02-10T08:30:40Z")
check out this web site and cv.
[http://wilson.house.gov/Bio.asp](http://wilson.house.gov/Bio.asp)
Education: BS United States Air Force Academy 1982
Rhodes Scholar, Oxford University: M.Phil. (1984), and D.Phil. (1985) International Relations
this woman is **way** too smart to be a republican. What’s up?
((psst:do **we** have any bitches like this on our side?)
---
### Author:  [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/34 "2006-02-10T15:17:34Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#):
>
> check out this web site and cv.
>
> [http://wilson.house.gov/Bio.asp](http://wilson.house.gov/Bio.asp)
> Education: BS United States Air Force Academy 1982
> Rhodes Scholar, Oxford University: M.Phil. (1984), and D.Phil. (1985) International Relations
>
> this woman is **way** too smart to be a republican. What’s up?
> ((psst:do **we** have any bitches like this on our side?)
Condi Rice is a DOCTOR…
oh and the ‘bitches’ on your side, might prefer you use a different term
Just as a point of reference to
> [@](#):
>
> Indeed. It is not clear that even some Republicans were aware that their vote after 9/11 gave the administration the authority to violate the law and the Constitution. I’m also not interested if he could get away with it, but how the legal theory allowing the wiretaps does not also allow the cancellation or postponement of elections.
The passing of a law, can not be illegal by definition… UNCONSTITUTIONAL perhaps, but that would be for the courts to determine…
You NEVER needed permission to listen to internation phone calls… and in fact you never needed permission to listen to the foreign end of a US-international call… the Patriot act gives permission to listen to the DOMESTIC side of the call, IF and only if, the international portion is to a supspected terrorist… that is what has been going on…
Is it right? That is the debate… is it LEGAL… yes it is FULLY legal… is it constitutional… take it to court… see if it holds up…
OH and the Patriot act says NOTHING about postponing or removing elections…
This is nothing more than a strawman… and a too oft played one at that
---
### Author:  [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/35 "2006-02-10T15:56:11Z")
EEman? A note: There was no law passed, here that had anything to do with wiretapping. It was a resolution on engaging in conflict with the Taliban. But it was not a Declaration of War. That’s a legal term, with certain points, and we have not had one.
If the President does something that is normally illegal, as it breaks a law, such as FISA, it is… still illegal. The question existing is why he thinks he can break the law. He claims that he has the inherent power, based on the resolution to engage in conflict. Essentially, he seems to declare that it was the same as a Declaration of War.
The question is, if he can violate one law, that is, FISA, if he can violate the 4th amendment, as he seems to be doing, what stops him from performing other unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and fattening acts?
Do you understand this?
---
### Author:  [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/36 "2006-02-10T16:10:02Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#):
>
> EEman? A note: There was no law passed, here that had anything to do with wiretapping. It was a resolution on engaging in conflict with the Taliban. But it was not a Declaration of War. That’s a legal term, with certain points, and we have not had one.
> If the President does something that is normally illegal, as it breaks a law, such as FISA, it is… still illegal. The question existing is why he thinks he can break the law. He claims that he has the inherent power, based on the resolution to engage in conflict. Essentially, he seems to declare that it was the same as a Declaration of War.
>
> The question is, if he can violate one law, that is, FISA, if he can violate the 4th amendment, as he seems to be doing, what stops him from performing other unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and fattening acts?
>
> Do you understand this?
I understand the arguement… it just doesn’t happen to follow the facts…
HR3162RDS (the Senate/House compromise rename being “The Patriot Act”) … is a law (may points of this law are actually amendments to other laws)… Section 106 as it amends 50 U.S.C 1702) as well as Sections 501-508… and Section 711; seem to allow such acts to occur
---
### Author:  [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/37 "2006-02-10T16:20:49Z")
oh and if you don’t believe me… or like the way I explain how the Patriot Act gives such permissions…
Maybe the [ACLU](http://www.aclu.org//safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html) can
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/38 "2006-02-10T16:56:20Z")
> [@EEMan](#):
>
> The passing of a law, can not be illegal by definition… UNCONSTITUTIONAL perhaps, but that would be for the courts to determine…
>
> You NEVER needed permission to listen to internation phone calls… and in fact you never needed permission to listen to the foreign end of a US-international call… the Patriot act gives permission to listen to the DOMESTIC side of the call, IF and only if, the international portion is to a supspected terrorist… that is what has been going on…
>
> Is it right? That is the debate… is it LEGAL… yes it is FULLY legal… is it constitutional… take it to court… see if it holds up…
>
> OH and the Patriot act says NOTHING about postponing or removing elections…
>
> This is nothing more than a strawman… and a too oft played one at that
Exactly what part of the Patriot Act allows warrantless wiretaps? Why didn’t Gonzalez mention this as justification. Remember we are not talking about FISA approved wiretaps here, which are clearly legal, but the ones done without FISA approval, and justified by the post 9/11 resolution, NOT the Patriot Act.
Obviously a policy of allowing wiretaps on calls from suspected terrorists without a warrant is like allowing all wiretaps, since the NSA can say they suspect my Aunt Mabel. (Note to NSA - no such person, so don’t bother looking. ) It seems that the actual selection was not much better.
The legal theory put forth by the Administration is that the resolution allows them to take any steps necessary to fight terrorism. So, my question stands.
---
### Author:  [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/39 "2006-02-10T17:12:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#):
>
> Exactly what part of the Patriot Act allows warrantless wiretaps? Why didn’t Gonzalez mention this as justification. Remember we are not talking about FISA approved wiretaps here, which are clearly legal, but the ones done without FISA approval, and justified by the post 9/11 resolution, NOT the Patriot Act.
I handled which parts in an above post…
Why Gonzalez didn’t use… or did use anything; I can’t speak to his motivations… perhaps he didn’t want to highlight something ‘bad’ about the PA
> [@](#):
>
> Obviously a policy of allowing wiretaps on calls from suspected terrorists without a warrant is like allowing all wiretaps, since the NSA can say they suspect my Aunt Mabel. (Note to NSA - no such person, so don’t bother looking. ) It seems that the actual selection was not much better.
Loopholes in our laws… OH NO…
> [@](#):
>
> The legal theory put forth by the Administration is that the resolution allows them to take any steps necessary to fight terrorism. So, my question stands.
The adminstatration can do anything it wants… doesn’t mean it will work… and pretty sure our military won’t be there to help the coup… though the legality of the PA isn’t in question… and it does seem to cover this topic rather well
---
### Author:  [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512/40 "2006-02-10T20:14:37Z")
> [@EEMan](#):
>
> I handled which parts in an above post…
>
> Why Gonzalez didn’t use… or did use anything; I can’t speak to his motivations… perhaps he didn’t want to highlight something ‘bad’ about the PA
>
> Loopholes in our laws… OH NO…
>
> The adminstatration can do anything it wants… doesn’t mean it will work… and pretty sure our military won’t be there to help the coup… though the legality of the PA isn’t in question… and it does seem to cover this topic rather well
you are concentrating on the statutary issues but ignoring the looming Article II claims:
viz: as C in C during war, prez is virtually **obligated** , on his own “stick” as it were, to consider void any statutary or even **constitutional** stricture which he, in his
(jesus forgive the use of the word…) “wisdom” , deems adverse to the overarching obligation to fight off the slavering terrorists.
It is the **structural** quality of these assertions that are so dangerous.
I am not talking about a coup, or soldiers in the streets. That’s not how it works with these guys.
He just **does** it. You keep talking about all the follks who “won’t take it”, or the “court” will do thus and so.
There is no mechanism for any check on the presidents C in C authoerity during war (as they have set it out) except impeachment, and we can speak at length about the procedural issues and delays, if nothing else.
Please explain in precise, real world, operational definitions, how the scenario plays out in favor of elections after the hypothetical announcement on November 1.
what happens next
who does it
who opposes it.
how does it **WORK??!**
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/find-the-necessity-for-congressional-elections-inconvenient-dont-fret-you-are-prez/343512.md?page=3)