I not qoing to question your approach to this thread, as it is exceptionally obvious what you plan. So instead I would like to ask: why is the possibilty of a Trump candidacy not scary to you?
What benefit did the man do for the United States during his presidency? What improved? Why do you support him?
More to the point, how did your personal life improve under Trump? What tangible benefits did you derive?
I see we’ve moved on from every action by a Muslim condemns every Muslim in the world to every action taken by an immigrant condemns every immigrant in America. Progress?
If we’re moving on, why not “every action by an AR-15-style wielding murderer condemns AR-15-style gun owner in America”?
Does something prevent him from being kept in that position by The Powers That Be?
I don’t know who those Powers would Be. The role and authority of the speaker isn’t defined by the Constitution or statute. The Constitution says “the House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker” and that’s it. The rest is up to precedent and whatever rules the particular Congress agrees on. Sure, they can break precedent. They can try to pass a rule that names Johnson “Speaker in Perpetuity”. But there’s no reason that the incoming Congress would accept his authority. The rules of the 118th Congress expire with the 118th Congress at noon on January 3rd. Our new hypothetical Democratic majority will just ignore any attempt by Johnson to assert any authority. Without some statutory (not happening) authority or actual force (in which case we’ve moved beyond the bounds of our hypothetical and into actual armed uprising), I don’t see any mechanism for this to happen.
Sure, they could pull some shit. They’ll probably try to pull some shit. They may even succeed. But this ain’t it.
Yes, at noon on January 3, 2024, the 118th Congress – including all of its rules and officers – ceases to exist. There is no Speaker of the House until the members-elect of the 119th Congress vote to make someone Speaker.
This is a dumb article. But it does lend itself to a more interesting hypothetical. What if the House that meets to elect a Speaker on January 3 is unable to do so before the January 6 electoral count? Members can’t be sworn in until there is a Speaker. So there is no House of Representatives to participate in the joint session of Congress to count electors.
As far as I know, failing to take the oath of office only precludes members from introducing or voting on legislation. The January 6 joint session, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned, is strictly ministerial.
But again, all of this is bound by precedent, including the speaker administering the oath. There’s no rule or law that says that the oath can’t be administered by someone else. I suspect they would just show up at the joint session and Harris would administer it there.
And as far as the president himself is concerned - there’s also the Supreme Court chief justice as the final safety net. AIUI, the constitutional oath of office isn’t just some mere formality, it has to actually be sworn and isn’t just for ceremony’s sake.
Sure, Roberts is a conservative. But if Trump seizes power illegally, and Roberts says, “Nuh-uh, I ain’t swearing you in…”
Problem is, though, apparently there is also some rule that the president-elect becomes president at 12 noon on Inauguration Day.
I am not talking about anything that devious or complicated. When his term is up, can he be voted in again by those in power, or is this prohibited by the rules?
Oh, sure. If the Republicans have the majority. But the hypothetical suggests a Democratic majority. They’re not going to vote him in.
It occurs to me that the oath of office thing is also a wrench in this hypothetical. Since there’s no Constitutional rule that the speaker administer the oath, his refusal would probably just lead to those members seeking out some other authority (I think any federal judge would do).
When the new Congress starts, nobody is in power. Nothing rolls over. Who was in charge on January 2 is completely irrelevant to what happens on January 3.
Nope.
My favorite administration of the oath is Calvin Coolidge, who was sworn in by his father who was a notary public and justice of the peace.
Regarding Coolidge, there was a do-over with a federal judge, but he wasn’t on the Supreme Court, so your post is still relevant here.
However, I think that, in practice, refusal of the Chief Justice, with the backing of a Supreme Court majority, to oversee oathtaking, on grounds of constitutional disqualification, would prevent Donald Trump from being President.
The Vice President does not have the authority to rule the objection out of order. Part of the reforms to the Electoral Count Act passed at the end of last Congress include the provision that the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes is “solely ministerial,” with no power to “determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.”
The House and Senate would determine the legitimacy of the objection by either sustaining or denying it.
“I’ll need to see some identification, it’s just a formality” 