I’m not sure if this should be in IMHO, since it is pretty far-fetched. But hypothetically…
Bush loses the 2004 election by a very slim electoral margin. Additionally, there are disputes concerning vote counts in one of the states that he lost (say Florida). By a precedent set in 2000, the Supreme Court determines that there will be no recount of the votes in Florida. But that state’s Secretary of State decides that she will not sign off (can’t remember the word) on the vote count.
The Republicans maintain control of the House as well as the Senate in the elections. They back Bush. Bush’s Cabinet also loyally backs him. Bush is still commander-in-chief of the Armed Foreces and orders them to protect his presidential seat until a winner (named Bush) is determined. Lawsuits ensue. The January 2005 inauguration date has come and gone. Bush is still president.
Before that happened, the Florida (or wherever) legislature would just name a slate of electors, who would cast their votes in the electoral college vote. After all, states can pick their electors however they want. If that happened, and the electors voted for Kerry, and Bush said, “I’m still not leaving”, you’d have a constitutional crisis, but I can’t imagine, even if he tried that, Congress, even a Republican Congress, or the military would back him.
Bush’s term of office expires at Noon on January 20. Anything Bush may say or order after the expiration of his term is irrelevant.
However, if between the time of the election and the expiration of his term of office Bush were to order the military to “protect” him so as he refuses to leave office, such an order would be unlawful. Since the president, all members of Congress as well as the military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, anything contrary to the oath would be null and void.
However, what I stated above is the textbook version. If things were to come to pass as you described, we would have a fundamental breakdown in our government. In short, the next revolution would have begun. And, FWIW, Bush’s alleged support would vanish like a fart in the wind.
Well, let’s just say it’s a hypothetical president, just to keep the peace.
The National Guard would be out, since they could be federalized as well. And impeachment would be useless unless it could be enforced.
I should point out that it is because of these possibilities that the Framers insisted on a Second Amendment. There is no possible way that this hypothetical president could resist millions of armed Americans converging on Washington to drag him out of the White House.
I hope I’m being cynical, but I think you folks saying Bush would have no support if he did this are being a bit naive. A lot of people support their political leader to ridiculous extremes, and I doubt this would be much different. Hopefully, less than usual, but there’d still be a lot.
Almost everybody loves a conspiracy theory, even one as ridiculous as the OP. It has obvious appeal to supporters of the Second Amendment and to Bush bashers. Thank goodness there are posters like Duckster and Captain Amazing that are willing to inject reasonable reasons why it won’t happen. Let’s call it what it is political fiction.
It’s a hypothetical question. There’s no conspiracy theory in my OP. Per Mr. Moto’s advice, please feel free to substitute the name of any other president. I only used Bush because he’s the sitting president and all of the houses of government are majority Republican.
People who rally behind the Second Half of the Second Amendment love to think this. The only trouble is, name an instance since the American Revolution where the armed populace overthrew an oppressive government. To be honest I can’t think of any. The US Army and its weaponry would make short work of any populist uprising.
How about the French Revolution in 1789?
How about the “well-mannered revolution” in Turkey in which Kemal Ataturk deposed the Ottomans?
How about what happened to Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife in Roumania?
How about the East Timorese?
Hollywood is currently developing a film in which this scenario is played out: a president refuses to leave the White House after losing an election. Seriously. No joke.
Anyway, I’m sure you’ll get all the factual information you need about this hypothetical situation from the movie.
What about units of the military who turn on the recalcitrant president? I’m sure that there are plenty of people in the military who would refuse the order for various reasons, from their own personal convictions to sheer formal stubbornness. Seeing as the order would be unconstitutional and unlawful, they would be duty-bound to refuse it even coming from the commander-in-chief, and no matter how much they wanted to see her keep the seat.
Sure, there would be plenty of people who followed orders out of obedience to the commander they want in power, but military personnel are not mindless drones slavishly following ever command that drips from the president’s mouth.
It did not set a legal precedent. The decision stated it was for the present circumstances only (url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/baker1.php]Cite[/url).
Doesn’t the Constitution provide for one of the legislative houses to determine the president in the event that the electoral college cannot determine a winner with the required number of electors?
I would think that if a state (say Florida) has a controversy in determining who won that state, to the point that the SecState of Florida would not validate and certify the vote, AND and no candidate has the sufficeint number of electors to win, then the US House of Representatives (I think) gets to decide. Since it is majority republican, Bush wins.
