This is a question that I can see spiralling out of control.
If George W Bush is proven to have comitted crimes, deception, etc. to win the presidency in 2000 and 2004, that would mean that he is the de facto * president not the de jure * president. So, who would be the *de jure * president in that situation?
Would it be Bill Clinton since no legitimate successor was sworn in? Or, would it be the opponent he cheated (Gore then Kerry)? Or, would there be no* de jure * president at all?
As far as I know, President Bush would still be the de jure president. I don’t believe fraud or crimes committed during an election in themselves invalidate the election results.
Good grief. :smack: Even if you had incontrovertial proof that GW stole the election, that he manipulated the vote, that he put a gun to the head of every person in Florida and forced their vote, he would STILL be president…legally. Oh, ou could impeach his ass, and maybe bring him up on charges and put him away in prison…but that doesn’t change the facts. Who would be his successor? Dick Chaney. If you got HIM on charges too, it would be the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert. After that it would be President pro Tempore of the Senate. Then the Secretary of State. I could go on if you like.
It WON’T be: Bill Clinton. Al Gore. Or John Kerry. Except in the fever dreams of the rabid left.
No. He would still be the de jure president. The legal processes may have been corrupted, but they were still observed.
It would be necessary to impeach him, then convict him in the Senate and formally remove him from office–leaving Vice President Cheney to assume the presidency.
(If you want to throw Mr. Cheney in as a conspirator, then the Congress would either do what they (effectively) did during Nixon’s second term, first forcing out the V.P. so that an interim V.P. could be appointed and confirmed by the Congress, or they could impeach and try the president and vice president simultaneously, relying on the 25th Amendment, to place the Speaker of the House into the White House.)
True. W’s election was certified by the College of Electors as provided in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1. How the electors got to be electors is a matter of state law.
Yet another thing about the Constitution that needs changing, but for now, that’s how it is.
Minor quibble with xtisme’s list- Spence Abraham is no longer Energy Secretary, that is Sam Bodman. Not sure if there are other errata.
Back to the OP, unfortunately the election results, fraudulent as they were, were certified by Congress. Once that happens, it doesn’t matter how the votes were rigged, you’re still president.
Well, at least my original post was right (I got the first 2 :)). Sorry…I didn’t really look, just did a quick google search on presidential succession. Never occured to me that the web site would be wrong.
Thanks for the information. I have a follow up question. Was Saddam Hussein both the de jure and de facto leader? He rigged every single election and set up the legal apparatus that legitimized him.
Yep. Like you said, he “set up the legal apparatus that legitimized him”, so he was de jure leader, and he was de facto leader, because he was the one making the decisions.