Trump calls for 2020 Election delay

[President Biden 5,898]

1 hour ago, SineFromHell said:

Can he actually do this? Wouldn't this go against the constitution which the GOP loves to shove down our throats. 

No he can’t actually do this. And not even Republicans would back this. It would definitely need to be done either by Congress (which the House Dems would

block) or Court (Which Justice Roberts would block with Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan).

 

So rest assured, this is a pipe dream of Trumps. The wall is more realistic than shifting an election date

[Franch Toast 27,760]

28 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Honestly, If that is the case I would prefer Biden by a mile & y'all already know how I feel about Biden by now. 

This is the plan of succession outlined in the Constitution, a document that the Conservatives claim to love. 

I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing to have President Pelosi, but Trump really hasn't thought this through. Perhaps he hasn't read the ol' Constitution that closely after all. 

[Nemo 4,414]

I'm annoyed at the BBC for saying "little evidence". There is NO evidence. Even Barr admitted there was no evidence, in his hearing (just "common sense", he claimed -- that favorite refuge of liars).

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, President Biden said:

@HorusRa2still going to throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate and enable a literal fascist to win re election?

As I mentioned in the previous thread we interacted in, I specifically stated that since Biden is up by so much at this point, I see my vote as more productive to boost the Green party into relevance than ensuring Biden gets 313 votes instead of 284. Should the margin of victory in the polls in aggregate suggest he is only winning by an amount that he could plausibly lose the electoral college, then I would be more than happy to reassess that; however, we are currently not in that situation so I don't see the need for further interaction. Have a good day. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, Franch Toast said:

This is the plan of succession outlined in the Constitution, a document that the Conservatives claim to love. 

I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing to have President Pelosi, but Trump really hasn't thought this through. Perhaps he hasn't read the ol' Constitution that closely after all. 

I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution but I'm not sure that it lays out the specific scenario that the election being delayed would result in the speaker of the house becoming de facto president until the election occurs. 

We know Trump can barely read so I think you can speak with certainty that he's never read it beyond snippets on twitter. 

[Franch Toast 27,760]

6 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

I don't claim to be an expert on the constitution but I'm not sure that it lays out the specific scenario that the election being delayed would result in the speaker of the house becoming de facto president until the election occurs. 

We know Trump can barely read so I think you can speak with certainty that he's never read it beyond snippets on twitter. 

True, it doesn't lay out this specific scenario. I just did some reading, and basically, if it comes to that, it's totally unprecedented and looks like it could happen a few different ways. However, I believe that Trump staying in office would not be one of the options. 

(And my LMAO was at your comment about Trump barely able to read, not at the rest of your post.  ) 

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

Sir...you have no control over that...

[HorusRa2 5,005]

11 minutes ago, Franch Toast said:

True, it doesn't lay out this specific scenario. I just did some reading, and basically, if it comes to that, it's totally unprecedented and looks like it could happen a few different ways. However, I believe that Trump staying in office would not be one of the options. 

(And my LMAO was at your comment about Trump barely able to read, not at the rest of your post.  ) 

If it's not too much trouble, can you send me what you were looking at? I'm genuinely curious. 

No worries, I assumed that's why you LMAO'ed. 

p.s. I'm working on being less confrontational while still stating how I feel about things. 

[Franch Toast 27,760]

10 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

If it's not too much trouble, can you send me what you were looking at? I'm genuinely curious. 

No worries, I assumed that's why you LMAO'ed. 

p.s. I'm working on being less confrontational while still stating how I feel about things. 

I just Googled the question and read a bunch of results, which are reporting different things. I guess no one really knows because indeed, the Constitution doesn't spell out this specific situation, so people are just speculating. Here are some of them: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-delay-powers-factbox/factbox-what-would-it-take-to-postpone-the-us-presidential-election-idUSKCN24V2V1

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/509765-pelosi-responds-to-trump-floating-election-delay-by-quoting-from-constitution

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52326166

[ALGAYDO 35,454]

1 hour ago, President Biden said:

@HorusRa2still going to throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate and enable a literal fascist to win re election?

Still using voting shaming as a desperate tactic to scare people into voting for your POS candidate? 

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

He can't do this legally...here are some comprehensive resources if you are curious about it from a legal standpoint and how the succession would work.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/493101-who-takes-control-if-there-is-no-presidential-election-this-year
"But if there is no election, there is no president elect nor vice president elect. Congress does provide for a line of succession to the White House “if by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify,” there is neither a president nor a vice president. This also does not appear to encompass the absence of an election. There is an obvious gap in our Constitution as the Framers simply did not contemplate a “no election” scenario. However, even if Congress has the authority to fill this gap in the Constitution, it is unclear that it has done so with the existing law, because the line of succession begins with the House speaker.

But there would be no House speaker if there were no election, because there would be no House, all of whose members would be up for election in November. The terms of all members of the House would end, as stated in the Constitution, on January 3. There would, however, be a Senate, with a majority of its members not up for election in November and, therefore, still serving their terms. This is important as the next in line would be the president pro tempore of the Senate, which is Charles Grassley. However, if there were no election, there may be a Democratic majority among the remaining senators not up for reelection, unless sitting governors or state legislators were allowed to fill vacant seats, which is another issue.

The longest serving majority senator is traditionally handed the honor of serving as the president pro tempore of the chamber. Among Democrats that would be Patrick Leahy. But a Democratic majority could choose any sitting senator for that role, including Elizabeth Warren and even Bernie Sanders. If the succession law covers a missed election, which would be doubtful, then the senator selected to serve as president pro tem would become the next president. This thought is scary enough to Republicans to assure that they will do everything they can to hold the election."

[Rio 5,088]

2 hours ago, Cody James said:

He is obviously scared that younger voters and those who are practicing social distancing will turn in votes. He knows his loyal voters will still show up despite safety concerns. 

This literally

[Rio 5,088]

26 minutes ago, ALGAYDO said:

Still using voting shaming as a desperate tactic to scare people into voting for your POS candidate? 

Fine. Just indirectly vote for Trump instead then.

[ALGAYDO 35,454]

16 minutes ago, Rio said:

Fine. Just indirectly vote for Trump instead then.

Based off of your twisted logic of “not voting for Biden = voting for Trump,” then not voting for Trump = voting for Biden   See how that mentality doesn’t actually hold sound logic? 

 

[Whispering 18,865]

In order for the election to be delayed, both houses of Congress would need to pass a bill to do so. The chances of that are zero, given the GOP does not control the House.

Therefore, states which choose to hold the election on November 3 may do so. California will do so. Nancy Pelosi will be reelected. The newly elected House members will be sworn into office January 3 and, provided she remains speaker, will become Acting President on January 20.