If no one is inaugurated on January 20, does Bush remain president?

Presuming there is a long drawn out conflict over the fraud and Ohio's electoral votes...

electors

if they don't certify, he will remain Prez until a new one is certified I assume

someone posted about this a few weeks ago. H2OMan perhaps? (where has he been?)I will look for it. It was well worth the read.

a crisis when the country is at war...

I read a very interesting book written by two professors about the Electoral College (sorry, I don't have the book and can't remember the name). It was written before the 2000 election and made up a scenario in which Colin Powell ran as an independent and got enough electoral votes so that no one had the necessary number under the Constitution. A lot of maneuvering went on (to turn faithless electors and so on), but when January 20 came there was no way to declare a winner in the election and Denny Hastert was inaugurated. Would that be better or worse than a second Bush term? (Yes, I know a President Kerry would be better than either.)

Edit: Found the book cite: The Electoral College Primer 2000, by Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Peirce, 1999, Yale Univeristy Press.

in my first ever DU post, but...

I think your question is very interesting in a hypothetical sense, but realistically speaking, I think there's roughly 0% probability that BushCo. would allow his January 20 inaguration/coronation to be delayed or interfered with in any way. This gang is all about steamrolling over the American people and our democratic process, letting nothing stand in the way of their radical ideologist agenda and desire for ever more power.

*Sigh.*

I don't really think its up to him. His term would be over.

If Dennis Hastert becomes president I think that would be until the crisis is resolved, not for 4 years.

The electors of each state have already cast their votes, and there's been no evidence that a large number of the electors voted differently from how they were supposed to (one elector voted for Edwards, but we don't know whether that was a mistake or a statement of some kind). As I understand it, what happens next (on January 13th?), is that the votes will be unsealed and read by the Veep to the Congress, and then they can either accept or challenge the result. This is where the Bush bullies will be heavily involved to ensure that the Congress will not mount a successful challenge. There will be lots of behind-the-scenes threats, a massive publicity/MSM-supported propoganda campaign, and other tools in their very powerful and effective arsenal.

As usual, the Dems and other progressives are playing by the rules, i.e. pursuing appropriate legal recourse, but the Repugs will play on an entirely different level of strategy and mind control: they will be unethical, probably illegal, and much more successful. Unless of course the "good guys" can manage to bring to light enough dirt to turn the battleship around...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is not about democrat versus republican. This is about the entire democratic process being stolen from all of us.

We need to move past the short term vision of which bozo is going to be president.

Forget Kerry. Forget Bush. 2 different sides of the same coin.

This is about us, the common citizen having our voices heard. Voting is how we "talk" to the government and if our voices; our votes; are actively ignored where are we?

During the Washington Supreme Court oral arguments on Governor Election, Remember what Justice Susan Owens, asked when she responded to attorney Korrel by saying...

"You're looking at it from the point of view of the winner or
the loser - shouldn't we be looking at it from the point of
view of the voter?"

and cannot be resolved in a relatively quick manner- which is not all that unlikely to happen. It is a question about constitutional process in a situation we've never had before.

I agree partially. Democracy, decision making by the people (us) is in peril. Bush and Kerry are not the same, and I know you didn't say this but hang with me a moment. Their administrations are very different and I really fear what more bs bushites will pull off the next 4 yrs. However, aside from imperiling life on the planet, and killing and maiming many people, the bigger picture is civil rights, democracy vs fascism and big brother. This is what I fear more and more from bushites. And this is why we need to fight to Get the Votes Counted. If we do not have free and fair elections (or more free and fair), democracy is only a propagandish word, not reality.

including practical and legal questions. That's what this post is about; it is not a statement of what I take to be the "biggest" question.

Sorry to deteriorate your question into "is democracy in peril" but that's my driving fear. I think he remains in, but that doesn't make sense as then all a ruler would need to stay in power is to have an election questioned? So hmm. Good question.

I will have to keep reminding myself of that as well

problem. The law is specific and throughout time there have only been a couple quirky inaugrals...an acting president could also be appointed pro term.

is if the Congress (both Houses) refused a slate of delegates. That is not going to happen.

since the army is in Iraq, it may be a moot point. I can't see anything short of deadly force getting the republicans to actually leave. They'll tie it up forever in the courts.

Section 3 of the 20th amendment (isn't wikipedia wonderful?):
...and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

then the Vice President elect acts as president until a president qualifies. If the vice president elect is also not qualified, Congress may determine who will act as president until a president is qualified. According to Title 3, Section 18 of the United States Code, that person is the speaker of the House. If the speaker cannot serve, then it falls to the president pro tempore of the Senate. If he/she cannot qualify, then it falls in turn to members of the cabinet, beginning with the Secretary of State, yada yada.

With the help of Aaron Sorkin's scripts, Jeb Bartlett takes over for the interim.

OP

in control feeling it was so URGENT to take up the issue of who would control govt in case of a terrorist attack, so now we know it was really not about terrorism at all from outside but terror inside because they knew this vote crisis was coming up because of the vote FRAUD they have perpetrated. THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT POWER WOULD REMAIN IN THEIR HANDS AT ANY COST. So much for thinking that they were concerned about the nation in crisis.