Constitutional question

[historian]

This amy appear silly but its always best to prepare for bush sleaze, Is there ANYTHING in the constitution which can be interpreted as an excuse to prevent elections in case of national "emergency"? Something not even Scalia could support?
If the question appearts idiotic its becuase my head is coming to a point.

[proud patriot]

1. Here you go

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/46.html

[distortionmarshall]

2. ok - i'll bite -

... what does habeas corpus have to do with potentially blocking presidential elections? bush will lock up the entire population, and not let them see a judge?

In case anyone's not clear exactly what's involved in habeas corpus, please see:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

[LawSchoolLiberal]

3. I believe

The point of the post is that the clause is commonly employed by the executive branch to justify suspension of individual rights, almost always habeas corpus, but indirectly others as well. If you look at the linked article, one of the footnotes mentions the events during the Civil War and WWII as examples of that suspension, and while this has so far purtained almost exclusively to detention, if you look at the language in the statute forming FEMA, for example, there is the potential for the suspension of public activities in an emergency. Presumably, that's based on an identical interpretaton of the clause, and it hasn't been fond unconstitutional yet, meaning if Bush declared a national emergency, in theory, he could temporarily suspend rights for everyone, until the "emergency" had passed, at which point the election would occur.

[distortionmarshall]

4. sigh.....

that's sort of an answer i guess.....

in the civil war, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. were presidential elections suspended?

in wwii, writ of habeas corpus was suspended. were the presidential elections suspended then?

on to fema (i'm not familiar with it, yet...)

thx for the redirect :)

[LawSchoolLiberal]

5. Also

In both the Civil and Second World Wars, the suspension of habeas corpus was at least ratified by Congress. I think if it did interfere with the elections, (as opposed to truly individual activities) you would see an immediate petition for cert go to the Supreme Court, and even Scalia would be likely to have a problem with such a "liberal" (read "broad") interpretation of the clause. But just because no one else was crazy enough to try it doesn't mean it's impossible for someone to try it.