So...give me a scenario where bush could remain in office longer than 2008

[The Straight Story]

Well, technically, he leaves in Jan 2009 of course :)

But I see one such scenario being thus:

Major and/or multiple attacks in big US cities days before election. Election needs postponed.

Now, do I think he would pull such crap? Well, I really don't know anymore. I know the right feared the same from clinton, but then they were wrong a lot on clinton. bush is, well...nuts.

Who knows what he would pull? Nuke the capitol when he is on vacation or off reading goat stories, and the congress goes away. Blame the terrorists, call off elections, wait and see, etc.

Yeah, I know, my tinfoil hat is a little too tight. But lately, I can't blame myself too much.

So how would you see something like this going down? Or do you think it will all be the usual smooth transition of power like it has generally been? The right wing has a lot to lose, will they just roll over and let it be? Cause I see us winning BIG this year, and taking the presidency next. I can't see how it wouldn't happen - except for bushs self-delusional divine intervention....

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. I think it could happen in the upcoming election if the repugs

think they could loose Congress. Which it has pretty much been looking that way for some time.

[liberaldemocrat7]

25. That fascist Adolf Hooligani attemped that in 2001.

After 9-11 the Hooligani administration in NYC talked about extending Il Duce's reign after Jan 2002 and I beleive they did this to help Michael Bloomberg. It appeared like some type of stalking horse to throw Mark Green off guard. Terra Terra Terra.

[TomInTib]

2. It wouldn't take much to suspend elections.

Just a few minor episodes in some mid-size (scare the crap out of the Heartland) cities and some obscure "threats" about further havoc on Election Day.

Once suspended, there would be a crazy path thru Congress and all the way to the Supreme Court to establish any avenue that would lead to new elections.

As a certain James A Baker would say, there would be all manner of opportunities for "mischief".

[pitohui]

3. let 'em brainstorm their own scenarios

why should we do the plotting for them? i mean dr. evil is lazy but THAT lazy?

:-)

[nam78_two]

4. Supreme court?

:shrug: :(

[ComerPerro]

5. All they have to do is refuse to hand over power, citing the WoT

and, of course, "national security"

[rubberducky]

6. I have had serious doubts for awhile that.....

the idiot will leave willingly. Think the secret service will have to pull him out kicking and screaming. Does anyone think he will graciously leave?? He is such a snide, angry little man.

[NYC]

7. Elections took place during the Civil War.

9/11 was a primary election day in NYC. It had to be called off around 11 a.m., but took place two weeks later.

[pitohui]

13. maybe but elections were delayed for months after katrina

so it seems like all this is saying is that if sufficient residences are destroyed, then elections can be delayed and "voters" bussed in from outside to cast their votes

so i dunno

they can definitely fix it, i've seen it done

[Sinti]

8. Honestly, I worry about the same thing. While he may not be that sharp

his handlers are, and they know in a just world he and they would be facing trial at the Hague. They're trying to change our laws to suit them, but the international community doesn't give a damn how they manipulate our laws. I would a substantial attack, 10,000-100,000 dead or more, would definitely keep them in charge for quite some time. OTOH, they could just run another "made man" from the crime family and let old King George clear brush for the next 20 years.

We just have to work on '06, hope for the best and make some kind of plan for the worst I guess.

[serryjw]

12. Someone asked me, I'm not sure

HOW does one start international trials at The Hague for war crimes against humanity?

[Sinti]

15. Via the International Criminal Court.

It's a group of countries, signers to the treaty. I suppose those countries, or some subset of those, would have to make a referral, like they do at the UN. If we tried him, they wouldn't have to, but we ain't gonna do that. We apparently see nothing wrong with attacking a nation that was no threat to us, under false pretenses, and he thinks "those folks we bombed should be more grateful dammit." :banghead:

Link to the International Criminal Court's website
http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en

[serryjw]

19. Anyone tried by the ICC

would be tried at THE Hague? Thanks for link.

[uppityperson]

9. what if he just said "no, I won't leave"?

would the next elected (hopefully an elected) president call out the military? What if his bad manners just won't let him leave without being carried out? I don't think it will happen, but as long as we are playing "what if", thought I'd throw this in.

[jerry611]

10. Not possible

Unless the constitution is changed within the next 2 years...

Now there is a untested and unlikely possibility that Cheney could remain. But there is no way Bush can stay.
That is if the electoral college or the House does not choose a successor by March, the VP becomes the interim president until a new president is chosen.

[serryjw]

11. Is that true?

link, please!

[kskiska]

14. What if elections were held

and the new president-elect were killed? Would the chosen VP be qualified to take over or would a new election be held? Add to this mix new terrorist attacks.

[serryjw]

17. Remember WE don't elect the President

the electors do. IF the President elect was killed BEFORE the EC met the party would replace the dead president maybe with the VP, or maybe not. It would be their decision.If the president ELECT was KILLED AFTER the EC (before swearing in) met he is the president..the 22d would kick in and the VP would become president.

[jerry611]

20. Party has nothing to do with it

If a President-elect were killed, the VP-elect would be president and HE (not the party) then can choose a VP.

If the President-elect and VP-elect were killed. The House of Representatives then will go into a special session where each state's delegation counts as one vote. A simple majority is all that is needed for a person to be elected.

The dead president-elect's party has no role in it at all. Neither would the voters. The loser of the election also has no role although would most likely be the leading candidate for the House to chose.

[serryjw]

22. NOT true

IF the EC has NOT met. Can you imagine how this would turn the country upside down IF WE elected a prez and VP and THEY had control of the congress.When the EC mets it is OUR EC delegates that vote.

[serryjw]

23. Fun stuff

One hell of a way to run a democracy

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_133.html

[Art_from_Ark]

24. The 22nd Amendment would not apply

since it sets presidential term limits and is not involved with presidential succession.

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[jerry611]

16. slight correction....

I was reading the 12th amendment... but under further research it appears it was already changed in the 20th amendment... It is very confusing. Grab some coffee, because you many need to read this a few times...

"If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; 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."

Also 12th amendment stated the term for the president begins in March. This was because it usually took that long to get everything organized, counted, and confirmed. The 20th amendment moved that date up to January 20th.

[serryjw]

21. OK...let's dissect

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President
Absolutely agree because the EC has met and the 22 would kick in

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;
I think this is referring to the EC does NOT vote to ELECT the incoming President. Lets say the country wakes up one day and votes to elect DK. There is a rebellion by the EC that does not agree and wants someone else. The term qualify leads me to think this. According to a law professor I asked. He said the 'party' has total control over their candidate UNTIL the EC votes ....than Congress certifies the vote. IF the newly elected president dies BEFORE the EC votes their would be wrangling within their base to get THEIR candidate in office..would just be party bosses fighting.IN many cases the VP would not be the chosen one or he would have been elected in the first place. Think of JFK vs Johnson....WOW! What a mess that would have been.

[kskiska]

26. …and Johnson didn't even have a VP until his election in '64.

If something had happened to him in the meantime, I guess the Speaker of the House would have gotten the job.

[serryjw]

27. WOW! I was too young

....so for 2 months there was no VP? I quess you are correct. The Speaker would have become prez. How was that?

[kskiska]

29. More than 2 months. Over a year.

Kennedy was killed in Nov. of '63. Johnson was elected in November of '64, but served without a VP until his inauguration in January of '65. The rules were changed after that, so that now there'll always be a VP.

[serryjw]

31. Who would have broken

the tie in the Senate?

[RoyGBiv]

30. Not quite ...

This is based on the assumption that the Constitution is still in force.

Over the last century and a half we have, through ignorance, apathy, and fear, instilled in the Executive power the framers of the Constitution never intended, the ability to ignore it under the auspices of a "national crisis" and potentially the outright ability to suspend it. The legal mechanisms that allow this have by and large not been tested, but in a practical sense, this is irrelevant. Past instances of Presidents ignoring their Constitutional duties and widely held Constitutional principles have been justified after the fact by Congress, which is in fact one of the mechanisms by which the Executive has gained this authority. Congress has subsequently relinquished its own authority in progressive steps to the point that the Executive can effectively trump Legislative will. In that environment Congress has both by commission and omission given the President the authority to suspend the Constitution on a limited basis, which could in turn be used as implied authority to suspend it on broader basis. The pretext of a massive strike on the United States, some scenario that devastates the national infrastructure or economy, gives the Executive this opening.

The trap in all this is that, legally speaking, with the Constitution suspended, no court or legislature has the authority to question the decision, much less do anything about it. A rump government could be established, but in that case you're talking about civil war.

Having said all that, I don't think it will happen, at least not with this President due to the fact he has made so many enemies within the government and, perhaps more importantly, the military, but do not be fooled into believing it cannot happen. Note the massive restructuring of the military's top officials. Note the overt challenges to legislative and even judicial authority. Note the creation of executive departments and the restructuring of existing departments to place authority in the hands of those agreeable to such use of Executive power. I firmly believe the foundations of such a move have been or are being planned. Putting it into practice is the tricky part.

[Selatius]

18. If my game is greed, I'd remove Bush

Bush is just a figurehead. The machinery is still in place regardless of who sits in the White House. If I'm a wealthy corporatist, I can always find another sell-out to run for president.

In the interests of preserving the appearance of democracy to keep the population anesthetized, it would be a good thing to have Bush leave as scheduled.

If Bush-Cheney disobeys and tries to squat in the White House, this may rile the people, and we don't want to wake up the sleeping population.

[ryanus]

28. Just brainstorming...

...to answer the question. I see two categories:

1. A crisis so severe that the majority of the people would deem electing a different president as less of an issue than overcoming the crisis (majority wants to keep him). Things that would qualify for this would be a major attack (like a nuke in the US), a major conflict with a foreign power (like Iran, Russia, or China), or civil fighting in the US. More far out (for you Outer Limits fans) would be an asteroid threat or hit, or a perceived ET threat (don't laugh).

2. He just stays and no one has power to remove him (majority doesn't want to keep him). Hypothetically, if he had enough cronies or enough techonology he could just declare a lifetime term. What are you gonna do about it? March on the White House? That might not be enough, especially if they've got all those fun crowd control technologies.

If it were to happen, I would say a nuke going off would probably be enough.

[HuffleClaw]

32. i expect his own party would revolt against such an idea

i could only see them possibly managing to delay the election and not for very long, and only then if a very large terror attack were to occur with massive loss of life. a nuke would do it, but mostly because the aftermath would have more to do with having to deal with the millions of folks who would foolishly flee the large cities.