Posted on 07/11/2004 3:10:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
I recall Neal Boortz reading a joke announcement stating that, in order to reduce crowding at the polls, Republicans and Libertarians were supposed to show up on Tuesday but Democrats and Greens were asked to wait until Wednesday. Some idiot bureaucrat sent him a nastygram alleging that he was "interfering with an election". I don't know if anything ever came of that.
Note that there is no Constitutional bar for delaying the popular vote only in areas affected by a breakdown of communications (or, for that matter, for a state to choose electors in some other manner if the state legislature finds it appropriate to do so).
Admittedly, there is one practical problem with delaying the popular vote in one region: if the election hinges on the result, politicial operatives will infest the place as thickly as Brood X cicadas.
Not according to the Constitution, no. The President's term ends at noon on January 20, 2005. If Bush hasn't been reelected then he is out of office. Period.
Suitcase nukes go off in three cities one day before the election.
President Bush postpones elections for two weeks.
AlbionGirl moves inexorably against Administration, post haste!
Women, children hardest hit.
Two and a half months, actually. Give or take a day or two.
You could have, but I guess that you were too busy with the rebellion.
Correct.
Any state whose chusing of electors by popular vote is disrupted should simply have their legislatures appoint electors, as contemplated by the Constitution.
I suspect the latter, given 1) his tone, and 2) the number of chillingly similar posts in this thread.
Maybe I'm still raw from having (re)watched "Cabaret" the other day. Those bright happy children singing in the outdoor cafe... I keep hearing their voices, and watching the looks on their faces gradually take on a certain air as they sang.
Yes, tomorrow belonged to them. The day after that, though... belonged to history.
See the movie if you haven't. It's not a musical. It's not a feel-good movie. Oh, it's definitely not a feel-good movie.
It's past history made present.
End of argument, and of this absurd proposal.
Here's the problem with your conclusion: They don't care what you say.
They do what they want.
If they want to extend the elections, they'll extend the elections. If they want to create a mechanism based on totally subjective interpretation of "emergency" levels -- and, leave it up to nameless bureaucrats to do the interpreting -- then that's exactly what they'll do.
Remember, we live in the age of modern politics, in which a gargantuan (and draconian) "Patriot Act" can be voted on sight unseen, with no debate, in the twinkling of an eye. And yet, trite legislation can be debated until hell freezes over, as then ensure that every weeeeeee l'il bit i done juuuuuuuuust right.
It's theater.
The age of modern politics isn't really very modern at all. Bread and Circuses ain't really "new", is it.
Hopefully Moustafa and Abdul will have a "work accident" on some deserted stretch of road, with no other casualties, and there'll be no attacks, and the elections will happen on schedule.
But even so, we are still living in perilous times.
Well, not so fast there.
You fail to take into account things like an Act of Congress, or an Executive Order by the President.
What? You say that would be unconstitutional?
Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it. If you want to challenge it, you'll have to take it to the SCOTUS -- if they'll hear it.
And then, even if they do, and even if they decide in your favor, there's still the matter of enforcement.
Yes, there's plenty of room for a Constitutional Crisis to occur if any of the branches decide to stop playing nice.
You can't a three-branch government going smoothly if any of the branches decide to stop playing by the book. There was at least one other president who got into a tiff with the Supreme Court, and when told that he'd be in violation of their ruling, he said something to the tune of "how are they going to enforce it?"
Who was that?
"Unless we are seeing our dying days. I doubt that. A civil war would happen first, and I'd be on the front lines. We are in a media war, a cold war, and in the next coupld months, it will be decided which way this war turns."
Yup.
Actually I saw the movie on my first date with my lovely wife, who's birthday it is today. We were both in high school and have been married for 25 years this August.
Yeah that scene in the movie is pretty chilling, starts so innocently, and we know the horror it leads to. My parents lived in Germany for much of the war ( fled from the Soviet Union, frying pan -fire! ), spent most of the war fleeing West to avoid "liberation" by Stalin, WERE liberated by Patton and the Third Army. Mom said Hitler was mesmerizing, commented on how the German men and
women were in ecstasy when he spoke.
This story goes into the same circular file (trash can) that the "Replace Cheney on the ticket!" story went into.
Anybody care to consider this is part of the ongoing "political attack" by the left?
Some are way to easily conned by the likes of Newsweek.
Andrew Jackson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.