Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

itcfish

(1,828 posts)
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 01:41 PM Dec 2016

Constitutional Question

You may remove this to 2016 Postmortem if you feel it should be there.

I was trying to find out what is the law now that it has been proven that the Russians hacked our system, to make this election null and void? Declare a new election? Are there any provisions in our systems to cover this scenario?

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Constitutional Question (Original Post) itcfish Dec 2016 OP
No provisions. elleng Dec 2016 #1
We'd need another Congress and POTUS but treestar Dec 2016 #2
No such thing. Even a convicted criminal can become president bowens43 Dec 2016 #3
Yeah, but Pence, itcfish Dec 2016 #4
Not McConnel. Orin Hatch is president pro tem dumbcat Dec 2016 #16
The question is not "who" can become president, but "how" they become president. SecularMotion Dec 2016 #19
There is no Constitutional provision MichMary Dec 2016 #5
It would have to itcfish Dec 2016 #8
Okay, MichMary Dec 2016 #13
Loophole? world wide wally Dec 2016 #6
Another failure of the founders treestar Dec 2016 #15
The remedy for such a situation is the same dumbcat Dec 2016 #17
The house, when counting the electoral votes, unblock Dec 2016 #7
Which brings up a couple interesting questions dumbcat Dec 2016 #18
The state's House delegation would decide SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #20
Interesting question. H2O Man Dec 2016 #9
If Sam Ervin were still alive, Hello Twitty wouldn't be so smug. mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2016 #10
I don't think anything has changed HeartachesNhangovers Dec 2016 #11
It would be up to Congress. kentuck Dec 2016 #12
A Congress controlled by MichMary Dec 2016 #14

treestar

(82,383 posts)
2. We'd need another Congress and POTUS but
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 01:44 PM
Dec 2016

the Founders could not have imagined this kind of thing.

Maybe something akin to the REAL ID act, where the federal government imposed requirements on state ID processes. A federal act requiring certain voting standards for states, at least as to the federal elections they conduct. If challenged in courts, the interest in having fair elections and accurate ones is certainly a very strong government interest.

Also some provision for what happens if fraud is proven and for transfer of power should it be necessary.

 

bowens43

(16,064 posts)
3. No such thing. Even a convicted criminal can become president
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 01:46 PM
Dec 2016

the only remedy is impeachment after taking office but that is very unlikely

itcfish

(1,828 posts)
4. Yeah, but Pence,
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 01:58 PM
Dec 2016

Ryan and McConnel were also involved in the cover up so how could they become president. This really stinks.

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
19. The question is not "who" can become president, but "how" they become president.
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 04:58 PM
Dec 2016

If the election process was determined to be corrupted then there may be grounds to invalidate the results.

MichMary

(1,714 posts)
5. There is no Constitutional provision
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 02:26 PM
Dec 2016

But, if there were, who would declare the election null and void? The 4-4 Supreme Court? The R Senate? The R House? The current POTUS?

If a new election were to be held, how long would it take to hold new primaries, new conventions, new elections? Who would run the show in the meantime? Would Clinton be declared POTUS by default?

And--please define "hacked our system." There is no evidence that the voting machines were hacked. No one has denied the contents of the leaked e-mails. There is no proof that the leak of the e-mails swayed even a single vote.

What may seem very clear to the denizens of a left-leaning message board would probably be not so clear to the people who would have to make the decisions.

itcfish

(1,828 posts)
8. It would have to
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 02:48 PM
Dec 2016

be the same election. The same candidates, no primaries, no campaign, just a very supervised voting process.

MichMary

(1,714 posts)
13. Okay,
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 03:25 PM
Dec 2016

if it's the same candidates, no primaries, no campaign, what is the point of a re-do?

If you think Trump is unfit, unqualified, ineligible to be POTUS, why run him again?

world wide wally

(21,742 posts)
6. Loophole?
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 02:37 PM
Dec 2016

A President cannot be born in a foreign country but is he allowed to collude with one during his campaign?

treestar

(82,383 posts)
15. Another failure of the founders
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 04:11 PM
Dec 2016

is to give no procedure for an ineligible president elect.

Suppose we did (or the EC did) elect a 33 year old, someone who lived abroad in the last 14 years, or someone who in fact was born abroad?

for all the birthers' fevered ire, they never suggested what should actually be done about it. There is no remedy for an unqualified person being elected.

dumbcat

(2,120 posts)
17. The remedy for such a situation is the same
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 04:39 PM
Dec 2016

as the remedy for declaring an election null and void. It would be ignored by most of the rest of the power structure.

If, say, Obama declared the election void and ordered a re-do, almost all of the states (it's the states that hold elections, remember?) would probably just ignore it. On January 20 most of the civil servants and the military brass would stop listening to whatever he had to say.

Power in this country is much more diffuse than people realize.

unblock

(52,208 posts)
7. The house, when counting the electoral votes,
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 02:39 PM
Dec 2016

can challenge any of them as not regularly given. If no one then has a majority, the house decides, with one vote per state delegation, from among the top 3 electoral vote-getters.

A majority there being republican, they'd pick toxic trump anyway.

dumbcat

(2,120 posts)
18. Which brings up a couple interesting questions
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 04:47 PM
Dec 2016

I hadn't thought of before.

Who decides who speaks for each State's delegation? The senior member of the delegation? The governor? The Reps from the state vote for a member of their delegation? What if the majority of the reps from a particular state are Repubs, but their senior rep is a Democrat? Or the governor is a Democrat? Lots of possible situations here, who decides what the State's vote is?

I wonder how many States have a Repub majority in their State's delegation? How many of those have a Democrat as the senior member? How many have a Democrat as a governor? Again, lots of variables here. I wonder how it gets sorted out?

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
20. The state's House delegation would decide
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 05:32 PM
Dec 2016

who gets the single vote for the state, period. The governor has no say whatsoever. Each state's delegation can determine for itself how its vote is determined.

H2O Man

(73,537 posts)
9. Interesting question.
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 02:55 PM
Dec 2016

There's definite proof that Russian intelligence hacked government agencies, from 2004 on. I'm sure that was true even before '04.

There is also definite proof of foreign influence on presidential elections at least as far back as 1968.

The question here seems to be about possible/likely hacking of both the DNC and a private server. The DNC is, of course, not a government agency. It's a private group, just as the Green Party's headquarters are. The private server was that of a government official. However, there is no Constitutional Law that covers this issue that I am aware of. And with the upcoming USSC, it would seem a risky time to attempt to set a precedent.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,425 posts)
10. If Sam Ervin were still alive, Hello Twitty wouldn't be so smug.
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 03:06 PM
Dec 2016

Hat tip: I saw this issue discussed a few weeks ago online.

Text of U.S. Constitution:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

Go to page 12 of the .pdf file:

ARTICLE II.
....

6 In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,(9) the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

(9) This clause has been affected by amendment XXV.

Go to page 19. When they say "Article" in this part, they mean "Amendment."

ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION(12)

Go to page 30. It's long. I don't have the time to format it now and make the footnotes make sense.

ARTICLE {XXV.}

SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

SECTION 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

SECTION 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

SECTION 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department (17) or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

(17) So in original. Probably should be ‘‘departments’’.

PROPOSAL AND RATIFICATION
This amendment was proposed by the Eighty-ninth Congress by Senate Joint Resolution No. 1, which was approved by the Senate on February 19, 1965, and by the House of Representatives, in amended form, on April 13, 1965. The House of Representatives agreed to a Conference Report on June 30, 1965, and the Senate agreed to the Conference Report on July 6, 1965. It was declared by the Administrator of General Services, on February 23, 1967, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States.

This amendment was ratified by the following States: Nebraska, July 12, 1965; Wisconsin, July 13, 1965; Oklahoma, July 15, 1965; Massachusetts, August 9, 1965; Pennsylvania, August 18, 1965; Kentucky, September 15, 1965; Arizona, September 22, 1965; Michigan, October 5, 1965; Indiana, October 20, 1965; California, October 21, 1965; Arkansas, November 4, 1965; New Jersey, November 29, 1965; Delaware, December 7, 1965; Utah, January 17, 1966; West Virginia, January 20, 1966; Maine, January 24, 1966; Rhode Island, January 28, 1966; Colorado, February 3, 1966; New Mexico, February 3, 1966; Kansas, February 8, 1966; Vermont, February 10, 1966; Alaska, February 18, 1966; Idaho, March 2, 1966; Hawaii, March 3, 1966; Virginia, March 8, 1966; Mississippi, March 10, 1966; New York, March 14, 1966; Maryland, March 23, 1966; Missouri, March 30, 1966; New Hampshire, June 13, 1966; Louisiana, July 5, 1966; Tennessee, January 12, 1967; Wyoming, January 25, 1967; Washington, January 26, 1967; Iowa, January 26, 1967; Oregon, February 2, 1967; Minnesota, February 10, 1967; Nevada, February 10, 1967.

Ratification was completed on February 10, 1967.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut, February 14, 1967; Montana, February 15, 1967; South Dakota, March 6, 1967; Ohio, March 7, 1967; Alabama, March 14, 1967; North Carolina, March 22, 1967; Illinois, March 22, 1967; Texas, April 25, 1967; Florida, May 25, 1967.

CERTIFICATION OF VALIDITY
Publication of the certifying statement of the Administrator of General Services that the amendment had become valid was made on February 25, 1967, F.R. Doc. 67–2208, 32 F.R. 3287.

11. I don't think anything has changed
Fri Dec 30, 2016, 03:08 PM
Dec 2016

because of the recent agency reports and White House proclamations:

1) The law - constitutional or otherwise - hasn't been changed or expanded.

2) Violations of the law are established in court - not as a result of government reports or executive branch proclamations.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Constitutional Question