this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10162 readers
125 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not a scholar in any of this, but I can't imagine the President is powerless to halt such a scheme. I've been given to understand that the Office has broad powers under certain invocations. Even if they manage to get everything rolling in just the right way, there's still a period of time between when the elections happen and when the next president is sworn in.
I cannot believe our government would sit idly by and let this cockamamie scheme just unfold and go, "Damn, I guess it's technically legal." And if they do, then they obviously wanted it to happen.
Yeah. I actually tend to agree with you on this. On the other hand they did it in 2000 and it worked fine.
I wish it was clear-cut. It sucks that it's in this "technically legal" gray area to laypeople like us and the author. I would live to read a constitutional scholar's, legal scholar's, or a lawyer's take on it.
That sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Democrats love to do.
spoiler
asdfasdfsadfasfasdf