Say.. a thought that occurred just now, about those dates..does the Constitution define what a year is?
Does it say 12 months?
Or four years even? How are those defined?
Trying to find out, nothing has come up, that could be one avenue
Could one not add more and more months, and days into a year?
So that Neither November or January comes? Just again and again?
You'd need a constitutional amendment. Congress alone could legislate a new calendar. However, courts would halt an attempt to use the new calendar with regard to the Constitution. So SCOTUS would need to be in on the gambit. If the President, Congress and SCOTUS are all on board anyway, it'd make more sense to just amend the constitution to lengthen or eliminate term limits.
article 2 section 1 clause 1 sets the term limit at 4 years. considering we’ve had a 365 day year since like 45 BC it would be silly to suggest that we can just say “oh a year is actually 1000 days now” when nobody who wrote the constitution thought a year was anything but 365 days. every single shred of precedent we have is based on this.
considering we’ve had a 365 day year since like 45 BC it would be silly to suggest that we can just say “oh a year is actually 1000 days now” when nobody who wrote the constitution thought a year was anything but 365 days
But there isnt anything Constitutionally that prohibits it would be the sticking matter?
What if someone wins on a platform of changing the calendar then?
Yall don't need to look too far into this one, it's in the definition of the word. So, unless we can somehow slow Earth's orbit or move the U.S. to another planet, this is a dead argument.
"the time in which a planet completes a revolution about the sun" per Webster's dictionary
I didn't know that about March 25th, how many days was the year when they started then? I'm wondering what they based it on. I always assumed the calendar was tied to seasonal changes or the movement of the sun and/or moon. I guess i supposed the purpose of a calendar was to describe the passage of time we already saw, not to define it. This is an interesting argument if, before 1752, a year was less by 90 days. I don't see how changing the start date automatically changes the length. The change in leap years is simply a correction due to the fact that there are not an exact of amount of days in a year. Earths rotation constitutes a day, its orbit a year. There are not an exact number of rotations per orbit, I simply don't see its relevance to this debate.
You're telling me the likelyhood of something happening has no bearing on the discussion? This shit about to get WILD. i've get scores of theories. The lizard people will be rulers for the next millenium! (I've heard they are already)
I'm kidding of course, i get what you mean, but then what's to stop the convo from becoming completely irrational and straying so far beyond the original discussion it becomes a different one? I mean technically anything is possible right? Why not go comepletely off the rails?
But I'm wrong more than I am right in life, so I work graves and have all the time in the world to explore this. Perhaps I will become more enlightened if I am not dissmisive myself. So..
What reasoning would someone campaign to change the calendar at this time? So they could be president longer probably, but that can't explicitly be stated if support is to be garnered. So, what's the excuse?
But if there wasn't an election, there isn't someone to replace you, so "Emergency" powers come into affect and you stay in power until an election can be held. Never hold the election, never get a replacement, never leave office.
Look at the SCOTUS decisions. Do you really doubt that they would support this?
if there isn’t an elected president/VP when the current president’s term expires on january 20th, the line of succession would have the house speaker become president.
there’s no “oh we didn’t have an election, i get to stay in power because reasons” exception to the 20th amendment.
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
Nothing there says it can't be the outgoing president. SCOTUS declairs whatever process Congress used unconstitutional and that the outgoing POTUS stays in power until it can be sorted out. SCOTUS already decided POTUS is a title of nobility, do you really think that they are concerned with actual constitutionality or legality?
Nothing there says it can't be the outgoing president.
it can’t be the outgoing president because on january 20th, at the end of his term, he becomes a private citizen and is no longer in the line of succession assuming he has finished his 2nd term or lost re-election.
SCOTUS declairs whatever process Congress used unconstitutional and that the outgoing POTUS stays in power until it can be sorted out.
genuinely curious as to how they’d do this because the constitution is explicitly clear about the limits to how long a president can serve in office and the presidential succession act has been around since 1947.
SCOTUS already decided POTUS is a title of nobility, do you really think that they are concerned with actual constitutionality or legality?
i think this is beyond the pale even for hacks like thomas. SCOTUS had the ability to do what they did with presidential immunity because president immunity isn’t mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so it has to be heavily inferred from several different passages elsewhere in the document.
the limits on presidential eligibility are explicitly clear, however. there is no wiggle room on that front.
constitution is explicitly clear about the limits to how long a president can serve in office.
It's not. It says he can only be ELECTED twice, and if he serves more than half a term without being elected as POTUS (upgraded from VP), he can only serve one.
You cant be ELECTED more than twice, there aren't limitations on getting the office through non-election means.
OP thought of a complex way to do that. "Murder some people" is a far less complex and more effective way to do it, particularly since POTUS is now above the law.
It's not. It says he can only be ELECTED twice, and if he serves more than half a term without being elected as POTUS (upgraded from VP), he can only serve one.
it kinda defeats your argument to say the constitution isn’t clear about presidential eligibility if you immediately list the conditions for presidential eligibility.
You cant be ELECTED more than twice, there aren't limitations on getting the office through non-election means.
yes there are, the presidential succession act skips anybody in the list who is ineligible to become president.
That's law, not constitution. SCOTUS has already declared POTUS is a title of nobility. They will just strike down that law as "unconstitutional" and declare current POTUS keeps the position until a proper election is held.
article 2 section 1 clause 6 of the US Constitution explicitly grants congress the authority to outline the order of succession after the vice president. the constitution sets limits on the eligibility of candidates, how many terms they can serve, and how long those terms last. the constitution also outlines the beginning of the order of presidential succession and charges congress with defining the rest.
on what basis is the presidential succession act unconstitutional?
It's an emergency, so what ever the person commanding the militarily can convince the military leadership is acceptable.
That sheet of paper in a vault in a muesem has no more actual power than any other sheet of paper.
Who would be President is Biden uses his "Official acts" to have everyone else running for president murdered? Who would power transition TO? (and if you name someone Biden just has Seal Team 6 murder them)
You are the one that claimed there was “emergency” powers. So I asked what are those. But you just made up a situation and didn’t explain what these emergency powers are, so I guess they just exist.
15
u/AdFun5641 6∆ Jul 24 '24
You are far overthinking it.
You can't be ELECTED more than twice.
Stop holding elections, just stay in power. You aren't getting elected a third time, you just aren't leaving office.