New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Non-partisan question

Boca

Boca

Governor
an interesting one too, not only from a legal point of view but a public perception view.

Let's forget for just a moment who the President is. Let's just say either/or, a conservative or a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican. It doesn't matter.

Actually it's three questions...

1) Short of a nuclear war breaking out, or an approaching meteor, whatever ...under what conditions would you be comfortable with postponing a General Election?

2) Would extreme weather be one reason?

3) Who would you accept as having the authority to do so (.... a court, the Congress, etc.)?


This should be fun...by the way, does anyone know if it's ever happened?
 
We didn't even postpone the national election in 1864, when the country was in the midst of a terrible Civil War.

[Down in the South, they call it 'The War of Northern Aggression'.]
 
We didn't even postpone the national election in 1864, when the country was in the midst of a terrible Civil War.

[Down in the South, they call it 'The War of Northern Aggression'.]
 
Thanks LeRoy...I was wondering about that and didn't bother taking the time to look it up. So....is there a scenario that you'd be comfortable with?

After I posted the question, I was wondering what would have happened had the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Nov 7, 1940 in instead of a month later?

(I didn't bother looking up the first Tuesday of November in 1940 either.)
 
Conspiracy? It was intended as a mental exercise....but if you don't want to participate that's fine.
 
1.) War on American soil, 2.) No, 3.) Supreme Court, but the president can do it temporarily until the Supremes meet.

War of 1812, maybe?
 
Boca said:
Thanks LeRoy...I was wondering about that and didn't bother taking the time to look it up. So....is there a scenario that you'd be comfortable with?

After I posted the question, I was wondering what would have happened had the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Nov 7, 1940 in instead of a month later?

(I didn't bother looking up the first Tuesday of November in 1940 either.)
Click to expand...

Pearl Harbor was on December 7, 1941, not 1940.

John Belushi (in 'Animal House'): Did America give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!? HELL NO!!!


[No, I don't think we should postpone the election for weather-related reasons. Only for a nuclear war or an asteroid impact....that has ALREADY happened. By no means should the President be able to unilaterally postpone the election, for ANY reason, especially if he is standing for re-election. There was some talk back in 2004 that George W. Bush was THINKING about postponing the election, if he were behind in the polls against John Kerry, and if they could drum up some major terrorist threat as justification. That would have been a constitutional outrage. I think that only a decision by Congress, approved by an emergency meeting of the Supreme Court, would be adequate grounds for postponement.]
 
LeRoy_Was_Here said:
We didn't even postpone the national election in 1864, when the country was in the midst of a terrible Civil War.

[Down in the South, they call it 'The War of Northern Aggression'.]
Click to expand...


Well, by defination, "The War of Northern Aggression" is probably as accurate as "The Civil War".

Not arguing if either of these, or any number of other titles given to this war, is somehow "THE" one correct or proper one mind you.

Some believe the north was the aggressor, others believe the north was forced to act because of the southern initiation of war acts so an arguement could be made either way.

Some in the south believed that when they voted to form or join the union they had a right to leave the union should they ever think the union was not serving in their best interest while others in the north believed that when you voted to form or join the union you gave up any right to ever leave, so there were arguements made both ways.

However, "Civil Wars" on the other hand traditionally involve attempts to overthrow a sitting government.

Which simply wasn't the case here in the US, so that lablel really doesn't fit very well and yet it is by far the one we all hear, read or speak of the most.

Perhaps "The War of Southern Seccession" would fit better..................

But did you ever stop to think that it COULD be that those down in the South, who call it 'The War of Northern Aggression' are just doing like others who call it "The Civil War", and labeling it as they see fit.

If that is acceptable for some it surely must be acceptable for all.
 
If you're genuinely curious, I think that there were some elections postponed in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but they weren't presidential elections.
 
Since the South fired the first shots, no, I don't think 'The War of Northern Aggression' is remotely accurate. In fact, in the first few years of the war, it was Southern armies invading the North, more than Northern armies invading the South. The tide didn't turn until after Gettysburg. You do know that Gettysburg is well within Pennsylvania, right??

States do not have a right to unilaterally secede from the Union. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. On the other hand, if the state of Hawaii, say, wanted to become independent, and the rest of the country was agreeable to this, they would be allowed to do so.
 
I liked Nestor's but I like your's more.....Congress then the Supremes...afterall, at it's heart it's a Constitutional matter.

But what did you mean it's already happened?
 
Yes Swimmer, I was genuinely interested. Thanks for the input. And I agree that states have the purogative in state elections, or perhaps even in national elections but I wouldn't think so, since the Constitution specifies the date.
 
Boca said:
I liked Nestor's but I like your's more.....Congress then the Supremes...afterall, at it's heart it's a Constitutional matter.

But what did you mean it's already happened?
Click to expand...

What I meant was that the government should not be able to use the threat of an imminent nuclear war or asteroid impact to justify postponing a national election.

This discussion reminds me of some Saturday Night Live news satire that I saw when the interminable O.J. Simpson trial was going on. The (phony) news reporter comes on and breathlessly announces: "Scientists have just said that a large asteroid is going to hit the Earth next Monday, causing billions of deaths!!! But first, this latest news from the O.J. Simpson murder trial!......."

When the O.J. Simpson murder trial was going on was the ONLY time in my adult life that I stopped watching the news for an extended period of time---went weeks without it. Someone was saying back then that they should have a special cable TV channel devoted to 24-hour round-the-clock coverage of the trial proceedings....
 
Like, dislike, it's a constitutional question. The president can, through the executive order power, suspend many things. The supreme court can undo those suspensions; they have the final say. They can't act without a case, though, so somebody has to initiate a suspension of election before they can act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top