internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: "Thomas A. Beckett" <thomas AT tbeckett.com>
- To: InterNetWorkers <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: How long could this go on?
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:45:01 -0500
Kevin - The Alchemist - Sonney wrote:
> Actually, I had heard from one interpreter that the next qualified in the
> succession at the moment is down to the Honorable Strom Thurmond (R-SC).
Hmmn. Is Strom the President Pro Tempore of the Senate?
U.S. Code Title 3, Section 19.
(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office,
inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor
Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of
President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall,
upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress,
act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death,
resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual
acting as President under this subsection.
(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a
Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the
office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to
qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the
Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as
Senator, act as President.
Since the Congress is required to convene on January 3rd, the House
would still have the opportunity to elect a speaker before Inauguration
Day. After the requisite bloodletting. And if the House failed, I
kinda doubt that Strom would get elected President Pro Tempore of the
Senate. Now if the Senate is split 50-50, there's another cause for
conniptions. Worse, think Trent Lott.
Here's another tidbit, a bit more relevant actually:
U.S. Code as of: 01/23/00
Title 3, Section 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of
electors
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the
day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final
determination of any controversy or contest concerning the
appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by
judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination
shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for
the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior
to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and
shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in
the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
See for yourself:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/3/chapters/1/toc.html
God I love Findlaw.com
TaB
-
How long could this go on?,
B, 11/10/2000
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: How long could this go on?, Thomas A. Beckett, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Kevin - The Alchemist - Sonney, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Thomas A. Beckett, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Michael S Czeiszperger, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Kevin - The Alchemist - Sonney, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Paula Paul, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Thomas A. Beckett, 11/10/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Shea Tisdale, 11/13/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, rani . gill, 11/13/2000
- Re: How long could this go on?, Simon Spero, 11/13/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.