Biden and Trump agree to debate

[rogue06]

May I ask what felony it is of which you hope Trump is convicted?

At risk of crossing over the allowable Sam Quota™

[rogue06]

Let's be honest Sam. No matter how much you want to strut around as if you have some insight of this situation, the reality is that it is AN ENTIRELY unprecedented situation. Just like with the 14th Amendment solution you were championing, we KNOW that such a situation would end up in front of SCOTUS, and from there, we don't know what would happen.

So, while you can pretend all day that it would just go to the VP, but that is only one possible outcome. You have no more idea than anyone else how SCOTUS would tackle the issue.

Is there anything in the Constitution regarding a transfer of power if the POTUS is incarcerated?

[Cow Poke]

Is there anything in the Constitution regarding a transfer of power if the POTUS is incarcerated?

We looked into this in another thread, and legal experts said there was not. I'm guessing our founders never imagined that somebody would be elected to office after having been the victim of a weaponized "justice" system.

[rogue06]

We looked into this in another thread, and legal experts said there was not. I'm guessing our founders never imagined that somebody would be elected to office after having been the victim of a weaponized "justice" system.

IOW, Sam's proclamations regarding how this has to be handled are basically hot air then.

[One Bad Pig]

IOW, Sam's proclamations regarding how this has to be handled are basically hot air then.

You're forgetting the rules of debate!

1) Sam is always right.
2) In case of doubt, refer to rule #1.

[Sparko]

You're forgetting the rules of debate!

1) Sam is always right.
2) In case of doubt, refer to rule #1.

I thought he was left?

[CivilDiscourse]

Is there anything in the Constitution regarding a transfer of power if the POTUS is incarcerated?

I would point towards the 25th amendment as a possibility. Though, I expect SCOTUS would rule on the situation in the months between Election/Inauguration before the 25th became relevant.

(By the 25th, I mean the following:
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.)

There's also the possibility of using the president being incarcerated as a rationale for impeachment. I can see the argument, but don't necessarily agree with it.

[Sam]

Let's be honest Sam. No matter how much you want to strut around as if you have some insight of this situation, the reality is that it is AN ENTIRELY unprecedented situation. Just like with the 14th Amendment solution you were championing, we KNOW that such a situation would end up in front of SCOTUS, and from there, we don't know what would happen.

So, while you can pretend all day that it would just go to the VP, but that is only one possible outcome. You have no more idea than anyone else how SCOTUS would tackle the issue.

Is there anything in the Constitution regarding a transfer of power if the POTUS is incarcerated?

We looked into this in another thread, and legal experts said there was not. I'm guessing our founders never imagined that somebody would be elected to office after having been the victim of a weaponized "justice" system.

IOW, Sam's proclamations regarding how this has to be handled are basically hot air then.

You're forgetting the rules of debate!

1) Sam is always right.
2) In case of doubt, refer to rule #1.

SCOTUS cannot discharge state convictions and sentences unless there is a finding of unconstitutionality in the relevant state law. Incarcerated persons do not have a constitutional right to hold office and a SCOTUS nullification here would mean that a candidate could murder their opponent at a debate, win the presidency, and have that murder conviction nullified by virtue of winning office.

Article II, Section 1 provides that, in the case a president is unable to "discharge the powers and duties of the said office", the duties of president "shall devolve" to the vice president. As the president could be unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, being confined to a state penitentiary, the vice president would assume those duties as acting president.

That's what happens given inaction. What alternate actions might be taken are limited to the scope of the law. The Vice President, as acting President, can't pardon state convictions (if they could, the incarcerated president could just as easily pardon themselves upon assuming office). SCOTUS can't nullify state convictions just because. The relevant governor may grant some form of clemency. Congress may pass a law changing the Constitution and states may ratify it.

But nothing will just happen by virtue of an incarcerated felon winning the election. Folks who imagine it might have an obligation to lay out the legal manner in which that would happen. If they can't or won't, their opinion ain't worth much at all.

-Sam

[Sam]

May I ask what felony it is of which you hope Trump is convicted?

Hope need not play into the case at all. Trump is currently facing a number of state felonies in multiple states. Were he convicted of any of them and sentenced to imprisonment, the matter has been mooted.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Ah, Saint Sam the Divine, having admitted in another thread that he was not a psychologist, now pontificates as if he were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...

SCOTUS cannot discharge state convictions and sentences unless there is a finding of unconstitutionality in the relevant state law. Incarcerated persons do not have a constitutional right to hold office and a SCOTUS nullification here would mean that a candidate could murder their opponent at a debate, win the presidency, and have that murder conviction nullified by virtue of winning office.

Article II, Section 1 provides that, in the case a president is unable to "discharge the powers and duties of the said office", the duties of president "shall devolve" to the vice president. As the president could be unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, being confined to a state penitentiary, the vice president would assume those duties as acting president.

That's what happens given inaction. What alternate actions might be taken are limited to the scope of the law. The Vice President, as acting President, can't pardon state convictions (if they could, the incarcerated president could just as easily pardon themselves upon assuming office). SCOTUS can't nullify state convictions just because. The relevant governor may grant some form of clemency. Congress may pass a law changing the Constitution and states may ratify it.

But nothing will just happen by virtue of an incarcerated felon winning the election. Folks who imagine it might have an obligation to lay out the legal manner in which that would happen. If they can't or won't, their opinion ain't worth much at all.

-Sam

I'll ask again, Sam.... of what felony are you desperately hoping Trump gets convicted?

Could Trump become president after being convicted of a crime?

Yes.

There’s nothing in the Constitution or federal law that prevents a felon from holding the nation’s highest office.

While many federal employees would not be hired if they had a felony conviction on their record, the Constitution sets only a few bare-bones requirements for the chief executive.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of the President,” it says.

While today’s voters worry about candidates who are too old, the men who wrote the 1787 document sought to screen out those who were too young or lived abroad. A president must have “attained the age of 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, says it is a mistake to assume the legal system will stand in Trump’s way.

“Nothing prevents him from running for president and being elected, even if he is in jail at the time of the election,” she said.

[Sam]

Ah, Saint Sam the Divine, having admitted in another thread that he was not a psychologist, now pontificates as if he were the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...



I'll ask again, Sam.... of what felony are you desperately hoping Trump gets convicted?

Could Trump become president after being convicted of a crime?

Yes.

There’s nothing in the Constitution or federal law that prevents a felon from holding the nation’s highest office.

While many federal employees would not be hired if they had a felony conviction on their record, the Constitution sets only a few bare-bones requirements for the chief executive.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of the President,” it says.

While today’s voters worry about candidates who are too old, the men who wrote the 1787 document sought to screen out those who were too young or lived abroad. A president must have “attained the age of 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the United States.”

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, says it is a mistake to assume the legal system will stand in Trump’s way.

“Nothing prevents him from running for president and being elected, even if he is in jail at the time of the election,” she said.

We're not debated whether Trump can campaign and be elected. We're debating what happens if and when Trump is elected while serving a sentence in a state petitionary. You're a step behind the topic of debate.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

We're not debated whether Trump can campaign and be elected. We're debating what happens if and when Trump is elected while serving a sentence in a state petitionary.

-Sam

Only a nutter would believe that an elected POTUS would be serving in "general population" in a state penitentiary.
Only a goofus would believe that no provision would be made given that there is no constitutional prohibition against such.

You're a step behind the topic of debate.

No, yer honor --- I'm actually one step ahead.

[CivilDiscourse]

SCOTUS cannot discharge state convictions and sentences unless there is a finding of unconstitutionality in the relevant state law. Incarcerated persons do not have a constitutional right to hold office and a SCOTUS nullification here would mean that a candidate could murder their opponent at a debate, win the presidency, and have that murder conviction nullified by virtue of winning office.

Article II, Section 1 provides that, in the case a president is unable to "discharge the powers and duties of the said office", the duties of president "shall devolve" to the vice president. As the president could be unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, being confined to a state penitentiary, the vice president would assume those duties as acting president.

That's what happens given inaction. What alternate actions might be taken are limited to the scope of the law. The Vice President, as acting President, can't pardon state convictions (if they could, the incarcerated president could just as easily pardon themselves upon assuming office). SCOTUS can't nullify state convictions just because. The relevant governor may grant some form of clemency. Congress may pass a law changing the Constitution and states may ratify it.

But nothing will just happen by virtue of an incarcerated felon winning the election. Folks who imagine it might have an obligation to lay out the legal manner in which that would happen. If they can't or won't, their opinion ain't worth much at all.

-Sam

Again Sam....you are strutting like this is settled fact. We've never had this situation crop up, so it's never been decided before. It's best not to pretend that you have any real idea what will happen.

Let's assume that Trump wins after being convicted and sentenced to jail. SCOTUS could theoretically rule that the state can't keep him locked up during his presidency, but may suspend counting his sentence until he ends office. At which point he'd be required to return to jail. Since it's a state conviction, Trump, by precedent wouldn't be able to pardon himself.

I have no idea what would happen...However, I would wager that in the above situation, we would likely see SCOTUS find a way to keep the election from being "de facto" overturned...it's a very bad precedent.

[Cow Poke]

Again Sam....you are strutting like this is settled fact. We've never had this situation crop up, so it's never been decided before. It's best not to pretend that you have any real idea what will happen.

Let's assume that Trump wins after being convicted and sentenced to jail. SCOTUS could theoretically rule that the state can't keep him locked up during his presidency, but may suspend counting his sentence until he ends office. At which point he'd be required to return to jail. Since it's a state conviction, Trump, by precedent wouldn't be able to pardon himself.

I have no idea what would happen...However, I would wager that in the above situation, we would likely see SCOTUS find a way to keep the election from being "de facto" overturned...it's a very bad precedent.

It could even be argued that his round-the-clock Secret Service detail could be his "prison guards", accompanying him everywhere he goes anyway.

I'm think maybe it's just way too much strain on Sam to say, "yeah, I really don't know".

[CivilDiscourse]

It could even be argued that his round-the-clock Secret Service detail could be his "prison guards", accompanying him everywhere he goes anyway.

I'm think maybe it's just way too much strain on Sam to say, "yeah, I really don't know".

As I pointed out to rogue, I expect that if such a situation will happen, everything will go before SCOTUS before inauguration day, and get resolved then.

Should somehow that NOT happen, I think there's a possibility of a 25th Amendment solution, under the argument that a president in jail is unable to discharge his duties. It's a reasonable argument that can be made. Less likely would be an impeachment. I could see the argument, but It doesn't really carry alot of weight for that clause (25th more likely). There's also the argument that the prison must make accommodations for the situation.

As I said, in my opinion SCOTUS would find a way to avoid having the election "de facto" overturned...the same way they stepped in to keep the 14th amendment pipe dream from happening. Though, what form they may take is very open.