Executive Orders like 12919 could they be used to kill an election?

I have been having a discussion with my partner here in the UK over this insane cluster-f of an election in the US. My partner who is as far from a conspiracy theorist asked me the question, what would prevent Obama from staying in office and could he suspend the election in the event of a "National Emergency"? I could only point to the 22nd amendment as an answer but the Executive Order 12919 did seem to point to the idea to the contrary. Not being an expert in the minutiae of the constitution i couldnt realy decide if the exec order would be as far reaching as the panic would suggest?

a reply to: kountzero
here is EO 12919.. because I wasn't sure what it was.


EO 12919

Which part of 12919 are you referring to?

I skimmed through it and it didn't seem to say anything about killing the election.

www.whitehouse.gov...

The only way i could think of that a national emergency would keep someone in power was if the emergency caused the inability to run the electoral process such as earthquakes etc and even then as soon as it would be back to normal elections would naturally go ahead, so really you'd not gain much more time in office.

a reply to: kountzero

snopes

Claim: President Obama issued an executive order giving the President "unprecedented powers in time of national emergency."

FALSE

Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation. None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama. What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.
...
The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.
...
Not only is the reaction to this [Executive Order] wildly over the top in some corners, but the Executive Order itself is nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place in decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don't already have under existing law.

Obama doesn't need legislation to suspend the Constitution.
All he need is a pen and a herd of sheep.

a reply to: Hazardous1408
I think what she was inferring was if a national emergency occured could an EO such as this be used to effectively keep a potus in office indefinately due to "special curcumstances"? Im not using that EO as a smoking gun example of a possible means to an end, it just came up in a search connected to the 22nd amendment.

Her main thoughts were, what would happen if, come poll day, both candidates were taken out of the equasion by prosecution, ill health, death [massive independance day style alien saucer attack on building holding the big pre election tv debate lol] or withdrawl? Would the encumbant be able to step in past the normal transition period given the 2 parties likely disaray.

Or, could the potus suspend the election indefinately if some catastrophy befall the country wether it be natural disaster, war, terrorism or insurrection? specificaly what would the effect of martial law have on the election proccess?

Still amazes me when people reference/quote Snopes as if it's the final, undeniable word on truth.

originally posted by: M4nWithNoN4me
Still amazes me when people reference/quote Snopes as if it's the final, undeniable word on truth.

But everything Snopes said is true in this instance.

You can read the .Gov version of the EO to prove that yourself.

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

And can you provide ANYTHING to refute snopes? Have you even TRIED to look? By the way, I presented snopes as a reference, NOT "the final, undeniable word on truth." However, it's a hell of a lot better than what YOU presented...

So, to answer the OP's concerns, the president would have very little to no power to suspend the election... The parties would choose another candidate. And each state would have to decide to suspend their election or not. Remember, the presidential election takes place in the STATES, not the country. The deciding factor is the Electoral Vote, not the popular vote of the country.

Filling a Vacancy: From the Nomination to the Electoral College Vote

Since the time of Andrew Jackson's run for the presidency in 1828, individual political parties have had the job of filling any vacancy on their national ticket, either that of their presidential or vice-presidential candidate. If one of their candidates vacates the ticket after they are nominated, either because of death or withdrawal, the party selects a replacement.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party's nod.

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party's responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.

Could a Hurricane Suspend the Election?

Yes, but the details of the postponement would vary state by state. Many states have constitutional provisions or statutes that detail their ability to suspend or reschedule an election in the event of an emergency.

Thanks for the answers. I pretty much deduced from the little research on the subject I did there are safeguards in place to prevent an encumbant forcing a further term or terms. I hope for everyone's sake that nothing usurp that. Thanks again

The President does not have the ability to suspend or delay elections. Elections are, per the US Constitution, administer by the States. Only the states have the power to suspend elections and only in their state. Congress has the power to schedule elections. So in the event of a national emergency the only way to suspend to election would be for each state to do it separately and the Congress pass a law with a new election date.

a reply to: kountzero

Mr. Spad is correct .

a reply to: MrSpad

The President, as Commander in Chief, of the Armed Forces, has the ability to declare Martial Law which suspends all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He could disband Congress, suspend the Supreme Court, arrest without probable cause, and yes, delay or suspend elections. This is fairly easily done with an unarmed nation. It become a bit more difficult when a fully armed citizenry opposes the martial law. I really truly don't put it past Obama. He is already crying that he is being evicted.

a reply to: atrollstalker

That is the argument my missus puts forward, a suspension of the constitution would negate all the ink on paper. Having recently watched Sons of Liberty, the pair of us a wondering how a nation could have become so diametrically opposed to its founding principles and when did the persuit of happiness return to being exclusive to only the 1% elites?

Why did your parents let this happen?

originally posted by: atrollstalker

The President, as Commander in Chief, of the Armed Forces, has the ability to declare Martial Law which suspends all rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Except for
en.wikipedia.org...
and

The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.[24] Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

He is already crying that he is being evicted.

Source for that claim is what exactly?

a reply to: hellobruce

A doctorate in Jurisprudence.
Plus the American Jurisprudence Award for the Outstanding Performance in the Study of Constitutional Law.


Your quote' "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." "UNLESS" permits it because there is no definition of Rebellion in the Constitution so therefore, the President can declare rebellion on his own. Whether or not it is agreed upon is up to the Military, Congress and/or militia. The act of declaring "Rebellion" is vague at best so yes, it could happen even under your scenario.

originally posted by: atrollstalker
a reply to: MrSpad

The President, as Commander in Chief, of the Armed Forces, has the ability to declare Martial Law which suspends all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He could disband Congress, suspend the Supreme Court, arrest without probable cause, and yes, delay or suspend elections. This is fairly easily done with an unarmed nation. It become a bit more difficult when a fully armed citizenry opposes the martial law. I really truly don't put it past Obama. He is already crying that he is being evicted.

The President can declare Martial Law with the approval of Congress in areas of the country where the civilian courts system can not do its job. Martial Law, to put it simply places law enforcement under the military until it can be turned back over to Civilian Authorities. It is not a dictatorship, it does not give the President the power to get rid of Congress, it does not give the President the power to suspend elections etc.

And a frankly an armed population would be better because as we have seen in Turkey, Syria and other places the military will resist firing on unarmed civilians. The second you give those civilians weapons and one them fires on troops then all bets are off and we all know a Hodge podge group with mixed small arms would be slaughtered by a modern military.

And Obama clearly is happy to be leaving office and why not, he is going make millions making speeches and he can brag he is leaving office more popular than Reagan.

a reply to: MrSpad

The President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces can order Martial Law IF the Military backs him up. Whether or not they will may be in question but, the President does have the power if he thinks he can get away with it.

Maybe you can help me out but I have never heard or read Obama say he is glad to be leaving the White House. As for millions in speaking engagements, once out, he has nothing more to offer. Hillary, on the other hand has actually already sold tickets to the White House. If Hillary wins, I suspect Obama, the great Constitutional Scholar (Cough) to be nominated to the Supreme Court. If so, it is over for the U.S.

As for conflict with the military, there are 300 million guns in the U.S. and how many soldiers? England had a superior military in the 1700's and were beat by farmers with flintlocks. Vietnam withstood carpet bombing, etc. No, I think it would be a very bloody struggle and no one really wants to shoot another American in a civil war...but it has happened.

We agree on some points so I will say good argument and you hit me with no low blows. I tried to perform the same courtesy. Look forward to another pi$$ing match in the future.

originally posted by: atrollstalker
a reply to: MrSpad

The President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces can order Martial Law IF the Military backs him up. Whether or not they will may be in question but, the President does have the power if he thinks he can get away with it.

Maybe you can help me out but I have never heard or read Obama say he is glad to be leaving the White House. As for millions in speaking engagements, once out, he has nothing more to offer. Hillary, on the other hand has actually already sold tickets to the White House. If Hillary wins, I suspect Obama, the great Constitutional Scholar (Cough) to be nominated to the Supreme Court. If so, it is over for the U.S.

As for conflict with the military, there are 300 million guns in the U.S. and how many soldiers? England had a superior military in the 1700's and were beat by farmers with flintlocks. Vietnam withstood carpet bombing, etc. No, I think it would be a very bloody struggle and no one really wants to shoot another American in a civil war...but it has happened.

We agree on some points so I will say good argument and you hit me with no low blows. I tried to perform the same courtesy. Look forward to another pi$$ing match in the future.

Obama has said several times he plans on sleeping for a few months when out of office. And the working to support issues like education down the road. Likely moving to NY or LA after the girls are done with school. And yes he looking forward to it Obama retirement plans

As for an civilians fighting the military they could only do so if an outside power provided weapons and support. All the random guns would need to be tossed out because logistics, training and tactics would be impossible without common weapons systems. Also small arms will not cut it when they can drop artillery on you or air power or missiles. Even back in the 1700s without the aid of France and Spain the revolution would have been crushed.