• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t see any legal way such a strategy can be stopped, because it’s all based on “legal” technicalities.

    I’m not a scholar in any of this, but I can’t imagine the President is powerless to halt such a scheme. I’ve been given to understand that the Office has broad powers under certain invocations. Even if they manage to get everything rolling in just the right way, there’s still a period of time between when the elections happen and when the next president is sworn in.

    I cannot believe our government would sit idly by and let this cockamamie scheme just unfold and go, “Damn, I guess it’s technically legal.” And if they do, then they obviously wanted it to happen.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah. I actually tend to agree with you on this. On the other hand they did it in 2000 and it worked fine.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wish it was clear-cut. It sucks that it’s in this “technically legal” gray area to laypeople like us and the author. I would live to read a constitutional scholar’s, legal scholar’s, or a lawyer’s take on it.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I cannot believe our government would sit idly by and let this cockamamie scheme just unfold and go, “Damn, I guess it’s technically legal.”

      That sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Democrats love to do.