*Puts on her Tin Foil wizard hat* Ok what would happen if...?

[KareBear]

What would happen if the Supreme Court were to revisit its decision that gave Bush the Presidency in 2000, in oh say, 2008 sometime. Now if Bush were reelected in 2004, Bush would have his 2 terms and be out... unless of course the Court rules that he was never elected president for the first 4 year period, and that term did not officially count. This would then enable Bush to run in 2008 for a third, though legally second, term.

Things that make you go hmmmmm. I thought of this nightmare scenario after reading the story about how Supreme Court Justices are left to police themselves over conflicts of interest. It really got me to thinking about just how much power they could have if they used it in a concerted decisive manner for the wrong reasons.

[troublemaker]

1. No effect at all

Simple answer: I don't have my pocket Constitution on me but I'll bet the 'no third term' ammendment says you cannot "serve" a certain period of time, not that you cannot be elected a third time.

While we're on the topic... The holding in Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with the constitutional legitimacy of the Bush Presidency. It never even approached the real process. It was just an ad hoc attempt to help the Republicans out of a PR nightmare. (Pretty irresponsible solution too, since the decision would void all statewide and national elections and even most congressional elections held today if accepted as actual precedent, which it isn't because it practically has 'April Fools' written on the back of the last page)

Bush is President quite legitimately. What is not legitimate is that the Republican party was spared the political fallout of a vote in the House where many members would have had to vote for Bush even though their districts went for Gore.

The House always has the power to appoint the President and that's what the founders intended. In fact, the founders thought electoral majorities would be very rare, assuming most States would send an electoral slate for a 'favorite son' and thus all Presidents would be chosen by the House. The House was granted that power because the House has to stand for election every two years. Somebody had to have the power. At least if they abuse that power they can be voted out, or so the reasoning goes.

Nobody knows who won Florida. If a recount showed Gore up by 500 votes I would be saying the same thing I say about Bush being up 500 votes. It's a tie. Given all the messiness of elections 500 votes in Florida is well within the margin of error of the voting process.

When you have a weird situation like a tie in Florida (a near impossibility that happened to occur) the House is supposed to make the decision. Say the FL supreme court ordered a Gore slate be sent, and the FL legislature decided to send a Bush slate... the US House of Representitives is in charge of certifying the electors, so they would pick one slate or the other. Guess who they would have picked?

It always comes back to the House. If the Republican House in 1996 had simply refused to seat the electors from California and New York then Dole would have been president by the time the process stopped. They didn't do that because it's presumed there would be poilitical hell to pay.

All the Supreme Court really did in 2000 was take the bullet for the House so there wouldn't be a price to pay. (Like losing the House in 2002) If we think we're mad today, immagine of the frigging House of Representatives, most of whom had recently voted to impeach Clinton, had explicitly picked the guy with less votes. ARRRRGH. So it was a partisan stunt to help out Republicans... "we didn't do anything. It was the Supreme Court."

But there is comfort in realizing that nothing, and I mean nothing was going to allow Gore to become President in 2000. In an election that close in FL the US House would have just refused to seat any Gore slate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. "nothing" was going to allow Gore to win?

Well ummmm.... how about counting the votes as was proscribed by the Florida Supreme Court, but stopped by the USSC?

[quinnox]

2. That would be a nightmare, another one I have thought of

is if George Bush is re-elected, then Jeb Bush follow up in 2008 with a win of the presidency, And then another younger Bush in 2016 runs and wins.

Around 20 years of rule by a Bush.

[SheilaT]

3. It has nothing to do with being elected,

but length of time served as President. Here's the exact wording (how I love google!): No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Even though W wasn't exactly elected, he has served as President, so he can only (unless the Constitution is amended) be elected once more.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past a Republican Congress to force through an amendment allowing for unlimited elections to the office of President.

Or maybe the election this November will be canceled, pending some major terrorist attack. I would not put anything past these people.