zer0netgain wrote:
khaoz wrote:
I would. It is relevant. We have rules for a reason. Either change them via the prescribed legal process, or follow them, but don't violate them.
As far as what would happen, we don't have much to go on. Obviously, he'd be kicked out of office, but the replacement (either via special election or the appointment of the VP) could just "ratify" everything he signed...meaning nothing would change other than the man being publicly disgraced for the largest public fraud in American history.
Absent ratification, everything not ratified could be challenged as invalid and have to be undone. It would give the person who takes over the ability to undo things now seen as a bad move, but there has to be the political movement to want to do that.
One could also quote this part of the Constitution in regards to the laws enacted by Congress (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2):
Quote:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
If no one is serving as President legitimately, then probably Congress would have free reign to pass laws as they please (unless they adjourn before the 10 days is up, not counting Sundays). Of course, executive orders would be another thing entirely, as would bills passed by Congress and then vetoed by the illegitimate President for which the veto could not be overridden.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin