C: "Bush will be president until he dies"

[dant]

Is there anything in the U.S. Constitution the covers
the case where the President-Elect is somehow prevented
from his/her inauguration?

Who then, is the "interim" President?

Just wondered....

 

[bedower]

Who then, is the "interim" President?

Just guessing, Dant, but wouldn't it be the present 'interim' vice-president Joe Biden?

Or there might need to be another election?

Ok, Ok, I don't know!

 

[Al Today]

What if the transfer of power goes to Obama? There is a thread of C's hits, what if they miss?

 

[Al Today]

more info...
-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_if_president_or_vice_president_elect_dies_before_inauguration

What happens if president or vice president elect dies before inauguration?

The 20th Amendment provides that if the President-elect dies before inauguration "the Vice President-elect shall become President". However, a President elect does not legally become such until the members of the Electoral College cast their votes in December, so if a "President-elect" died before that, his electors would have to vote for someone else (probably his Vice-Presidential running-mate) since votes for a dead man would not be counted.
If it were the Vice-President elect who died, then if the Electors had not yet voted, his party could nominate another candidate. If however they had already voted for him, the President-elect would be sworn in without a Vice-President, and would then have to appoint one under the provisions of the 25th Amendment.

 

[Al Today]

more...

This is a list of the current presidential line of succession, as specified by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. § 19) and subsequent amendments to include newly created cabinet officers.
# Office Current Officer
1 Vice President and President of the Senate Dick Cheney
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
5 Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates[1]
7 Attorney General Michael Mukasey
8 Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
9 Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer
10 Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez (not eligible)†
11 Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (not eligible)†
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston
14 Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters
15 Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
16 Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake
18 Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

oops: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
and

Anticipated order under the incoming Obama administration

These people are anticipated to hold places in the line of succession following the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama and their confirmation.
# Office Officer
1 Vice President and President of the Senate Joe Biden
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton[7]
5 Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner[8][9]
6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates[10]
7 Attorney General Eric Holder[11]
8 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar[12]
9 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack[13]
10 Secretary of Commerce TBD
11 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis[14]
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle[15]
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan[16]
14 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood[17]
15 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu[18]
16 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan[19]
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki[20]
18 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano[21]

god help us all...

 

[NormaRegula]

FWIW, aren't all individuals who serve as POTUS still addressed as President after their term(s) are up? Jimmy Carter is referred to as President Carter...as are all living former Presidents up until...and after...they pass away. Perhaps this is what the C's meant. Barring any false flag "acts of terror" or extreme natural disasters (like Yellowstone exploding) prior to the Inauguration that would institute a martial law scenario, the aforementioned could be the case.

 

[EdgeofDawn]

Well, not to make it more depressing, but here's what the C's said on 23 October 2004

Q: (J) Will there be another terrorist attack in the US soon?

A: Bush does not need one, so no.

Q: (J) Will Bush continue on as President?

A: Until he dies.

Q: (J) Will he be assassinated?

A: Not likely.

Q: (H) Will he try to become a permanent leader, a Furher?

A: Will try.

Q: (H) Is he sick and will he die from his illness?

A: No...

Q: [Discussion about him being made sick or dying from other reasons.]

A: There are many ways to die.

We came back to the subject almost a year later on 20 October 2005:

Q: (J) Some people said Katrina was the product of HAARP heating up the waters in the Gulf.
A: We’ve already dealt with HAARP and weather. Read transcripts.
Q: (W) (Quoting transcripts) “HAARP has nothing to do with the weather or EM associated with same.” (H) Which suggests that there is EM associated with the weather. There could be some EM stuff associated with the weather that isn’t part of HAARP. (L) 4th density. (J) Were any of the storms manufactured from 3rd density or was it a natural storm?
A: Mfg in 3D? No. As we have said… 4D battles represent as weather. But the “veil” is thinning.
Q: (R) So if there is more weather it is due to more battles, and it being thinner. (J) Possibly. The thinning of the veil creates more natural… (L) Or unnatural, depending upon how you look at it. (S) So, I have a few questions. In the last session the C’s had said that 47% of Americans think that the government was complicit in 911. They also said that 12% of Americans can actually think. So, assuming that the 12% that can think are part of the 47% who think the American government was complicit in 911, that would give 35% would think the government is complicit not because they think but because they have been programmed to think it. If that is the case, then why are these people being programmed to be suspicious or against the Bush government?
A: They are not being programmed to be suspicious of Bush et al, the contrary.
Q: (L) In other words, it is the ones who think that Bush is not complicit that are being programmed. The ones who don’t think it, even if they’re part of that 35%, they’ve simply never been programmed. (R) Those who are programmed are programmed to not be suspicious. (A) You can be suspicious, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you can think. (L) The ones who are not suspicious are the ones being programmed, but it doesn’t mean… OPs can just be OPs. They don’t have to be bad or evil, they’re just the ones who, nobody’s gotten to them, there’s been no opportunity…maybe they’re just people who don’t want to watch television so much. Or they are contrary in a certain way. They see that there is a group of people who are suspicious and they follow along with them rather than following along with the ones who are not suspicious. (S) They also said that Bush “will try” to become a fuehrer, that he’ll continue on as president until he dies. Does that mean that someone will… Bush will be tossed out and someone else will move in and become fuehrer?
A: Warm water. It would not serve your best interests to know this.

Well, you can say that again.

There's a thread about this here. http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=264.0

 

[bedower]

[quote author=NormaRegula yesterday] aren't all individuals who serve as POTUS still addressed as President after their term(s) are up? [/quote]

FWIW, that's the best explanation I've come across so far to explain the C's rather puzzling remark (which is almost Delphic in its enigmatic quality).

It may be, if/when we do get to know what they meant, we'll probably all go; "Of course...that's what they meant...It's sooo obvious really..." or some such words.

Dant, if you're an American (SOTT main page today), how come you didn't know the answer? This is not a criticism; just an honest question. I'm really curious; don't you study the Constitution at school?

And...Nancy Pelosi is third in line to the 'throne'? That thought is so scary I can't even think it!

 

[curious georgia]

I am quite certian that I learned in school, that the office of president cannot change hands during a time of declared war. I can't seem to find this in the constitution online but will keep trying.

 

[curious_richard]

I am quite certian that I learned in school, that the office of president cannot change hands during a time of declared war.

If so, it is probably something passed after WW2. I remember watching long ago a campaign cartoon for Franklin D Roosevelt with two trains and the suggestion that it would be unwise to "change trains" in the middle of the war. Looking at it another way, Wikpedia reports that there were presidential elections in 1944, and "In the 1944 election, Roosevelt and Truman won 53% of the vote and carried 36 states, against New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey."

I would not surprised if some invented emergency gives an excuse for ignoring the Constitution, however.

 

[curious georgia]

I agree , Richard. By the way, here's the link to the U.S. Constitution. It is an interesting read. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

 

[PepperFritz]

I am quite certian that I learned in school, that the office of president cannot change hands during a time of declared war. I can't seem to find this in the constitution online but will keep trying.

If so, it is probably something passed after WW2.

Nope. There is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution allowing for extension of presidential terms in times of war. Elections have been held during all American wars, including the Civil War.

There was no limit on how many presidential terms someone could run for and/or hold until 1951. George Washington established the convention of the two-term limit by refusing to run for a third, and most subsequent presidents followed that convention. Though a couple broke with tradition and ran for a third-term, no one was actually elected to a third-term until Franklin Roosevelt, who was actually elected for a fourth-term as well. However, he died in office early in his fourth-term, and was succeeded by his vice-president, Harry Truman. The Twenty-Second Amendment was ratified in 1951, thereafter limiting all presidents to two-year terms. A grandfather clause excluded Harry Truman from the limitation, and he considered running for a third-term in 1952, but in the end did not.

I would not surprised if some invented emergency gives an excuse for ignoring the Constitution, however.

Well, theoretically, a U.S. president could suspend everything and declare Martial Law, in the case of a "national emergency", but in practical terms that would be hard to do without some degree of support from Congress and the country's military leadership. While there are Executive Orders specifying the conditions under which a president can impose Martial Law and/or suspend habeas corpus, I am not able to find one that specifically refers to the extension of presidential terms. If anyone else knows of of any specific legislation relating to that, please let me know....

 

[curious georgia]

Nope. There is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution allowing for extension of presidential terms in times of war. Elections have been held during all American wars, including the Civil War.

Thanks for clearing that up. No wonder I couldn't find it in the constitution. I wonder where that came from? I even asked a friend who said they also believed this was a law. I see I need to check my sources before I post.

 

[rs]

[quote author=NormaRegula yesterday] aren't all individuals who serve as POTUS still addressed as President after their term(s) are up?

FWIW, that's the best explanation I've come across so far to explain the C's rather puzzling remark (which is almost Delphic in its enigmatic quality).

It may be, if/when we do get to know what they meant, we'll probably all go; "Of course...that's what they meant...It's sooo obvious really..." or some such words.
[/quote]

The thing I have noticed in the transcripts is that so often it is the questions not asked that hold (or rather would have held) the key to the enigma. The statement was made that he would be president until he dies. The question not asked was whether he would be the actual office holder or just the obvious retention of the title, let alone the obvious legal implications to our constitutional law, such as it is. The statement was made that there are many ways to die but the unasked question(s) was (were) to clarify how he would die.

I have noticed that the Cs tend to answer many questions in this rather oblique way where every character of every word has semantic meaning, and it is left to the observer/reader to grasp the totality of the communication. This requires effort and I think is also the reason the Cs keep emphasizing the importance of networking and collaboration. No one person has the necessary background and ability to completely understand what is being communicated, it takes "a village".

Of course, it isn't over until January 20 at 12:00:01 PM EST, so as we have seen, the whole world can change in an instant.

 

[bedower]

[quote author=rs today] No one person has the necessary background and ability to completely understand what is being communicated, it takes "a village".
[/quote]

Couldn't agree with you more, rs, and I don't think this just applies to the Cass communications, although it is particularly relevant to all here on this forum.

It may be that one person has a much needed piece of information to solve an enigma without even being aware of it.

We may each even be an actual piece of the puzzle, on a metaphysical level, osit.

Learning is fun, isn't it? ;)