the fix is in!!
seen from China

seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from China
seen from Estonia
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from China

seen from Türkiye
seen from South Africa
seen from South Africa
the fix is in!!
Okay so I know that when the president dies the vice president becomes president, even if an election has already happened but it’s before January 20th. But what if…
The vice president is the president elect, do they just get sworn in once or twice?
What if the president elect dies, does the vice president elect become president elect or do they have some special election or some congress stuff.
If the answer to 2. is the vice president elect becoming president elect, what if the former vice president elect also dies.
Thank you for your time.
- KMP
(1.) Just to be certain that I understand the scenario, you're asking about a President-elect who is already the incumbent Vice President, right? For example: if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 election but President Biden died in December 2024 during the transition period? In that scenario, yes, they would be sworn in twice. In their role as Vice President, they would assume the Presidency to finish the term of the President who died. On Inauguration Day, they would be sworn in again to begin the Presidential term that they had been elected to in their own right. We'll use Biden and Harris again as an example, but think of it this way: while Biden was the 46th President of the United States, his Administration (2021-2025) was the 59th Presidential Administration. The Administration which began on January 20, 2025 is the 60th Presidential Administration. So, in the scenario you asked about, if Vice President Harris had won the 2024 election but succeeded to the Presidency prior to January 20, 2025, she would have been sworn in to complete the unfinished 59th Administration and then inaugurated on January 20, 2025 to begin the 60th Administration. There wouldn't have been any sort of interregnum, but they are two separate Administrations.
(2.) Like many aspects of our Constitution, this particular scenario has not been fully tested, so there is a little bit of a gray area when it comes to who would become President-elect if the President-elect dies before the Inauguration. Theoretically, it would depend on when the President-elect died during the transition. If the President-elect died before the Electoral College met to cast its votes in December, most of the Electors would be able to cast their votes for a different candidate than the deceased President-elect. But, again, there's a bit of confusion there because while some states allow the Electors to cast their ballots for any candidate (which is how we get Faithless Electors), some states explicitly prohibit their Electors from casting their ballots for someone other than who the votes are meant to be pledged. It would likely depend on the election laws within each state. This has actually happened before, but not with the President-elect. In 1872, Ulysses S. Grant defeated Horace Greeley in the Presidential election, but Greeley died between Election Day and the meeting of the Electoral College. Greeley had won six states and was expected to receive 66 Electoral votes, but due to his death, most of his votes were split among four different candidates when the Electoral College met. Three Electors did cast their votes for Greeley despite his death, and those votes were invalidated because a dead person is ineligible to serve as President.
The biggest question mark is what would happen if the President-elect died after the meeting of the Electoral College but before the Joint Session of Congress met to certify the Electoral College results. In that case, the most probable scenario is that Congress would certify the votes of the deceased President-elect and the 20th Amendment to the Constitution would come into play, in which the Vice President-elect would assume the Presidency on Inauguration Day. But, again, this has never been tested, so we can't be 100% sure. Now, if the President-elect died after the Congressional certification of the Electoral votes but before Inauguration Day, the Vice President-elect would definitely become President -- that is pretty clearly specified in the 20th Amendment.
(3.) If both the President-elect and the Vice President-elect died after Election Day but before Inauguration Day, it would trigger Contingent Elections for both positions and Congress would elect the successors. The Contingent Election for President would take place in the House of Representatives and the Senate would hold the Contingent Election for Vice President. In the case of a Contingent Election, they would be held by the new Congress that had just been sworn in, not by the Congress that was in office in November at the time of the general election. It's also important to note that, in Contingent Elections, while the Senators cast their votes for Vice President individually (as they normally vote), the House votes for President by state. So each state votes within their caucus and then the states vote as a bloc. That means that it would actually be possible for the minority party in the House of Representatives to choose the President if they controlled more states overall.
As always when it comes to the Constitution -- particularly with Presidential succession -- this issue is a ticking time bomb and if we are at a point where it actually needs to be tested, we're already going to be in the midst of a major crisis.
A majority of Americans now say the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times, up from 46% in 2016. This represents a shift in public opinion, which was divided on this question for more than a decade.
No matter what the ultimate Electoral College result turns out to be, a majority of voters have cast their ballots for the Democratic nominee in seven of the last eight Presidential elections.
This statistic is being mentioned everywhere, but it bears repeating in order to emphasize the fact that the majority of the American people are continually being held hostage by a literal interpretation of a document written 233 years ago by a group that included people who owned other human beings as property.
Many of the most glaring problems with governing this country in the 21st Century are the result of a powerful minority of American leaders who interpret the Constitution as if it were some secular version of Sharia law instead of a living document meant to evolve and be shaped by time, growth, experience, and modern necessities. Any rational examination of the framing of the Constitution -- and the amendments which have followed since ratification --clearly demonstrates that the intent of the Founders was to build a foundation for an always-changing nation to develop upon. They didn’t intend for future Americans to be handcuffed by outdated systems that make little to no sense for a massive, diverse, modern, industrialized, economic and military superpower.
The size and constant growth of this nation and the pace of the lives Americans live today would overwhelm the Founders if they showed up now and tried to understand it. During their time, America’s remote northwest was present-day Indiana and Ohio! It’s ridiculous and irresponsible to continue to believe that literally interpreting the Constitution as they drafted it for a fledgling, newly independent nation isn’t overwhelming our system of government at every single level in increasingly significant and dangerous ways. It’s time for a new Constitutional Convention in order to reinforce our nation’s foundation and breathe some life into a Constitution that was never meant to be chiseled in stone in 1788 and can no longer meet the challenges of the country that we have built since then.
A reading of the SCOTUS decision that gave the Supreme Court the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws, policies, lower court decisions, and conflicts among the states: Marbury v. Madison (1803). This is the decision that established the Courts power of judicial review and set the foundation for the Supreme Court going forward. This audio includes the primary text of Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/332us46https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137 Music by Epidemic Sound
Click here to learn more and listen.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, June 12, 1816 https://www.lumioapp.com/public/card_1518821814862_1814
Source: http://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/964358157123297282
The well-known but conveniently ignored quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding evolving Constitutional interpretation: pic.twitter.com/VzsOKAFNcQ
— Seth MacFarlane (@SethMacFarlane) February 16, 2018
Say What? Frederick Douglass on Originalist Interpretations of the United States Constitution 'The fact that Mr. Madison can be cited on both sides of this question is another evidence of the folly and absurdity of making the secret intentions of the framers the criterion by which the Constitution is to be construed.'
O.P. Recommends: Constitutional, a Podcast About the Story of America
O.P. Recommends: Constitutional, a Podcast About the Story of America
Constitution of the United States, first page of the original, provided by the National Archives and Records Administration, public domain via Wikimedia Commons
I loved the last podcast series that Lillian Cunningham hosted for the Washington Post: Presidential, which ‘explores the character and legacy of each of the American presidents’. This new podcast, Constitutional, also explores the…
View On WordPress