The military does not recognize Biden as POTUS. Fact.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (287)
sorted by:
The timing is irrelevant. The Constitution simply states that the prior term ends at noon on the 20th. There is no mandated time for when the oath is to be taken by the successor. The only requirement is that they must take the oath before assuming office. It could be taken after the date and time of "transition" (see Zachary Taylor, for instance), but the successor isn't technically POTUS until he takes the oath. Also, nothing prevents the successor from taking the oath early, whether it's 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 days. They just can't assume office until the expiration of the predecessor's term. So the theory that Trump took the oath early on the 11th, would be plausible as constitutionally valid if say, SCOTUS decided tomorrow that he actually won.
Have we ever had a president sworn in before the term of the previous president ended though? Even if nothing had prevented it, has it ever been done?
Nope, it's never been done before.
This is true. The timing/necessity of the oath to assume presidential powers has been a subject of debate for centuries.... for example, if LBJ had needed to make a crucial decision after JFK's moment of death but before they found someone to administer the oath to him would he have been able to, etc.
While there was nothing wrong with Biden taking the oath ten minutes early, it was yet another odd thing about a day filled with very odd things. Not illegal or improper, but it could be significant.
The 20th amendment where it states that the term ends at noon on the 20th, was approved by the 72nd Congress, March 2, 1932, a congress AFTER the Corporation of the UNITED STATES debacle.
The Constitution of the Nation of the United States does not include this amendment.
While I agree with the theory of illegal incorporation of DC in 1871, the problem is that all Amendments to the Constitution if ratified by the required number of states, must be considered part of the Constitution. Even if we are to argue that the Congresses since 1871 are of questionable legality, the states still ratified the Amendments nonetheless, and nobody is questioning the legality of the state governments. Where a lot of this 1871 incorporation theory gets lost, is that only DC was incorporated. The Congress had technically always been legal, at least in the sense that they states have constitutionally (barring fraud) elected and appointed representatives to go to the Capital. The problem is that DC is technically no longer sovereign territory of the United States Republic. So essentially, the Congress has been legally operating, but unfortunately on foreign territory, where they've been held hostage.