死亡和僵局:第二十修正案第四节

Q3 Social Sciences
B. Kalt
{"title":"死亡和僵局:第二十修正案第四节","authors":"B. Kalt","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2635633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When no presidential candidate wins a majority in the electoral college, the House of Representatives holds a “contingent election” between the top three candidates. Unfortunately, if one of those three candidates should die there is no way to provide a substitute, so the dead candidate’s supporters and party would be disenfranchised.Section 4 of the Twentieth Amendment, ratified in 1933, addressed this situation; it authorized Congress to legislate a process for substituting a new candidate. But for eighty-three years Congress (along with scholars) has never seriously considered Section 4 — let alone passed legislation under it. This neglect has fostered a dangerous incentive for assassination in the presidential electoral system. In every other stage in the process, dead candidates can be replaced; only here can an assassin eliminate an entire party from consideration in the election. A contingent election would be dramatic enough as it is; without Section 4 legislation, a candidate’s death could turn the election from a drama into a disaster.Part I of this Article provides context and background on Section 4. Part II considers what Congress should provide if it ever enacts Section 4 legislation and concludes with draft legislation. Part III briefly considers why Congress has failed for so long to use its Section 4 power.","PeriodicalId":39812,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Journal of Legislation","volume":"54 1","pages":"101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Of Death and Deadlocks: Section 4 of the Twentieth Amendment\",\"authors\":\"B. Kalt\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2635633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When no presidential candidate wins a majority in the electoral college, the House of Representatives holds a “contingent election” between the top three candidates. Unfortunately, if one of those three candidates should die there is no way to provide a substitute, so the dead candidate’s supporters and party would be disenfranchised.Section 4 of the Twentieth Amendment, ratified in 1933, addressed this situation; it authorized Congress to legislate a process for substituting a new candidate. But for eighty-three years Congress (along with scholars) has never seriously considered Section 4 — let alone passed legislation under it. This neglect has fostered a dangerous incentive for assassination in the presidential electoral system. In every other stage in the process, dead candidates can be replaced; only here can an assassin eliminate an entire party from consideration in the election. A contingent election would be dramatic enough as it is; without Section 4 legislation, a candidate’s death could turn the election from a drama into a disaster.Part I of this Article provides context and background on Section 4. Part II considers what Congress should provide if it ever enacts Section 4 legislation and concludes with draft legislation. Part III briefly considers why Congress has failed for so long to use its Section 4 power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Journal of Legislation\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Journal of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2635633\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Journal of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2635633","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当没有总统候选人在选举人团中赢得多数时,众议院就会在得票最多的三名候选人之间举行“临时选举”。不幸的是,如果这三位候选人中的一位去世,就没有办法提供替代人选,因此,已故候选人的支持者和政党将被剥夺公民权。1933年批准的《第二十修正案》第四节处理了这种情况;它授权国会立法制定替代新候选人的程序。但83年来,国会(连同学者们)从未认真考虑过第4条,更不用说根据它通过立法了。这种忽视助长了总统选举制度中暗杀的危险动机。在这个过程的其他阶段,死亡的候选人可以被替换;只有在这种情况下,刺客才能将整个政党排除在选举之外。临时选举本身就已经足够戏剧性了;如果没有第4条立法,候选人的死亡可能会使选举从戏剧变成灾难。本文的第一部分提供了第4节的上下文和背景。第二部分考虑如果国会颁布第四节立法,国会应该提供什么,并以立法草案结束。第三部分简要地考虑了为什么国会这么长时间没有使用第四节的权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Of Death and Deadlocks: Section 4 of the Twentieth Amendment
When no presidential candidate wins a majority in the electoral college, the House of Representatives holds a “contingent election” between the top three candidates. Unfortunately, if one of those three candidates should die there is no way to provide a substitute, so the dead candidate’s supporters and party would be disenfranchised.Section 4 of the Twentieth Amendment, ratified in 1933, addressed this situation; it authorized Congress to legislate a process for substituting a new candidate. But for eighty-three years Congress (along with scholars) has never seriously considered Section 4 — let alone passed legislation under it. This neglect has fostered a dangerous incentive for assassination in the presidential electoral system. In every other stage in the process, dead candidates can be replaced; only here can an assassin eliminate an entire party from consideration in the election. A contingent election would be dramatic enough as it is; without Section 4 legislation, a candidate’s death could turn the election from a drama into a disaster.Part I of this Article provides context and background on Section 4. Part II considers what Congress should provide if it ever enacts Section 4 legislation and concludes with draft legislation. Part III briefly considers why Congress has failed for so long to use its Section 4 power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Harvard Journal of Legislation
Harvard Journal of Legislation Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: The Harvard Journal on Legislation is the nation’s premier legal journal focused on the analysis of legislation and the legislative process. First published in 1964, the Journal on Legislation is the third oldest journal at Harvard Law School. Now in its 57th volume, the Journal is published semi-annually, in winter and summer. For more than half a century, the Journal on Legislation has provided a forum for scholarship on legislative reform and on the efficiency and effectiveness of legislative decision-making. The Journal is especially interested in publishing articles that examine public policy problems of national significance and propose legislative solutions. The Journal frequently publishes policy essays written by current or former members of Congress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信