A presidential candidate’s death could postpone or cancel out the November election

(Bugout.news) A very strange article was published online earlier this week by US News & World Report discussing how a presidential election could be delayed or even canceled. Talk like that ought to concern everyone, regardless of which political party, candidate and ideology you support.

The crux of the piece was this: If one major candidate dies or drops out of the election for some reason, the entire process could be so disrupted that the election might not be held at all.

From US News:

The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.

The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College,” says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting.

“It’s up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state’s electors,” Nagle says. “It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”

We’re not sure “morbid” is the right word to describe this kind of speculation. “Suspicious” is more appropriate.

If memory serves, there was discussion about Ronald Reagan’s age – 69 – when he was elected to his first term. He served two; he was 77 when he left office.

GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is 70, meaning he would be the oldest person ever elected president; his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is 69, making her the second-oldest.

Granted, there has been much speculation about candidate health during this cycle, and that is especially true for Clinton, whose coughing fits, falls and inability to climb stairs without assistance have led many to conclude that her 2012 concussion and blood clot may have lingering, irreversible effects. Even now, President Obama’s former physician has recommended that Clinton have a neurological exam.

“We know what happens to football players who have had concussions, how they begin to lose some of their cognitive ability. I think both of them should release their records,” Dr. David Scheiner told CNN, saying Clinton’s earlier note from her doctor is not enough.

Not that we’re much in to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, but when such an unconventional notion is vetted publicly by the mainstream media, it means that people are thinking about the possibility. And if people are thinking about it, then someone, somewhere, is planning for it.

Under Article II, Sect. 1 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to change the election date. Congressional authority over elections was further defined in the Twelfth Amendment. In sum, federal lawmakers have the authority to set dates for the selection of presidential electors and when those people will vote.

Should a candidate fall out, Congress would be up against a de facto December deadline because the Twentieth Amendment, ratified in 1933, requires that congressional terms expire Jan. 3 while presidential terms expire Jan. 20.

“Though it’s conceivable to split legislative and presidential elections, they generally happen at the same time. And if the entire general election were to be moved after Jan. 3, Congress effectively would have voted themselves out of office,” US News reported.

Some constitutional experts consulted by the news magazine suggested a four-week postponement if a candidate dies shortly before Election Day, or if there is a major terrorist attack. That latter scenario is very suspicious because even during our Civil War we had a presidential election (1864).

There is no special intelligence or evidence floating around out there to suggest that someone is preparing to hijack this election. But given the shenanigans of the current officeholder and his shielding and protection of his former national security-compromising secretary of state, one has to be suspicious when a topic like this just appears out of nowhere.

More:

• Are Domestic Hackers Preparing To Hijack Our November Elections?
• Is The Democratic Party Now Resorting To Murdering Political Outsiders And Opponents?
• Will A Clinton Presidency Finally Result In The Death Of Our Republic?

© 2016 USA Features Media.