{"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}
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.
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.