Probably outside his character (at worst, ASB), but what if Lincoln had not permitted the election of 1864, holding the presidential election off until the war was concluded?
Yeah no. If being at war was a legitimate reason to hold off an election Bush would still be President. MAYBE if parts of the Union were under Confederate occupation this would be OK, but even then unlikely. Though I suppose an act of Congress could maybe be used to hold off on elections, if it was declared constitutional by the Supreme court.
Precisely who calls the January session of the lame duck Congress, and decides where?
Those tyrant accusations gain some credibility, though maybe he'll promise to have some kind of special election held after the war ends.
MAYBE if parts of the Union were under Confederate occupation this would be OK, but even then unlikely.
Pretty much; even if parts of the Union are occupied, the easier solution is to either discount the occupied areas or have the vote for that area determined by refugees living within your lines. That's what the Confederates did in their midterms, IIRC.
No one had to call it. The Constitution laid down that it should meet at leat once each year "on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day".
Indeed.
If Washington turns out to be occupied by Confederate forces some December, or under siege and impractical to travel to, who decides the place where the Congress is to meet?
These officials exist at the meeting of a lame duck congress (Decembers 1862 and 1864) but not of a new congress (1861 and 1863).The speaker, president pro tem, and staff.
These officials exist at the meeting of a lame duck congress (Decembers 1862 and 1864) but not of a new congress (1861 and 1863).
These officials exist at the meeting of a lame duck congress (Decembers 1862 and 1864) but not of a new congress (1861 and 1863).