Even absent such ban, I don't think the GM had that authority during the crisis.
Even so, we should pass this to ensure clarity.
It's murky but I think there's enough room for a GM to claim the powers that this is basically a necessary sagefuard. The constitution allows the Game Engine "whatever powers the Senate deems necessary"; GERA grants in turn the powers to "simulate the actions of non-playable entities" and "simulate domestic and global events" as well as the final say on what ingame occurences are canon; without the protection this legislation would give it's not hard to argue that this includes events that would kill players.
Now, the Census act does not list canon death as a valid reason to remove a player from the rolls, so presumably if a player is killed they would still be able to vote and be a candidate for office as usual. The Constitution, however, does list "death" as a reason for creation of a vacancy in the Senate or Presidency, so the killed player presumably would still have to forfeit those offices by default (and depending on interpretation might continue to be unable to swear into those offices again even if they could be elected).
So yeah, I think a serious argument could be made on the legal side that the GM right now does have the power to kill players in a manner with clear ingame ramifications.
If forced to choose at gunpoint between losing the elections game, or nuking the GM's relevance, I was certainly prepared to choose the latter and I am fairly certain Adam would as well based on his history and statements as such.
The game survived without a GM for a number of years in the 2000s for example, and while giving Oakvale a win on this point would be grating, its better than the alternative.
At minimum the Supreme Court would injunct such actions pending deliberation, long enough for us to have ousted the conspirators and nuked Crane as GM.
