Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-11-2020, 05:52 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
Any candidate who was acceptable to Democrats would, by virtue of that acceptability, be unacceptable to the Republicans in the Senate. Remember, the reason Obama nominated Garland was because the Senate Republicans recommended him.

And again, the precedent was already set with Harrison and Tyler. The relevant law at the time said that the VP would "act as President". On Harrison's death, Tyler became fully and completely President.

Quote:
Quoth Broomstick:

I actually like that idea - in fact, she could nominate ANY living former president for VP for the remainder of the current term and it would be perfectly legal because the current term is less than one year and all former president only have 8 years under their belts and not the maximum 10.
There is no "maximum 10". George W. Bush has served two full terms, and therefore is no longer eligible to the Presidency.
  #52  
Old 05-11-2020, 05:53 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
So here's the answer from my friend, who teaches both Con Law and Political Science at a mid-major University. He's also been a featured opinion writer in major newspapers. He's asked to remain anonymous because he doesn't want to get involved in 'Internet Stuff'.



You are wrong, Ultra Vires. Wrong, wrong and wrong. You're making an argument without support. Can you show any reputable citation where you believe that comes from?
What citation do you believe there is? It has never happened before, so the Supreme Court obviously has never ruled upon it. So I have no authoritative cite and neither does your friend.

I took the time to string together all of the relevant Constitutional provisions and laws. With all respect to your friend, the argument that Pelosi "is" President is unsupported by the original Constitution and the 1947 PSA.

The original Constitution clearly specifies that downline officers merely "act" as President. The debate was whether the VP only acted as President or became President because of the ambiguity of the term "the same." What did "the same" mean? The same office or the same powers?

This debate was ended when Tyler asserted that he was indeed the President and everyone from then on through the 25th Amendment agreed with the precedent. The 25th Amendment made it explicit: The VP becomes the President.

But there is no such ambiguity for downline officers. They simply only "act" as President. Your friend dismisses this with nary a citation, and ignores the text of the 1947 PSA which contemplates "bumping" an acting president but not a VP.
  #53  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What citation do you believe there is? It has never happened before, so the Supreme Court obviously has never ruled upon it. So I have no authoritative cite and neither does your friend.

I took the time to string together all of the relevant Constitutional provisions and laws. With all respect to your friend, the argument that Pelosi "is" President is unsupported by the original Constitution and the 1947 PSA.

The original Constitution clearly specifies that downline officers merely "act" as President. The debate was whether the VP only acted as President or became President because of the ambiguity of the term "the same." What did "the same" mean? The same office or the same powers?

This debate was ended when Tyler asserted that he was indeed the President and everyone from then on through the 25th Amendment agreed with the precedent. The 25th Amendment made it explicit: The VP becomes the President.

But there is no such ambiguity for downline officers. They simply only "act" as President. Your friend dismisses this with nary a citation, and ignores the text of the 1947 PSA which contemplates "bumping" an acting president but not a VP.
Tyler made it clear -- "act" as president is the same as being president.
  #54  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:04 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And again, the precedent was already set with Harrison and Tyler. The relevant law at the time said that the VP would "act as President". On Harrison's death, Tyler became fully and completely President.
No, no, no, no, no. I'm gonna scream if I keep seeing this, because it has been quoted several times:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Constitution
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President....
The question was what is "the Same"? Does that mean the same "Powers and Duties" or the "said Office"? That question was affirmatively answered first by Tyler and followed as precedent and then specifically changed in the 25th Amendment.

However, nobody debates that the downline officers really become president. Only the VP does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rest of passage from Constitution
and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
It is clear that the downline officers only "act" as president. No ambiguity about what "the same" means.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos
There is no "maximum 10". George W. Bush has served two full terms, and therefore is no longer eligible to the Presidency.
Now we get into the oft-had debate over whether a twice elected president can ascend to that office by means other than an election:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 22nd Amendment
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.
It specifically says that the only bar is to being "elected" President, not appointed. Further it distinguishes between holding the office of President and acting as President.
  #55  
Old 05-11-2020, 06:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
"The same" meant the same as president. So does "act" as president. If the framers or the lawmakers didn't intend for it to be the same, they could have made it clear in the language of the law. They didn't, so the most straightforward reading is that Pelosi, just like Tyler, would say "I'm president", and everyone would treat them as president, and that would be it.
  #56  
Old 05-11-2020, 07:17 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"The same" meant the same as president. So does "act" as president. If the framers or the lawmakers didn't intend for it to be the same, they could have made it clear in the language of the law. They didn't, so the most straightforward reading is that Pelosi, just like Tyler, would say "I'm president", and everyone would treat them as president, and that would be it.
What is your response to the 22nd amendment which clearly distinguishes between holding the office of President and acting as President? Or the 1947 PSA which does the same thing and allows bumping? Or the original Constitution?

To me it is pretty clear that if I am "acting" as something then I am not the something. No need for the word "act" if I am the real deal.
  #57  
Old 05-11-2020, 07:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What is your response to the 22nd amendment which clearly distinguishes between holding the office of President and acting as President? Or the 1947 PSA which does the same thing and allows bumping? Or the original Constitution?



To me it is pretty clear that if I am "acting" as something then I am not the something. No need for the word "act" if I am the real deal.
It'd be nice if the language of the law was more clear, but in the absence of clarity, I think we'd just read it on the most straightforward way. Which means they'd be president for the remainder of the term.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #58  
Old 05-12-2020, 12:36 PM
Powers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Posts: 1,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
2. Let's say Trump and Pence had died back in 2017. Pelosi became Acting President and stayed in office by refusing to nominate a VP.
If Trump and Pence had died in 2017, the acting president would have been Paul Ryan.


Powers &8^]
  #59  
Old 05-24-2020, 07:04 PM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,114
If I were a former Speaker of the House serving as Acting President after the deaths of the President and Vice President, I'd probably nominate myself as Vice President under the 25th Amendment. The amendment doesn't say I can't, and the anti-nepotism statute, 5 USC 3110, doesn't either: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110. In a democracy, what is not prohibited is permitted. Weird, but I think it'd work. It's roughly analogous to a governor appointing herself to a U.S. Senate vacancy.

If Congress chose not to act upon my nomination, or voted it down, that's on them. I would've fulfilled my constitutional obligation to nominate someone, and could and would continue to serve as Acting President until the next inauguration. If Congress did confirm me as Vice President, I would promptly resign as Acting President and take office as full-fledged President, and then nominate someone else to be Vice President under the 25th Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
...There is no "maximum 10". George W. Bush has served two full terms, and therefore is no longer eligible to the Presidency.
I think Broomstick was probably referring to the first sentence of the 22nd Amendment, Sec. 1: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...." If Pence became President when Trump snuffed it on Jan. 21, 2019, Pence could run twice more for President in his own right and, if elected and then reelected, serve a total of one day shy of ten years as President.

Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 05-24-2020 at 07:08 PM.
  #60  
Old 05-28-2020, 03:40 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't think that's true.

The Democrats are the grown-up party. They're not going to sit back and let our political system collapse. They'd be willing to work on a bipartisan compromise and vote for a candidate - even a Republican - who is acceptable to both sides.

It's far more likely the stumbling block would be McConnell and the Senate.
You didn't understand what I said. I said that if Trump or Pence died, the other could not nominate a VP that Pelosi would allow to be confirmed. And don't forget: the US has been withoug a VP for longish times without a disaster. Nearly four years after the first Harrison died and after FDR died. That's why there's a succession law.

If I were President Pelosi if both died, I would nominate Biden. He wouldn't be confirmed, but so what.
  #61  
Old 05-28-2020, 04:11 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
Yes, I know why Broomstick thought that there was a maximum of ten years. But the law that leads to that de facto maximum works by limiting terms, not by setting a number of years. The fact that there are less than two years left in the current term is completely irrelevant.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017