Votes are always integer values. So one-half plus one expressed as the closest integer value, 218.
A finding that the President cannot be indicted until he leaves office is not placing him “above the law.” It simply delays the process for no more than eight years, assuming the indictment is delivered January 20th at 12:05 PM.
Do you think that Acting President Sambora could preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes there? Or protect the time-space continuum?
That doesn’t sound right -
And since that is following article 1 (which is when the vice-president becomes president) - it follows that there will be a new vice-president. After all, if the ‘acting president’ then had an issue - who would take his place?
I would assume in the absence of a vice president the line of presidential succession is followed:
- Speaker of the House
- Senate President Pro Tempore
- Secretary of State
- Secretary of the Treasury
- Secretary of Defense
- Attorney General
Right - in case a new VP had not been confirmed, I would agree.
I would also agree that there will be a timing window - especially given the OP scenario - where that timing window might be larger and there would be ‘no’ VP.
Section 1 applies, quite unambiguously, only upon “…the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation…”
So if the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns, then the Vice-President becomes President and the office of the Vice-President is vacant, and will be filled by the new President nominating a new Vice President who will take office after confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
But the discussion here is about President Locklear overdosing at her inauguration party and falling into a coma. If that happens, the President has not been removed from office, died, or resigned. Section 1 does not apply.
Section 4 applies: Vice-President Sambora, together with a majority of Cabinet officers, will transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of her office. At that time, VP Sambora shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. He is still the Vice-President, but has the power to act with full presidential authority.
If President Locklear remains in the coma, then Vice-President and Acting President Sambora will complete the entire four-year term.
If Vice-President and Acting President Sambora then succumbed to a heart attack, an assassin’s bullet, or impeachment for driving the Presidential limo drunk, the Constitution still has the answer: Art II, Section 1, Clause 6 provides:
So if the President is in a coma, and the Acting President dies, resigns, or impeached, Congress has the power to set up a law to deal with the situation. And they have: the Presidential Succession Act Law, codified at 3 USC § 19. Section (a)(1) of that statute clearly provides:
In case that’s not clear enough, subsection (a)(2) says: “The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.”
The remaining portions of that statute designate what happens if the Speaker is unavailable, and it’s the familiar litany of succession:
President Pro Tem of the Senate, followed by the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
I see the difference you’re relying on - I was assuming that if either of these situations (coma or kidnapping) had gone long enough* - that that would be, in effect, removal from office.
*I’m sure that would be a debate unto itself.
With regard to the coma - bear in mind that one of things driving the passage of the 25th was Kennedy’s assassination - and the question: “what if Oswald had been a bit off, and JFK had survived the headshot, but in a vegetative state?” Or what if he’s badly injured and not able to carry out the funcitons of the office for several months, as happened with Garfield, but might get better? (or what if he’s trapped on a hijacked Air Force One and Glen Close needs to step in?) In the days of nuclear weapons, a country can no longer have an incapable chief executive for months.
Couldn’t impeach him; not a high crime or misdeameanour to have been shot.
And s. 6 of Article II treated “death, resignation or inability” as all grounds for the Veep to step in. But the precedents over the past two centuries had established that on death, the Veep became President. But what if the President is incapable for a significant time, but then recovers? Has the President lost office by being incapable, since Art II, s. 6 treats death and incapability in the same way? That doesn’t seem appropriate.
That’s why the 25th distinguishes in s. 1 between the death, resignation, removal of the President, and in s. 4 where the VP and Cabinet declare the President is incapable. Death/resignation/removal is permanent, so the Veep becomes President. But incapacity is something that might be cured over time, so the Veep is just the “Acting President”, same as if the President declared himself incapable under s. 3 (e.g for a short surgery).
Plus, IIRC, the concern was that the VP became president in 1963 and so there was no VP for 3 years. That sort of made speaker of the house the next in line. Maybe that was not considered a good office to have empty, maybe the concern was that the speaker was not necessarily the same party, etc.
And it wasn’t just 1963. The same thing had happened in 1945 and the country had been without a Vice President for almost four years.
Sure they could and I imagine that is what congress would have done prior to the 25th amendment had the president become incapacitated and they could not secure a resignation.
That is a lousy state of affairs though and they realized it hence the 25th amendment.
Since when do we round 218.5 off to 218? That is not logical.
The correct number of required votes for a majority of n eligible voters is n/2 + 1 if n is an even number, or n/2 + .5 if n is an odd number. Taking n/2 and rounding off to the “closest integer value” is incorrect.
Looking at it another way… let’s call the number of votes in favor “a” and the number opposed “b”. A simple majority requires that a > b. Noting that a+b=n, we have b=n-a, hence a > (n-a). Adding a to both sides, we get 2a > n. Note that the left side is always an even number but the right side might be an odd number. If n is odd, 2a > n means 2a >= n + 1, hence a >= n/2 + .5 and, if n is even, 2a > n means 2a >= n + 2, hence a >= n/2 + 1, QED.
It gets a little more complicated if some of the eligible voters fail to vote. You need to specify whether to require a majority of votes cast or a majority of eligible votes or a majority of eligible voters who are in attendance. For example, suppose you have 15 people on a board of directors, 12 of them show up for a meeting, 6 vote in favor of a motion, 5 vote against, and 1 declines to vote. Obviously 6>5 but 6 is not more than half of 12 and it certainly isn’t more than half of 15. This begs the question of what would happen if 435 MOC’s are supposed to vote on impeachment but seven of them are not in the capital that day and three more simply fail to cast a vote. Do you need 218 votes to impeach the president, or do you only need 213 in that scenario? AFAIK, the constitution doesn’t address this problem, so it would fall to the rules which the house imposes on itself. That’s fine for passing legislation, but if it were something important like impeachment, I can easily imagine an argument about how the house rules can’t rewrite the constitution, taking it to the Supreme Court.
A similar problem exists for confirming a Supreme Court Justice. It’s often said that 51 votes are needed, but you can actually do it with less. If four Senators don’t vote (for whatever reason) and the vote is 48-48, the VP could cast the tie breaking vote and confirm the nominee 49-48. Then suppose the losing side filed a lawsuit, which would be settled by the Supreme Court itself. The newly appointed Justice could end up voting on whether to uphold his/her own confirmation.
I assume that Congress could remove the Comatose Commander-in-Chief by impeachment, by defining “being in a coma” as a high crime or misdemeanor.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re wrong twice. First of all 218.5 rounds to 219 and second the definition of a majority is not half + 1. It is “more than half”.
You said “rounding,” but I did not. I merely said that votes are always integer values, so one-half plus one expressed as the closest integer value, 218. This would be closer to a truncation function, rather than a rounding function.
And while it’s true that the general definition is a majority is “more than half,” when considering votes, which must always be whole numbers, “one half plus one,” is correct, because the next lowest possible value is “one half,” which is not a majority. There are no fractional votes.
In other words, I’m not wrong even once, except that I probably should have said “whole number,” rather than integer from the beginning. Still, the function I described will always yield a correct result, since the number of voting members in an assembly may never be negative.
Sure they could. Or they could say that the misdemeanor in question is the failure to execute her duties, and express no opinion on the coma. Or they could say that any Melrose Place alum is manifestly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That’s the beauty of impeachment: it means whatever Congress decides it means.
The fact that there are no fractional votes means that the next lowest possible value is “half the total plus one half”, not “half the total”, because the latter is a fraction, while the former is not.
Obviously this is all a hopeless aside, but with the clarification that Bricker should have said the floor function rather than rounding, he is, in fact, correct.
With the caveat that there are no fractional votes and no fractional voters (and that the number of voters is at least 1):
[ul][li]More than 1/2 of 2n is at least n + 1, which Bricker’s function returns: Floor[(2n) / 2] + 1 = n + 1.[/li][li] More than 1/2 of 2n - 1 is at least n, which is again what Bricker’s function returns: Floor[(2n- 1) / 2] + 1 = n - 1 + 1 = n.[/li][/ul]
And now, back to the 25th Amendment!
Ummm … closest IS rounding not truncating
Maybe you should read Robert’s Rules of Order page 4 where majority is defined as more than half instead of
half + 1 rounded but not really rounded but truncating and calling it the closest value because my definition implies the closest integer value.
You’re definition can be twisted into giving the correct answer (on your third attempt)
- half plus one
- half plus one to the closest integer
- half plus one to the closest integer but not rounding - truncating
But that still does not make it the correct definition. I would think that you as an attorney would know the importance of precise definition and not “meh good enough”
Your honor, my client is charged with shooting the victim but the victim was stabbed.
A metal object pierced his body and caused him to bleed. Same as if her were shot so it’s the same thing. Guilty!