All Presidential candidates are dead--Constitutional question.

[kayaker]

@RioRico

PS: I recall humorous tales of an erotic ship line whose captains perform weddings (clothing optional) valid for the cruise duration. A three-hour San Francisco Bay tour would get pretty sweaty, especially with five-somes.

Not an erotic ship line, but I had a plaque on one of my pontoon boats that read, “Marriages performed by the captain of this vessel remain valid for the duration of the cruise only”.

[Lord_Feldon]

@RioRico

Since constitution and legislation seem not to specify who’s authorized, “some question” could indeed be raised. Can any sworn federal official administer a federal oath? Does that include executive appointees and ambassadors approved by the Senate, or military officers, commissioned or even NCOs? When I joined the US Army, my federal oath was administered by a recruiting sergeant. Could she swear-in a new President?

Why does the president’s oath have to be “administered” at all? The Constitution says nothing about a new president needing permission from some other party to be sworn in, and that would seem to raise a host of other problems; if someone has to be “authorized” to swear in a president, couldn’t the clique of authorized people simply refuse to do it? Why could the president not simply stand up and read it, or sign their name to a piece of paper on which it’s written?

[UltraVires]

@Alley_Dweller

Interesting. I just went through the first four states (in alphabetical order) that have faithless elector laws.

Alabama requires electors to sign a pledge that they will vote for a certain candidate and does not say what happens if the candidate is not alive. It sounds like they must vote for the late candidate.

Alaska law requires the electors to vote for the candidate that the party that selected them directs, whether the candidate named on the ballot is dead or alive. I suppose this mean that the party could switch out a candidate even if the candidate on the ballot is still alive. Electors for independent candidates seem to be bound to those candidates.

Arizona law says that electors have to vote for whoever got the highest number of votes in the election and if they “knowingly” refuse to do so, they are disqualified and replaced.

California law says “The electors, when convened, if both candidates are alive, shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent, one of whom, at least, is not an inhabitant of this state.” I do not know if a dead person is still considered the candidate of the party they represent and whether this means that a replacement candidate can be named or if they are free to vote for anyone.

I would argue that under any of these laws, a dead person is no longer a candidate and in any event is not constitutionally eligible for the office of President as the person is no longer a citizen of the United States. Further, the law is not a suicide pact. A dead person cannot serve as President or Vice President and any law should be interpreted with that spirit in mind.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@kayaker

I’ve always wondered what would happen if terrorism or natural disaster struck the Supreme Court, killing all sitting justices at once. I assume the president would just nominate replacements, but I can’t imagine that going smoothly.

As noted earlier, that happens in the Clancy novels. The new President asked his advisors for a list of respected Federal appellate judges and then nominated nine of them simultaneously, designating one of them as Chief Justice. The only other criterion he used, IIRC, was providing for broad geographic representation.

@RioRico

…Do we have a list of officers authorized to administer the Presidential oath?

No. George Washington was sworn in the first time by the Chancellor of New York State, the top state judicial official, as there were not yet any Federal judges. It is customary but not legally required that the Chief Justice of the United States administer the presidential oath. The modern expectation, but not a legal requirement, is that a Federal judge will administer the oath (as the Coolidge and LBJ examples show).

@Northern_Piper

…In the unusual case of both being dead, Congress could accelerate the election date, under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, which gives Congress the power to set election dates…

That was implied to have happened on the show The West Wing: The West Wing - Wikipedia. I have read speculation that the change in the election timeline might have been just after Nixon’s resignation, esp. if a Democrat (most likely then-Speaker Carl Albert) succeeded him.

@Lord_Feldon

Why does the president’s oath have to be “administered” at all? The Constitution says nothing about a new president needing permission from some other party to be sworn in, and that would seem to raise a host of other problems; if someone has to be “authorized” to swear in a president, couldn’t the clique of authorized people simply refuse to do it? Why could the president not simply stand up and read it, or sign their name to a piece of paper on which it’s written?

I am aware of no precedent for self-administered oaths. There are lots and lots of Federal officers, to say nothing of state officials, who are empowered to administer oaths anyway - and I don’t see why a President would want to give any reason for people to doubt the validity of his or her oath of office.