If the President of the US dies, at what point does the Veep become President?
[ul]
[li]At the moment of the President’s death?[/li][li]Upon being notified of the President’s death?[/li][li]Upon taking the oath of office?[/li][li]At some other time between the death and the oath?[/li][/ul]
Consider the this scenario. The VP is sitting as President of the Senate. During a rollcall vote he is quietly informed that the President has died. He does not relate this information to anyone on the Senate floor. The vote is tied. Can the VP then vote to break the tie, or would the President’s death invalidate his vote?
Bonus points if you can name the controversial early 60s film in which this scenario occurs.
According to our AP Government teacher, the VP becomes President instantly. This isn’t contradicted by the Constitution, which just says “shall become” with no qualifiers.
Actually, it is covered in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6. This is instantaneous. However, according to the United States Code Annotated, Title 3, Sec. 19, if the President and Vice-President are dead, resign are incapacitated, etc., the Speaker of the House does not get to be acting President until he resigns as Speaker, indicating a lapse of time.
He becomes President at the moment of death of the incumbent President. He may not excercise the powers of the Presidency until after he takes the oath of office. Picky detail but important.
Side note: Where Drury/movie scriptwriter got that from, in fact, is the fact that Harry Truman was actually in the chair presiding over the Senate at the moment he legally became President.
Sure he could. the oath is just a formality. VP could exercise the powers without taking the oath at all, such as when the president is temporarily incapacitated.
Read the flippin’ Constitution, Stewie. (You’re starting to sound like your father! ;))
When the V.P. is serving as acting president, he’s doing so under a specified process outlined in Article XXV, and presumably his own oath as vice president governs his conduct during a temporary stint as acting president.
But when the president dies, resigns, or is convicted on impeachment, the vice president becomes president. And the above provision of the Constitution is binding, as the supreme law of the land.
Full points to Otto – that was quick. The constitutional question doesn’t come up in the film, because the VP declines to cast the tiebreaking vote. However, he is asked by the majority leader why he didn’t, implying that he could have.
From the replies so far, it appears that its still unclear whether the VP can vote in this scenario.
I’d be surprised if anyone made a fuss if he did cast the tiebreaking vote.
After modifications to the constitution, the President gets to appoint a new Vice President anytime that office is vacant, which it obviously would be in the case of a sitting Vice President assuming the office of President due to the President exiting office early (be it through death, impeachment, etc.)
And that new appointed vice president would obviously vote the same way on the tie-breaker that the former VP would, so I think the politicos in Congress would probably consider it a moot point.
It’s a novel question. Most discussion of this issue revolves around when the person can assume the powers of the presidency, not around when they lose the (very limited) powers of the vice presidency.
Naturally, we won’t get a definitive answer except in the extremely unlikely event that this happens and gets litigated. Courts are reluctant to interfere with the internal workings of the legislative branch; if the Senate recognizes a particular person (in this case, the recently promoted vice president) as its presiding officer and that person declares a bill passed or a nomination confirmed, courts won’t usually intervene.
But that assumes good faith on the part of all parties involved. If the VP knew of his or her promotion, and continued to act as VP anyway for political gain, one hesitates to speculate on the result. Certainly it would be an inauspicious beginning to a new administration!
The Senate is deadlocked over the appointment of a controversial Secretary of State. The VP, Harley Hudson, learns of the death of the President during the rollcall vote. He wants to appoint his own Sec of State. Although a tie vote in the Senate means the motion to advise and consent to the appointment fails, Hudson makes a little speech about how he chooses not to exercise his right to vote and then announces the death of the President.
Nowhere near as good as the way it played out in the book IMHO.
Would it have been? I was under the impression that in order for anything to pass in the Senate, it needs a majority. 50 is not a majority - and with the office of VP being vacant, then there is no one to cast a tie-breaking vote, and the motion (and nomination) would fail.
