Supposin' we get a President Pelosi between now and November...

Politics & Elections
1

Just hypothetically speaking, suppose both the president and vice president deeply breathe in the air of someone around them that has COVID-19. And suppose they both contracted said disease. And then suppose both ended up shuffling off this mortal coil before, say, summer.

I know, that’s a lot of supposin’. But if you’ve read this far, I ask you to just play along:

Does the newly-sworn-in President Pelosi pick a veep? (is it required? would the Senate even allow a confirmation vote?)

If the answer to the above is a “yes,” who do you suppose she would pick? Biden? A random place-holder? Dr. Fausi? Her favorite primary campaign drop-out? Would she confer with Biden and perhaps pick the person he was planning on naming as his running mate?

If the answer to the above is a “no,” how would a Senate stone-walling affect the running of the country and/or the campaign during this health and economic crisis?

What would be the shrewdest maneuver the Dems could pull off if Pelosi became president ahead of the November election?

Who would the Republicans throw up to run? A moderate? A Trumper?

2

My guess is that she picks Mitt Romney to be VP for that short period of time.

3

I was actually thinking he’s the guy the Republicans would quickly nominate. No way he would get that job and Pelosi’s veep slot all in the same summer.

4

It would matter for the cabinet, but not for the VP, I think. She could dismiss Barr and all the other clowns and cronies and put real decent, competent people in those roles.

5

The most common interpretation of the 25th amendment is that Pelosi would become the Acting President and would govern until a new VP was nominated and approved. At that time, the new VP would become President and Pelosi would be out. There’s no requirement that she nominate a VP, nor any requirement that the Senate and House hold a confirmation hearing.

Whether all that could or would take place before the November election is unclear.

6

She can clean house, but the problem is that McConnell will likely shoot down most any cabinet picks she puts forward. Anyone serving in the various cabinet level posts will most likely be doing so in an “acting” capacity until the Dems manage to wrangle control of the Senate.

Speaking of which, what sort of limitations does an “acting” appointee have that a fully confirmed appointee doesn’t?

7

She can clean house, but the problem is that McConnell will likely shoot down most any cabinet picks she puts forward. Anyone serving in the various cabinet level posts will most likely be doing so in an “acting” capacity until the Dems manage to wrangle control of the Senate.

Speaking of which, what sort of limitations does an “acting” appointee have that a fully confirmed appointee doesn’t?

8

From what I’ve learned in the last 3 years an acting appointment has all of the powers of a regular appointment they are just limited to only having the job for 6 months.

I think my favorite thing would be watching McConnell’s panicked backpedaling when she tried appointing someone to the supreme court.

9

I think that with Trump and Pence both gone, the Republican position dissolves. Mitch can do what he does now because it serves the Executive. Without Executive support, Mitch’s position gets a lot weaker. He’d still kill any of Nancy’s picks, but with elections forthcoming and no demagogue to rally the Republicans around, he’d me more concerned with his own survival then anything else. Plus he’d be back to being a single-income family cuz Nancy would fire his wife’s ass in a heartbeat!

10

We just did this: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=895449

The Constitution says that the President “shall” nominate a new VP, not discretionary. VP is required to be confirmed by both Houses, not just the Senate. Once VP is confirmed the majority and IMHO the correct opinion is that the newly confirmed VP becomes President replacing Pelosi.

Putting all personalities aside, it needs fixed because it creates an untenable situation where an Acting President only loses his or her power once a Vice President that he/she nominates is confirmed. There is a temptation to delay or refuse altogether to nominate a VP, or if forced to do so, nominate someone wholly unacceptable like Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber), allow him to be refused, and continue down the list of every violent patient in an insane asylum or violent prisoner so long as they are over 35 and a natural born citizen. Could the Acting President nominate herself? And pledge to continue to nominate ridiculous candidates unless she is confirmed?

It’s a flaw in the Constitution/statute that allows a person to hold onto power by acting in bad faith.

There is also a good argument that the Speaker and the President pro temp of the Senate are not “officers” within the meaning of the Constitution and are ineligible.

11

I don’t think you successfully made your case. Pelosi could easily, in good faith, nominate someone the GOP Senate wouldn’t confirm – say, one of the more liberal Senators, or a very liberal governor. And there’s no language that you’ve demonstrated about the “Acting President” stepping aside for a confirmed VP to become president. AFAICT, the Acting President remains President for the remainder of the term, unless they resign or otherwise can’t fulfill their duties.

12

Well, is that a good faith nomination then? If I know that I will nominate someone who will never in a million years be confirmed and I get to keep acting as president?

Further, I thought I made my case and Northern Piper agreed with me and that is rare for him. :slight_smile: What part do you object to in the other thread? The 1947 PSA has “bumping” provisions.

13

If the standard is “the GOP will not confirm any Democrat”, then of course it’s good faith! A sitting Senator or Governor is an entirely reasonable nominee for VP. It’s not “bad faith” just because the GOP doesn’t want to confirm them.

I didn’t see any verbiage in the Amendment (or elsewhere) that makes it clear that the Acting President steps aside for the VP (or anyone else). AFAICT, if Trump and Pence keel over, Pelosi becomes President (acting or not) and stays President until the end of this term. What verbiage suggests that this “acting” period ends in some other way?

14

If the President dies then the VP becomes President and a new VP is appointed.

If a new VP is appointed (for whatever reason) then if the President is removed from office (for whatever reason) the VP really does become President for the remainder of that term and another person is appointed VP - we have already done this. Richard Nixon’s VP Spiro Agnew resigned. Gerald Ford was appointed. Nixon resigned. Ford became President and appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his VP for the remainder of the term.

By extension, I would assume that if both Trump and Pence are no longer in their respective offices (for whatever reason) then Pelosi becomes the Acting President and will remain President for the remainder of that term, and presumably would also appoint a VP. Of course, at this point there may not be time to complete that process (Ford had no VP from August when he became President to December if I recall), and given that there will be an election in November in any case it may not matter if she has a VP or not - the worst that would happen, if she, too, was no longer in the office is that they’d just go further down the succession list.

15

Andy, it is my belief, as I said in that other thread, that you are entirely wrong in your interpretation. It’s my belief that - should Pelosi move up - she will be President for the remainder of this term. Having a VP confirmed does not remove her from office.

I’d be interested in your sourcing your ‘majority opinion’ argument.

Nonetheless, I credit your belief and have dashed off a note to a friend of mine who is both a constitutional lawyer and a PhD in Political Science (name withheld unless he gives me permission) who is widely published on the American system of government. When he replies, I’ll post it here in it’s entirety.

How’s that?

16

That the 25th Amendment does not include all the things the Succession Act mentions does not mean it moots those on which it is silent. ISTM that after the Amendment passed what would have been in order would have been to pass a new Succession Act that derives its authority from the newly amended constitutional language and that covered more possibilities.

As it stands now, the amended constitutional language deals only with the Presidency and VicePresidency under the assumption of certain scenarios:

(A) The traditional, happened-several-times-before ones of permanent vacancy of the sitting President wherein sitting VP ascends to President; or when President is still in office, but permanent vacancy of a sitting VP happens.

Before the passage of the amendment, when there was a VP succession or a midterm vacancy of the VP, the rest of the term simply passed with no VP. This was done away with and put into effect for the Nixon/Agnew/Ford/Rockefeller sequence, but is important when looking at the situation once you start going down the rest of the order. More on that later.

(B) The temporary incapacity of the President. Before, this was entirely unmentioned and people were concerned about for example who was really calling the shots after Wilson had his stroke. The need was seen to clarify that. Notice nothing was said of the temporary incapacity of the VP, confirming by omission the utter functional innocuousness of that office in normal times.

The text of the 25th Amendment does *not *enter into any discussion however of what happens in the situation of absence of both or of what is the scope of the Acting Presidency in cases other than incapacity of POTUS. What happens in the absence of both officials remains entirely governed by statute.

Meanwhile, the 1947 Succession Act was written at a time when in the case of the death/removal/resignation of a sitting VP, the office of VP would have been allowed to remain vacant for the rest of the term.

As pointed out, the Act’s “acting” provisions contemplate the possibility of the specific living person or persons higher up in the chain being temporarily disabled, or prevented from taking office on the mandated date, but with the possibility of that situation being corrected, upon which the presidential powers would go back up to the highest-ranking and qualified (the “bumping” provision). However… since when that law was passed, if the sitting VP was removed/died/resigned, he would NOT have been replaced, in a subsequent vacancy of the President the Speaker would become Acting President implicitly for the rest of the term since the only way to refill those offices was the next election.

Apparently Truman favored a provision that if the vacancies happened before the midterm election, you’d have a special election just to finish the term (as happens with many Senators). That did not happen.

IMO the Succession Act *should *have been amended after '68 to acknowledge that now the Constitution provides for filling the vacancy as VP, and to specify explicitly whether or not that means the #2 and lower persons in the chain will accede to Acting Presidency only as caretaker Head of Government until a new VP is confirmed and then automatically becomes the new President by Right .

17

What happens if Trump and Pence contract Covid 19. Pence dies right away but Trump lingers for a week or so. And before he dies he nominates somebody, let’s say Mike Pompeo, to replace Pence as VP.

Trump then dies before Congress can act on his nomination. Pelosi becomes President following the line of succession. What’s the status of Pompeo’s nomination? Does it automatically disappear when the President who made it dies? Can a new President withdraw a nomination that was made by her predecessor?

18

Pelosi would nominate Hillary for VP.

19

Tramp’s (on anyone’s) nominated VP must be approved by both houses of Congress. In your scenario, Pompeo is unlikely to run the (D) gauntlet in the House of Reps. Tramp’s nomination remains before both houses, where it rises and falls like a fat loogie. Pres. Pelosi needn’t bother withdrawing. Where’s the “beating a dead horse” emoji?

20

I would be interested in seeing a cite for your first point. I have never heard that interpretation.

As for your second point, Section 2 disagrees with you. Note the use of the word “shall”.