She certain must nominate a VP, but there’s no time limit on that. She could wait a month or two or even all the way to November. And then nominate a Democrat. I’m sure the Republicans in the Senate would go ballistic in that case, claiming she must nominate a Republican because they won the 2016 election. However, if the situation were reversed, I don’t doubt for an instant that a Republican Acting President wouldn’t hestiate to nominate someone from his own party.
Are you confusing me with another poster? I’m not sure what you’re referring to. AFAICT we agree on this.
Dang, I am. Sorry.
Ultra Vires.
Again, sorry.
No problem! I’ll be curious what your scholar-friend has to say.
The precedent is already established, 179 years ago, that when Pelosi succeeded, she would be the President, period, just like Tyler became President, period, on the death of William Henry Harrison. If she successfully nominated a Vice President and got her nominee approved by both houses, then she would be a President with a Vice President, just like almost every other President.
Realistically, what would happen in the event of a President Pelosi would be that she would nominate some Democrat to be her Vice President, and it wouldn’t matter which Democrat she picked, because the Senate would refuse to confirm. The House, meanwhile, would elect a new Speaker, who would be a Democrat because that’s the current majority party in the House, and whoever that new Speaker was would be highest in the line of succession after Pelosi.
If Pelosi really wanted to drive the point home, she’d say she didn’t feel it was right for her to make such an important nomination in the final year of her presidency.
No, this is fundamentally different.
This isn’t true for a VP that become president due to the death of the current president.
She SHOULD nominate GWB. In the unlikely event that he succeeds to the Presidency, he’s still barred from trying to run in November.
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.
She should nominate Joe Biden. If the Senate won’t confirm, then nominate AOC. Keep nominating liberal stalwarts and run the clock out until January.
Yeah, I think the debate will arise because the 1947 PSA did not (nor could it have) take into account the 25th Amendment which provided for a replacement VP.
So you’ve got the PSA which contemplates an Acting President stepping aside once an “inability” or also called in the same sentence a “disability” of the Prez or VP being removed. The Act clearly contemplated only one President and one VP because there was no means to replace those individuals.
But now that we have the 25th Amendment, there is a method to replace the VP. So if we take my hypo from the other thread (Trump and Pence die, Pelosi appoints Merrick Garland as VP and is confirmed by Congress) the debate would center around the idea of the “who” is the VP and the meaning of “inability” or alternatively “disability.” There is further authority in the 25th Amendment and the original Constitution that these downline officers only “act” as President when there is no Prez or VP.
You could make a semantic argument that Pelosi is not acting because of an “inability” or “disability” of the Prez and VP, but because of their deaths. And therefore she serves a full term. But death is a form of inability or disability, no? It does remain somewhat open for debate because the intent behind the PSA and the 25th Amendment are in conflict. The PSA assumes a condition that does not exist under the 25th.
I think it would be a difficult argument to say that the Speaker, or any other downline officer should continue to “act” as President when there is a constitutionally qualified Vice President ready to assume the office itself.
But there’s also a constitutionally qualified president (or acting president) – Pelosi. That seems to be the most straightforward reading of the law – she would become president and stay president (acting or not) until the end of the term.
Further, the PSA could contain a more practical and undisputed problem as well. Say Trump and Pence are at an event where there is a terrorist attack. Both are hospitalized and under heavy sedation. Pelosi becomes Acting President and she must resign her speakership and her seat in Congress.
A few days later one or both of Trump and Pence recover and regain their abilities. Pelosi is now out of a job, not only of Acting President, but her speakership and her seat in Congress. The Dems could hold a new vote and elect her speaker (no requirement that a speaker be a member of Congress) but she has lost her voting rights until the next election.
She could avoid that by refusing and letting Chuck Grassley be the Acting President, but he would have the same reasons to refuse the office, so it would pass to Mike Pompeo who would have the same reasons to refuse the office…ad infinitum.
You are conflating a “President” with an “Acting President” and making no distinction between them when the PSA and the Constitution make such a distinction. Only the VP “becomes” President. All other downline officials “act” as President.
So why, when you are comparing two individuals, one who the Constitution says “becomes” President, and another who is empowered to “act” as president when there is a disability or an inability of the VP and Prez, would you not choose the former as there is no disability or inability of Merrick Garland?
The law doesn’t make any distinction between them, aside from the word “acting”. If the law says that the “acting” president steps aside once a new VP is chosen, then that would be clear. But it doesn’t say that, so I don’t know why you’re so confident this is what would happen. The most straightforward reading of the law is that the acting President continues in this duty until the end of the term. If the law wanted them to step aside, then it would make that clear.
I think this is the first time in history that anyone has confused me with iiandyiiii. 
But as a judge I knew who would always confused me with a lawyer with a similar name, and vice versa, would correct himself by saying that his confusion was not meant to be an adulation nor an insult to either one of us.
Because of what Telemark posted upthread:
Subsection 2. Trump and Pence were unable to serve. Garland is now able to serve. Pelosi’s term is over.
Again, I admit, that the PSA was drafted in a time where there would be no Garland. It assumed that only Trump or Pence could be restored from a disability. But we cannot just pretend that the 25th Amendment does not exist. And as it says, “the” VP becomes President on the death of the President. “The” President is dead. So why does Garland not become President?
And further, during a time of such crisis, wouldn’t you want the President to be chosen by a majority of both Houses of Congress, the peoples’ representatives, instead of whoever happened to be chosen because of his or her ability to lead the House of Representatives?
But that’s not the removal of disability for an individual - the original individual VP is still dead. And I’m not convinced death is a disability - IIRC death is specifically mentioned in the law, so if this was meant to apply to death as well, then why not use the word again?
Also, “upon the death” is a discrete event, not a continual state. If the acting president dies, then sure… but the prior President’s death is in the past.
It’s a colorable argument, I admit. However the act says “in whole or in part” on the inability of the Prez or VP.
Your argument would open the debate up to absurd distinctions. Let’s imagine a terrorist attack in which Pence was killed instantly but Trump survived for, alternatively, 3 seconds, 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks, or 3 months. Under any of those scenarios, you could argue that the initial portion of Pelosi’s authority was because of an inability which puts it under the authority of the PSA—which then would revoke her Acting President status.
I cannot imagine that the Supreme Court would want to make the distinction you argue by consulting medical professionals about the exact moment of incapacity and what period of time prior to death is a non de minimis “inability” versus an outright death. A split second? A gunshot to the head versus a gunshot to the abdomen makes a legal difference in determining who is president for the remaining years?
Your textual argument of “upon the death” makes linguistic sense. But doesn’t the overall intent of the amendment mean that the drafters preferred a VP to become president instead of having a downline person so act? Further the “upon the death” language suggests that preference. We want a VP. So at the initial moment of death when we find that there is no VP, do we not look back to it when there is a VP?
That’s the guy or gal that the Constitution says we want in that office, and now we have a VP to be president when the President cannot be one. Why shouldn’t Garland get that job after having majority confirmation in each House?