Sorry, GWB may look good compared to the current incumbent, but he still was an awful President. I don’t want to reward him in any way, shape or form.
AOC is only 30, so she’s unqualified because of that. I figured first Hillary, then Bernie, then Joe, then Kamala Harris, then choose another candidate from those who ran for Pres.
I don’t think you’ve successfully made the case that there’s any functional difference between acting president and president when the last president and vp died. If the law intended what your describe, it could have made that clear, but it didn’t. Maybe it’s should, but it hasn’t.
So here’s the answer from my friend, who teaches both Con Law and Political Science at a mid-major University. He’s also been a featured opinion writer in major newspapers. He’s asked to remain anonymous because he doesn’t want to get involved in ‘Internet Stuff’.
You are wrong, Ultra Vires. Wrong, wrong and wrong. You’re making an argument without support. Can you show any reputable citation where you believe that comes from?
Doesn’t the McConnell Rule forbid the Senate from acting on such an important nomination just months before a new election?
Prediction: If Trump loses reelection and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies the next day, McConnel will unabashedly force through a Trump nominee in a lame duck session.
McConnell has already said that he would not follow that rule during Trump’s administration.
I’m not at all surprised he didn’t plan on following his own rule. I am a little surprised he was willing to say it out loud before the situation came up. I guess he was feeling arrogant.
I think it is safe to say that no one really knows whether Pelosi would be president or acting president and no one will know unless SCOTUS decides and they will surely make the decision most favorable to the Repugnants. The Votemaster had a long discussion of this a couple weeks ago (I could not find it, unfortunately) and could not reach a conclusion. One of the two hosts is a professional historian.
As an aside were either Trump or Pence to die this summer, the odds of getting a new VP appointment through Pelosi’s house give a new meaning to the word infinitesimal.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that UltraVires’ argument is upheld.
Would Pelosi be able to nominate herself for Vice President? If she did (and was confirmed) would she then succeed herself in office?
Let’s say Trump and Pence had died back in 2017. Pelosi became Acting President and stayed in office by refusing to nominate a VP. She got a taste for Presidential living. She decides to run for President in 2020 and is elected. She announces in 2024 that she’s going to run again.
“No way,” say a lot of people, “You can’t run again.”
“Yes way,” says President Pelosi. “The law says a President can’t run for a third term. This will only be my second term. I was just the Acting President from 2017 to 2020 and that doesn’t count.”
I don’t think that’s true.
The Democrats are the grown-up party. They’re not going to sit back and let our political system collapse. They’d be willing to work on a bipartisan compromise and vote for a candidate - even a Republican - who is acceptable to both sides.
It’s far more likely the stumbling block would be McConnell and the Senate.
Any candidate who was acceptable to Democrats would, by virtue of that acceptability, be unacceptable to the Republicans in the Senate. Remember, the reason Obama nominated Garland was because the Senate Republicans recommended him.
And again, the precedent was already set with Harrison and Tyler. The relevant law at the time said that the VP would “act as President”. On Harrison’s death, Tyler became fully and completely President.
There is no “maximum 10”. George W. Bush has served two full terms, and therefore is no longer eligible to the Presidency.
Any candidate who was acceptable to Democrats would, by virtue of that acceptability, be unacceptable to the Republicans in the Senate. Remember, the reason Obama nominated Garland was because the Senate Republicans recommended him.
And again, the precedent was already set with Harrison and Tyler. The relevant law at the time said that the VP would “act as President”. On Harrison’s death, Tyler became fully and completely President.
There is no “maximum 10”. George W. Bush has served two full terms, and therefore is no longer eligible to the Presidency.
What citation do you believe there is? It has never happened before, so the Supreme Court obviously has never ruled upon it. So I have no authoritative cite and neither does your friend.
I took the time to string together all of the relevant Constitutional provisions and laws. With all respect to your friend, the argument that Pelosi “is” President is unsupported by the original Constitution and the 1947 PSA.
The original Constitution clearly specifies that downline officers merely “act” as President. The debate was whether the VP only acted as President or became President because of the ambiguity of the term “the same.” What did “the same” mean? The same office or the same powers?
This debate was ended when Tyler asserted that he was indeed the President and everyone from then on through the 25th Amendment agreed with the precedent. The 25th Amendment made it explicit: The VP becomes the President.
But there is no such ambiguity for downline officers. They simply only “act” as President. Your friend dismisses this with nary a citation, and ignores the text of the 1947 PSA which contemplates “bumping” an acting president but not a VP.
Tyler made it clear – “act” as president is the same as being president.
No, no, no, no, no. 
I’m gonna scream if I keep seeing this, because it has been quoted several times:
The question was what is “the Same”? Does that mean the same “Powers and Duties” or the “said Office”? That question was affirmatively answered first by Tyler and followed as precedent and then specifically changed in the 25th Amendment.
However, nobody debates that the downline officers really become president. Only the VP does.
It is clear that the downline officers only “act” as president. No ambiguity about what “the same” means.
Now we get into the oft-had debate over whether a twice elected president can ascend to that office by means other than an election:
It specifically says that the only bar is to being “elected” President, not appointed. Further it distinguishes between holding the office of President and acting as President.
“The same” meant the same as president. So does “act” as president. If the framers or the lawmakers didn’t intend for it to be the same, they could have made it clear in the language of the law. They didn’t, so the most straightforward reading is that Pelosi, just like Tyler, would say “I’m president”, and everyone would treat them as president, and that would be it.
What is your response to the 22nd amendment which clearly distinguishes between holding the office of President and acting as President? Or the 1947 PSA which does the same thing and allows bumping? Or the original Constitution?
To me it is pretty clear that if I am “acting” as something then I am not the something. No need for the word “act” if I am the real deal.
It’d be nice if the language of the law was more clear, but in the absence of clarity, I think we’d just read it on the most straightforward way. Which means they’d be president for the remainder of the term.
If Trump and Pence had died in 2017, the acting president would have been Paul Ryan.
Powers &8^]
If I were a former Speaker of the House serving as Acting President after the deaths of the President and Vice President, I’d probably nominate myself as Vice President under the 25th Amendment. The amendment doesn’t say I can’t, and the anti-nepotism statute, 5 USC 3110, doesn’t either: 5 U.S. Code § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. In a democracy, what is not prohibited is permitted. Weird, but I think it’d work. It’s roughly analogous to a governor appointing herself to a U.S. Senate vacancy.
If Congress chose not to act upon my nomination, or voted it down, that’s on them. I would’ve fulfilled my constitutional obligation to nominate someone, and could and would continue to serve as Acting President until the next inauguration. If Congress did confirm me as Vice President, I would promptly resign as Acting President and take office as full-fledged President, and then nominate someone else to be Vice President under the 25th Amendment.
I think Broomstick was probably referring to the first sentence of the 22nd Amendment, Sec. 1: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once…” If Pence became President when Trump snuffed it on Jan. 21, 2019, Pence could run twice more for President in his own right and, if elected and then reelected, serve a total of one day shy of ten years as President.
You didn’t understand what I said. I said that if Trump or Pence died, the other could not nominate a VP that Pelosi would allow to be confirmed. And don’t forget: the US has been withoug a VP for longish times without a disaster. Nearly four years after the first Harrison died and after FDR died. That’s why there’s a succession law.
If I were President Pelosi if both died, I would nominate Biden. He wouldn’t be confirmed, but so what.