Re: Mel Carnahan:
Was this one of the guys that Al Franken discussed in some detail in his book, Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them ?
IIRC, the gist of his story was about what a shit-fucking nasty dirty campaign the opposition was running against him. Or am I conflating the case with all the other similar cases Franken discusses?
Well, Congress has the power to choose which “Officers” follow the VP in the line of succession. The argument is that the Speaker and the Senate Pro Tem are not “officers” (as that term is being used there – the theory draws from the Appointments Clause).
Whatever the merits of that argument, the remedy would almost certainly be just to skip any unconstitutionally included individuals (i.e., it would go VP to the Secretary of State, as it did from 1886 to 1947). Similar to how we assume that we would just skip Elaine Chao if it came to it.
Well…if the constitution does not specify something why can’t congress decide?
Someone has to decide and I see nothing whatsoever that says only “officers” (whatever they are) are eligible.
Frankly…it seems to me they could pick from a phone book if they wanted to as long as the person chosen met the very minimal constitutional restrictions (age and citizenship I think).
I don’t know beans about Al Franken’s book, so I can’t directly answer your question.
I do know the POS opponent was John Ashcroft. Whose monumental evil was unsurpassed until Rove came along whose monumental evil was unsurpassed until Cheney came along whose monumental evil was unsurpassed until Trump came along.
I will give the Rs credit for learning to be better at what they are/what they do.
I’m not sure I follow. The Succession Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 6) says, in relevant part: “Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President”
I think everyone agrees that Congress is limited to declaring only an “Officer” to be acting president and I think that’s a fairly obvious reading.
Who is an “Officer” is, of course, the question.
If the constitution is silent on what an “officer” is then an officer is whatever congress says it is.
Presuming that Pelosi is re-elected to the HOR and the Democrats hold the HOR, wouldn’t hypothetical President Pelosi be able to resign as President the day before she started her new term as a representative? So she resigns on 02 January and Chuck Grassley becomes President. She’s chosen to be the new Speaker of the House on 03 January. Grassley’s term ends on 20 January, the new line of succession kicks in, and we have President Pelosi, part 2.
Although now that I think about it, I’d wonder if there would be some way for Delaware to shoehorn in Biden as a representative and then go down the same path. That really would be a coup.
That’s not how constitutional (or statutory) interpretation tends to work. We have courts routinely attempting to define the terms that are used.
But anyway, the argument says that the Constitution does define Officer. The Appointments Clause says that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
So an "Officer " is someone who is appointed by the President (of by a Court of Law or Head of an Executive Department) often with Senate confirmation. Which would exclude the Speaker or the Senate Pro Tem.
[Moderating]
@LSLGuy, this is General Questions, not Great Debates. This is not the place for deciding who is more monumentally evil than whom. This is an official Warning for politicking in GQ.
That doesn’t define “officer”, though. That only refers to “officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for”. The appointment of Representatives, and of the Speaker of the House, are otherwise provided for, so that clause doesn’t apply to them.
Maybe. Here’s my reading: Officers whose “appointments” are “herein otherwise provided for” refers to the “inferior officers” who (if Congress so instructs) may be appointed by the President (without confirmation), the courts, or the heads of the executive departments. (That is, “herein” refers to the rest of the Appointments Clause, not the rest of the constitution as a whole).
Put differently, in my reading, the President must appoint and the Senate must confirm “Ambassadors,” “Consuls”, “Judges of the Supreme Court” and any non-“inferior” officer (for example, it’s generally accepted that cabinet secretaries are “principal officers” and must be senate-confirmed). Congress may waive the Senate-confirmation requirement for “inferior officers” and may even allow the courts or the principal officers to appoint people directly. To me, this collective universe of “officers” (mostly presidentially-appointed, some senate confirmable) and are “the Officers of the United States.” And any “Officer” would be, by definition, appointed be either the President, a Court of Law, or the head of an executive department.
I don’t recall if that’s Amar’s argument. He’s much smarter than I am. Go read the article I linked to (I need to read it again) since he comes to the same conclusion about the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem.
Edit: I should note that this debate comes up in the appointments clause context and in various other contexts where “officer” is used. But it’s never been resolved in the succession context.
My apologies to one and all. I had lost track of which category this was. Nevertheless, the offense is there for all to see; guilty as charged.
Let me respond to myself and say also:
Under Article II, Section 3, the President must commission “all the Officers of the United States”. The President has never commissioned the Speaker of the House and it would be odd for her power to rely on an act by the President.
Under Section 4, “all civil Officers” may be removed by impeachment. In the 1790s, the Senate rejected an attempt to impeach a senator, because senators are not “civil officers.”
Under Article 1, Section 6, no senator or representative may hold “any Office under the United States” while serving in the legislature. While the Speaker does not necessarily need to be a member of congress, she’s certainly not forbidden from being so (and Speakers have routinely served in Congress while being Speaker).
Anyway, read the Amar article if you want more cites. I think the textual argument is clear, but he makes is better (and with more credibility) than I’m going to take the time to.
I think this was more true in the past – electors were all “stalwart party men” who’d spent decades working for the state and national party and owed their allegiance to it. What’s different now is that Republican electors were largely chosen not based on their loyalty to the party, but loyalty to Trump. Right now that’s a distinction without a difference. But if Trump dies, they might not all be amenable to the party leadership’s directions. If it’s a close EC margin, even a few Trump electors deciding they won’t go along could end up throwing it to the House.
Simple answer: no. The VP-elect will become president and choose a new VP.
It is arguable that an officer is anyone who holds an office, whether appointed or elected. Obviously SCOTUS might hold differently, but that is my interpretation.
And I see no reason Pelosi couldn’t resign from congress but stay on temporarily as speaker.
This thread title is almost verbatim to an AP story in my local paper that I saw today.