If a sitting president (USA) is actively undergoing impeachment proceedings but has not yet been removed from office does the president retain the full authority of the office during the proceedings? For example, could that president fire off nuclear missiles or initiate a war with another country while congress is debating on the floor? What would prevent a scorched earth response or threat there of to forestall impeachment?
The president has all presidential powers until he is removed from office.
Nothing, unless Congress decides to get their act together and act really, really fast. (lololololol).
There is also the 25th Amendment, which provides a separate process by which the Cabinet can declare the president unfit to serve and temporarily install the VP as Acting President. An impeachment could still proceed with the President sidelined in this way.
Except that the President can appeal the decision by the Vice President and Cabinet, and it would then take a 2/3 vote by BOTH houses of Congress to turn over the powers to the VP. Also, the President could then declare himself fit for office and Congress would have to rule on his appeal. Impeachment only requires a simple majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate, and there’s no process of appeal for the President.
To be precise (because this is a rather important distinction), impeachment itself only requires a majority in the House.
To be deemed guilty of the charges in the impeachment articles requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
I really have to wonder when people talk about impeachment, if they realize that a successful impeachment vote in the House only means that a trial in the U S Senate would take place in which FOURTEEN REPUBLICAN Senators would have to vote for the removal of President Trump from office.
And it is doubtful that Senate Majority Leader McConnell would even bring the vote to the floor.
Or whomever would happen to be in the Senate at the time this hypothetical were to take place.
Oh, and it’s also worth remembering that the President doesn’t actually do anything himself; he orders others to do things. The “nuclear football” doesn’t have The Button in it: The Buttons are all in various silos, airplanes, and submarines. The “nuclear football” is just a radio and a book of codes to authenticate the order. After that, it’s up to the people at various levels of the chain of command, and they might be a bit slower to follow through if the President is in the process of being impeached.
Shit, I hope not. I don’t want the button-pushers engaging in a political (or moral / ethical / other) debate when they’ve got a clear order to mash the button. If our enemies thought that our nuclear deterrent was in doubt, for example during the Clinton impeachment, that’d be a significant vulnerability.
It happened while Nixon was President, and it was considered a mark of responsibility, not vulnerability.
I don’t have a direct cite right now (maybe later), but I believe impeachment is the one case where it’s not the Leader’s call. I could be wrong, though; correction welcomed.
The National Command Authority are not in a vacuum, they will themselves be aware of what the threat situation is, so they may have confidence that an order is indeed a clear one in the exercise of protecting the nation, and not just some meltdown rant.
Back to the OP question: We have had an example in living memory, how during Bill Clinton’s impeachment he retained full exercise of the Office of President and everything it entails.
Okay, indirect cite:
[bolding for emphasis mine]
and this:
I’m not a Constitutional scholar, and I don’t know if there’s ever any discretion on the part of the Majority Leader to not hold the trial of a duly impeached federal officer (I hope there isn’t, because that would indicate a short-foresightedness on the part of the Founders), but it’s clear that when the president is impeached, it’s the chief justice who presides anyway.
There need not be a Senate trial. The Democrat-controlled House could hold public impeachment hearings ad nauseum from now until election day. The actual trial would be held by the American voters.
And you think putting the American public through several months of “ad nauseum (sic)” (nauseam) hearings would put a Democrat in the White House? I believe it would assure 4 more years of President Trump.
Depends on what the charges are and surrounding context. For Bill Clinton, who did receive a trial in the Senate, “After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton’s rating reached its highest point at 73% approval” - wikipedia.
-
The most recent impeachment rumblings are the President openly conspiring with a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
-
During Watergate, the allegation was the President conspiring with federal agents to illegally break into an office to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Note that in Nixon’s case, no recording or transcript of the alleged conversation when the cover-up was approved was actually presented. In the alleged case where President Trump allegedly openly asked Ukraine’s president for help, the call was recorded and transcribed.
On the other hand, the Senate of 2019 is nothing like Senate of 1972. The level of partisanship and recent examples of similar wrongdoing seem to indicate it would take a pretty extreme and overt level of wrongdoing for Trump to actually be in jeopardy of conviction in the Senate.
[Moderating]
In case I wasn’t clear before, this is a hypothetical question that could equally be applied to any President of the United States, not a question about Trump specifically or any other specific aspect of current politics. Let’s keep it that way.
Could the Senate Majority Leader actually not bring it to the floor to conduct the trial after the House voted to initiate the trial? I could fully understand it not passing because of partisanship, lack of credible evidence or making the rules so difficult to actually be able to conduct the trial effectively. But to outright ignore it would seem dereliction of duty.
This question is meant as a hypothetical although I can fully understand its relevance to current events.
I was unaware if during the proceedings the VP would had assumed the presidential duties during the trial or if the President would still maintain full authority. Or if something entirely different would occur.
Regarding the Senate majority leader: I assume there’s a parliamentary process to elect the Senate majority leader? It’s not an elected position in itself.
What I am saying it, if the single Senate Majority leader refuses to bring the matter to the floor, but a simple majority or 60 Senators disagree with his choice, there must be some process where they can bypass him or select a new leader.
On the contrary. The “smoking gun” tape - a June 1972 conversation of Nixon approving H.R. Haldeman’s suggestionto tell the CIA to claim “national security” and tell the FBI to drop the Watergate investigation -was released on August 5, 1974.
Following release of the tape, the Senate Republican leadership came to Nixon and told him he would not survive a Senate trial. On August 8 Nixon announced his resignation.
[/Quote]
On the other hand, the Senate of 2019 is nothing like Senate of 1972. The level of partisanship and recent examples of similar wrongdoing seem to indicate it would take a pretty extreme and overt level of wrongdoing for Trump to actually be in jeopardy of conviction in the Senate.
[/QUOTE]
No argument there. The Senate could have a smoking gun, a dead body, fingerprints from the gun, the bullets from the dead body, and security camera footage of the shooting, and there still wouldn’t be 18 Republicans who would vote “guilty.”