This is not a political topic... it strictly pertains to how the following situation is handled, either by the 20th/25th amendments or the President Succession Act of 1947.
Assuming that the electoral college has already met to determine the presidency and vice-presidency:
1. Failure to take the oath of office doesn't preclude the president-elect from assuming office, and the 25th amendment makes no provision for a resignation prior to taking office. So can a president-elect resign his/her office prior to noon on January 20th? If so, does the vice-president-elect become president?
2. I'm not sure how to read Section 3 of the 20th amendment... the first part says if the president-elect dies, then the VP-elect becomes president. However, it also says that if a president "fails to qualify," then the vice-president-elect shall become acting president until a president is qualified... what is the purpose of this language? Can a president-elect qualify after having already failed to qualify, and if so, is there a time limit in which to do so (other than before the end of his/her term)?
3. If the president-elect and vice-president-elect both die/resign/fail to qualify/whatever, Section 3 also states that Congress shall decide by law who shall act as President (or how the president is selected). I assume this means that Congress doesn't actually select or vote on the president, but they make a law on how the president is determined, i.e. this is where the Succession Act takes over? Correct or no?
4. Am I correct in understanding that Congress only selects the president/VP in the event of an electoral college tie, and under no other circumstances once the EC has met?
5. If the VP-elect cannot take office (death, failure to qualify, etc.), can the president-elect formally name a new VP-elect prior to taking office, and if so, does that person still go through confirmation?
6. Is a sitting president required to replace a vice-president that dies during his/her term? Can Congress act if the president does not nominate someone?
7. If a president-elect and a VP-elect both die, resign (if possible), fail to qualify, etc., is the line of succession employed immediately (i.e. does SOTH become president-elect), or does the Presidential Succession Act only kick in after the term of such president/VP-elect begins?
Again - this is not in regards to any particular candidate. This is not a political discussion. This is simply a discussion about election procedures/law. Please, please refrain from the political comments and inevitable thread-locking until the questions have been answered.
Benny,
What are you reading Steve Berry's latest recently released novel The 14th Colony?
http://steveberry.org/books/the-14th-colony/synopsis/
As you say, this is not a political topic. The answer is very simple, the Supreme Court appoints a president.
Quote from: vogue65 on June 03, 2016, 11:08:57 AM
As you say, this is not a political topic. The answer is very simple, the Supreme Court appoints a president.
Yes, I see this thread really going places.
Quote from: vogue65 on June 03, 2016, 11:08:57 AM
As you say, this is not a political topic. The answer is very simple, the Supreme Court appoints a president.
In reality the Supreme Court would decide by parsing the wording in the Constitution to determine what the result should be. It's not a political question, that's just reality based on the role of the Court.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 03, 2016, 12:19:54 PM
In reality the Supreme Court would decide by parsing the wording in the Constitution to determine what the result should be. It's not a political question, that's just reality based on the role of the Court.
Article 3 of the Constitution is so vague that it doesn't even say how many justices should be on the supreme court at one time, so I don't necessarily know if they would actually have that power.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 03, 2016, 01:33:45 PM
Article 3 of the Constitution is so vague that it doesn't even say how many justices should be on the supreme court at one time, so I don't necessarily know if they would actually have that power.
It's not a "power" they have....it's something that would happen because there would be a legal challenge forcing the Supreme Court to rule.
And Benny, I think I know why you are asking this, but that's for another board that doesn't exist anymore.
I think John Goodman becomes president. At least for awhile.
Quote from: Skitch on June 03, 2016, 01:58:01 PM
I think John Goodman becomes president. At least for awhile.
I'd vote for him.
In answer to #2 above, there are three qualifications for someone to be president: a natural born citizen (or citizen of the US at the time one is adopted), at least 35 years of age, and a fourteen-year resident in the US.
Obviously, if you aren't a natural born citizen you can't become one. But if, say, a man who was 34 years, 10 months old on inauguration day, this section suggests that the vice president would be acting president for 2 months, until the president-elect comes of age. Similar if a president elect has lived in the US less than 14 years.
Obviously, this is a very unlikely occurrence, as it would be difficult to be elected president if you do not qualify under the constitution. But I put crap in contracts every day that is unlikely to happen, but I need to be protected if it does.
I believe that if enough things happen, I become president.
An atheist running this country at last!
Well, two if you count Obama.
Quote from: MU82 on June 03, 2016, 02:25:31 PM
I believe that if enough things happen, I become president.
An atheist running this country at last!
Well, two if you count Obama.
OH MY GOD, I think we just crossed the line.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2016, 01:46:12 PM
It's not a "power" they have....it's something that would happen because there would be a legal challenge forcing the Supreme Court to rule.
And Benny, I think I know why you are asking this, but that's for another board that doesn't exist anymore.
Actually, I can guarantee with absolute certainty that you do not know why I'm asking this. It is not political at all... I was actually thinking about where there could be a breakdown in the transition of power and what the powers and responsibilities of the various branches of gov't are during the last few weeks of a lame duck session (i.e. after the EC has met). Then I checked the link that CT posted, and motherf*cker, somebody already wrote a book about it.
Quote from: MomofMUltiples on June 03, 2016, 02:11:12 PM
In answer to #2 above, there are three qualifications for someone to be president: a natural born citizen (or citizen of the US at the time one is adopted), at least 35 years of age, and a fourteen-year resident in the US.
Obviously, if you aren't a natural born citizen you can't become one. But if, say, a man who was 34 years, 10 months old on inauguration day, this section suggests that the vice president would be acting president for 2 months, until the president-elect comes of age. Similar if a president elect has lived in the US less than 14 years.
Obviously, this is a very unlikely occurrence, as it would be difficult to be elected president if you do not qualify under the constitution. But I put crap in contracts every day that is unlikely to happen, but I need to be protected if it does.
Thank you for actually answering the question.
Quote from: Skitch on June 03, 2016, 01:58:01 PM
I think John Goodman becomes president. At least for awhile.
Pretty sure it's Laura Roslin.
Quote from: MomofMUltiples on June 03, 2016, 02:11:12 PM
Obviously, if you aren't a natural born citizen you can't become one.
Isn't there ambiguity in what the definition of natural born citizen is?
Quote from: Benny B on June 03, 2016, 02:50:57 PM
Actually, I can guarantee with absolute certainty that you do not know why I'm asking this. It is not political at all.
Let me rephrase...there are potential scenarios currently in play that would inspire one to think about the succession implications and then one's natural curiosity would carry it from there.
Or not
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 03, 2016, 01:33:45 PM
Article 3 of the Constitution is so vague that it doesn't even say how many justices should be on the supreme court at one time, so I don't necessarily know if they would actually have that power.
I'm forgetting my history a little Chitown but didn't the total membership of the Court change in the 'old days'? I have this vague recollection of FDR trying to pack it and then some law/clarification/amendment was passed to fix the number at 9. Now I do know that there's nothing other than precedent setting how long a vacancy can last. I suspect our current one will be resolved either during lame duck or in about March '17.
But back on point, without being a constitutional scholar I'd have to think that the succession order would be in place immediately after the Electoral College presented their tabulation to the Senate. I remember that official process being quite newsworthy in 2000 when Bush was elected. Everything after that moment was set in stone with the moment of transfer set by the Constitution. The funny thing about that whole process was how the media portrayed the SC's ruling on the whole Florida debacle. In the end, the SC essentially insisted via their ruling that Florida wrap up any process underway in sufficient time for their electoral votes to be properly certified. They further determined by a smaller majority that path Florida had been on couldn't be achieved in time. That latter determination was argued to be slightly premature by the minority. It really was fascinating to watch.
Good stuff. We're blessed in this country that these decisions aren't made by armies.
Quote from: jsglow on June 03, 2016, 03:26:48 PM
I'm forgetting my history a little Chitown but didn't the total membership of the Court change in the 'old days'? I have this vague recollection of FDR trying to pack it and then some law/clarification/amendment was passed to fix the number at 9.
No the number is set by law, not the Constitution. It has been at nine since the 1860s.
Supreme Court Justices also used to serve as federal circuit court judges too. It was a position that required a great deal of travel when travel wasn't very easy.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2016, 03:20:15 PM
Isn't there ambiguity in what the definition of natural born citizen is?
My birth certificate is in a mayonaisse jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch.
Damn birthers!
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2016, 03:23:45 PM
Let me rephrase...there are potential scenarios currently in play that would inspire one to think about the succession implications and then one's natural curiosity would carry it from there.
Or not
I'll grant you that. But you still don't know what's going on in my head, and it's probably better - for your sake - that we keep it that way.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 03, 2016, 03:34:42 PM
No the number is set by law, not the Constitution. It has been at nine since the 1860s.
Supreme Court Justices also used to serve as federal circuit court judges too. It was a position that required a great deal of travel when travel wasn't very easy.
Just went back and did a little reading. FDR called for mandatory retirement at age 70 and started an effort to 'pack' the court with 6 new younger justices. Yeah, that didn't work.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 03, 2016, 03:18:28 PM
Pretty sure it's Laura Roslin.
I had to Google her but she makes sense too
Quote from: Benny B on June 03, 2016, 03:51:49 PM
I'll grant you that. But you still don't know what's going on in my head, and it's probably better - for your sake - that we keep it that way.
To crib your signature: The depths of any mind that can imitate Myron Metcalfe should never be explored.
Quote from: Benny B on June 03, 2016, 03:51:49 PM
I'll grant you that. But you still don't know what's going on in my head, and it's probably better - for your sake - that we keep it that way.
As much as I love your avatar, this is the first time it gave me pause. God save us.
Quote from: mikekinsellaMVP on June 03, 2016, 04:08:30 PM
As much as I love your avatar, this is the first time it gave me pause. God save us.
(http://i.imgur.com/DyNgH1Sl.png)
Insuring your world..... and its destruction.
Quote from: Benny B on June 03, 2016, 03:51:49 PM
I'll grant you that. But you still don't know what's going on in my head, and it's probably better - for your sake - that we keep it that way.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/tdydqOILuiGEU/giphy.gif)