The History Book Club discussion
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
>
THE AMENDMENTS
message 51:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(new)
Sep 22, 2009 12:13PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
It was a very good question. Bentley's answer was very complete but the order of succession as it is currently stands raises some interesting pointsa) It could be argued that by including the two heads of Congress in the list, the checks and balances between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government is broken
b) There is no guarantee that the Speaker of the House would be of the same party as the President so the succession could lead to a change in political power
c) The inclusion of the Cabinet in the list breaks the link that a potential President should be directly elected anyway, although I would concede they are more likely to have executive experience than the Chief of Staff
d) By having the most senior member of the Senate so high in the list, there could be a possibility of having a very old person as VP (I think Sen Byrd is about 92) at a time of national turmoil
An interesting question and as the succession of President Ford showed not entirely academic in nature.
Mod
Yes, Sam's question was excellent. The main reason for the VP to be next is obvious; but maybe it is not as obvious with the legislative representatives. Previous executive experience is key and being elected by the people is also a consideration. With the top three succession candidates, they cover both bases.
When you get to the Cabinet Posts, it is obvious that the government was looking for strong executive experience and a leader who has run large government agencies and organizations. They may also have been looking for folks who held cabinet positions which had the greatest exposure to foreign policy as well as clout.
Since the Succession plan was based upon a balanced approach, it is true that potentially the House and/or the Senate may not be led by the same party of the President. And it is also true that this could lead to a change in political power for the Executive branch.
It is also true that Senator Byrd could potentially become President in a time of crisis; but the chances are a bit more remote these days being that he would come after the Speaker of the House (in this case Pelosi). Of course, if the Vice President dies, then the succession chain would have been broken and therefore the need for the 25th amendment and the ability to appoint a new vice president.
Gerald Ford (the vice president) actually became President upon the resignation of Richard Nixon.
Well my point with Ford was that he only became VP on Agnew's resignation through Section 2 of the 25th Amendment. He was never elected as either VP or President. Provided he could have got it through Congress, Nixon could have chosen anyone as VP and, ultimately, when he was forced to resign, as his successor as President - even including his Chief of Staff!President Haldeman - there's a scary thought!
Mod
But let us not confuse succession of the president versus choosing a vice president by a sitting president. There is a difference.
The Chief of Staff of a President could not become President even if the President he was serving died of natural causes, was assassinated, resigned or was impeached.
However, a former chief of staff could I imagine be chosen to be a potential running mate in a presidential election and could potentially be selected to be the vice president if the VP died in office (I guess also a possibility); but never a potential successor to the Presidency unless he somehow had become VP subsequently and/or in the meantime had been elected a Senator or a member of the House and had risen to either the leadership position of either the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House (both highly unlikely)
Regarding Nixon, he was a complex individual having been vice president twice and President twice and was then also impeached and forced to resign.
I doubt that the above scenario would have been an option; considering that Haldeman was found guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and was imprisoned for 18 months for his crimes; he would have been occupied elsewhere behind bars.
Ford actually was the first person appointed to the vice-presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment and when he became President upon Richard Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974, he also became the only President of the United States who was elected neither President nor Vice-President (appointed)
Before ascending to the vice-presidency, Ford served nearly 25 years as Representative from Michigan's 5th congressional district, eight of them as the Republican Minority Leader. That was not a great period in US History and Ford actually did a lot to heal the nation during these times.
Chiefs of Staff, though they have become powerful in their positions; usually are pretty much the gatekeepers and/or the President's logistical schedulers.
Usually, most presidents have felt that chiefs of staff are not elected, are not really in any complex executive role and do not have the familiarity with the American people to ever be considered seriously as presidential candidates; so they are often not considered potential future running mates, etc. Usually a running mate is someone who can gain a state's electoral college votes for the prospective presidential candidate in the upcoming election.
Secretary of States, however, used to once be the stepping stone to the Presidency in days gone by.
As far as Haldeman, Nixon and/or Ehrlichman - all of them were scary thoughts in any capacity by the end of Watergate. And Nixon had been considered a brilliant man, which he was.
Nothing is easy here in the US; the laws and rules change sometimes multiple times as in the case of the Succession Acts.
Mod
Here is a write-up on Ralm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Ema...
http://www.nndb.com/people/484/000037...
White House biography:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administrat...
New York Times:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administrat...
The Gatekeeper:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...
Time:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/art...
This is the listing of the Chiefs of Staff (White House):
http://www.nndb.com/gov/238/000043109/
Mod
Franken reads 4th Amendment to Justice Department official
http://minnesotaindependent.com/45495...
The US 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Bentley wrote: "Sam..I suspect that you are a Ralm Emanuel fan.
Here is a write-up on Ralm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Ema...
http://www.nndb.com/people/484/000037...
White House biography:
http://w..."
Bentley wrote: "Yes, Ford was a complex case.
But let us not confuse succession of the president versus choosing a vice president by a sitting president. There is a difference.
The Chief of Staff of a Presi..."
Who's Ralm Emanuel?
Here is a write-up on Ralm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Ema...
http://www.nndb.com/people/484/000037...
White House biography:
http://w..."
Bentley wrote: "Yes, Ford was a complex case.
But let us not confuse succession of the president versus choosing a vice president by a sitting president. There is a difference.
The Chief of Staff of a Presi..."
Who's Ralm Emanuel?
Mod
well i probably should've seen that coming.
Mod
Media/2009/10/02/HP/A/23834/Supreme+Court+Preview+Hosted+by+William+Mary+Law+School.aspx
SUPREME COURT:
http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Supreme-...
Mod
http://www.c-span.org/Series/America-...
THE SUPREME COURT - CSPAN:
http://supremecourt.c-span.org/
Mod
http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Politics...
CSPAN CAPITOL SPOTLIGHT:
http://www.c-span.org/Capitolspotlight/
CSPAN CAPITOL HEARINGS:
http://www.capitolhearings.org/
THE CAPITOL HISTORY - CSPAN:
http://www.c-span.org/capitolhistory/...
Mod
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court
Jeffrey Toobin
About the Program
In "The Nine," author Jeffrey Toobin takes a look at the Supreme Court from the Reagan Administration to the present, commenting on the personalities and contributions of the various justices who have served in that time. He was quite the fortune teller in this presentation. Very enjoyable.
http://www.booktv.org/Program/8615/Th...
Jeffrey Toobin
A Previous Look inside the Supreme Court:
Mod
High court debates dog fighting videos
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/06/s...
What do you think about this dilemma and does the court have any power on the issue and/or should they be involved?
Bentley this is a great question. This case is really interesting because the documentary's makers didn't actually film the dog fights--they used stock footage. The statute here makes it a crime to depict animal cruelty -- does this mean they violated it? That question may prevent the court from getting to the issue of whether animal cruelty counts as obscenity, which is how it explains Congress's more stringent treatment of child pornography videos not offending the First Amendment. I am curious to see how it turns out. I'm inclined to think they'll get rid of the case without getting to the first amendment issue. The language of the amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." and there are other cases before the Court right now that are encouraging a literal approach from the conservative arm of the court. I think they'll be wary of too liberal an interpretation on this issue, excusing this law in this situation.
I never introduced myself. This is right up my alley, as I just finished law school and will begin working as an attorney in January, assuming I passed the bar.
Mod
Here is a fairly concise writeup found on netsafe kids.
http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pp_li_...
The "Congress shall make no law" part is the stumbling block...no question about it.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...but I do think at the community level there are some loopholes. We shall see; not sure if they have the power to do much on this; I do not think that animal cruelty should be tolerated; but stock footage might be another thing when used for a documentary. This is going to be one tough case to call. Interesting though that they decided to take this case in the first place if they did not feel that they could do something.
We are glad to meet you and best of luck in your new endeavor. Please introduce yourself when you get a chance in the introduction thread; it always helps group members get to know who you are when you post and the intros are very brief and unobtrusive.
All best,
Bentley
Mod
Did you know that there were now six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court, two Jewish justices and only one Protestant who is 89. Not that religion should play a role in their decisions; it of course should not; there should always be a clear distinction between church and state. But I was wondering thinking about this very curious article and fact that maybe those distinctions might be blurred sometimes...I certainly hope not. But you have to wonder about some cases dealing with delicate issues like Roe versus Wade whether religious affiliation would have anything to do with their thought processes or even what their collective discussion process might be. What do you think?
Source - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/us/...
Mod
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01...
Mod
The Supreme Court's Gift to Big Business:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/22/news/...
Bentley wrote: "The Supreme Court really did it this time...a real mockery.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01..."
AMEN!
Mod
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01..."
AMEN!
"
A shame isn't it...one of the branches where one would expect neutrality and watching out for the best interests of our country.
Bentley wrote: "Here is what Fortune magazine has to say:The Supreme Court's Gift to Big Business:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/22/news/..."
This makes me ill. The First Amendment is apparently now for the highest bidder. This article pointed out the hypocracy of the conservatives who have long called for strict construction of the Constitution rather than judical activism. How do they reconcile this with ignoring precedent? Very frustrating to see this going on at this level.
Mod
Yes, and I suspect one reason why Justice Stevens is hanging on until the bitter end.
Mod
Even McCain stated that the group was even sarcastic - certainly not befitting this court:
"I was not surprised at the Supreme Court decision," he said. "I went over to observe the oral arguments. It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act)."
A travesty really.
Mod
Editorial in the New York Times:
Published: April 23, 2010
When the Supreme Court ruled 8-to-1 this week that a federal law banning the sale of animal-cruelty videos violates the First Amendment, it reaffirmed the right to engage in even highly unpopular speech. And it wisely declined to create another category of expression outside of the First Amendment’s protection.
With this case and the court’s earlier Citizens United decision on corporate speech and political campaign contributions, this could be one of the most important terms in years for defining the constitutional scope of freedom of expression — for better or for worse.
Taken together, the rulings give freedom of speech a wide berth in two directions. The animal-cruelty ruling takes a strong and welcome stand that there should be only very narrow exceptions to the general rule that almost all content of speech is protected. That view is broadly accepted by most judges and constitutional scholars, and was reflected in the fact that eight justices from across the political spectrum joined the majority.
Remainder of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/opi...
In Amendment 20, it says that if both the President-elect and Vice President-elect "fail to qualify" (i.e. they die before they're inaugurated) then Congress can decide who becomes President in their place.
Isn't that undemocratic.
Isn't that undemocratic.
Mod
I guess the simple answer is no. We have an order of succession to the presidency (if something heaven forbid goes wrong) just like you have an order of succession for the monarchy
At least in the US, a voter gets to vote for the president. I am trying to think of a circumstance where Amendment 20 came into play. Also, don't forget that our Congress is elected by the American people too.
Here is a write-up on Vice Presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Pre...
Here is a write-up on the twentieth amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentiet...
Here is some interesting stuff on the oath of office:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_...
Here are some legal explanations for the twentieth amendment:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/co...
Okay, here's a scenario then: If between November 2008-January 2009, Barack Obama and Joe Biden both died somehow when they were both President-elect and Vice President-elect, would Nancy Pelosi become President for the next four years, if not what would happen.
Sam wrote: "In Amendment 20, it says that if both the President-elect and Vice President-elect "fail to qualify" (i.e. they die before they're inaugurated) then Congress can decide who becomes President in the..."I would say it is not democratic. We are set up to be a Republic not a pure Democracy. Remember, a president can receive a majority, or plurality, of the general vote and still not be elected president.
Bentley notes that the congress is elected which fits in with the Republic structure of our government.
Mod
Let us not go there Sam but for hypotheticals here is the United States Presidential Line of Succession:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S...
Yes, Erick I agree - a republic is an apt description of the government itself of course. But in the sense that Sam was asking; I would still answer no to his specific question. But our government is a republic although you hear a lot of politicians pontificate how they are all for democracies and a democratic form of government.
Sam one other thing...I believe that Pelosi would only finish out the term in that scenario and would be allowed to run for another two terms for president in the general presidential elections.
Oh, so she would only be the acting president during a special election.
Mod
This reminds me of a time during the General election over here. David Cameron said that in the event that a Prime Minister resigns or dies, then an election must take place within six months because their successor would not be elected by the people.
Mod
However in the US, let us say unfortunately that the President Elect died of natural causes right at the beginning of his new four year term and for some reason the Vice President passed away too and/or was not suitable. Then I guess the head of the House of Representatives like Pelosi would be president for the entire four years even though she or he was not elected by the people. Then he or she could run on their own for another two full terms.
I Just finished doing a bit of thorough research into the wording of Sec. 3 of Amend. 20, it sounds to me like if that scenario did occur, then if Pelosi (Or whoever gets the job) wanted to stay as President for four years, she would have to keep the Vice Presidency vacant, because if it was filled then it would mean someone would qualify for the Presidency and Pelosi would be forced out. A Vice President would have to be elected along side her in the next election.
Mod
Also, on a hunch, I looked at every Vice President who became President because their predecessor DIED (I put emphasis on this word because this doesn't apply to Gerald Ford, who became President when Nixon resigned) in office. It turns out that all of them kept the Vice Presidency vacant and only chose a running-mate for their re-election.
Does that support my theory or is there an explanation for this?
Does that support my theory or is there an explanation for this?
Mod
I will also do my research and post.
A president can choose a VP without an election. Agnew resigned in 1973 and Nixon chose Ford, so it is possible Pelosi in this case could choose a VP.
Mod
I was trying to come up with an example of a VP being selected without an election. Yes, Agnew did resign as VP in 1973 and Nixon did chose Ford so a replacement can be selected. But isn't that an example of a living president simply selecting a replacement vice president. We do not elect vice presidents any longer and have not for a very, very long time; so I can understand that scenario; but not the one that Sam was coming up with.
However, I think Sam is going further than that by asking if the President and Vice President were both unable to serve (goodness knows what that scenario might be - natural disaster, and other situations where I do not want to go) - if the President elect - let us say Pelosi happened to be next in line what would happen to the Vice President slot. Would she have the right by assuming the presidency in that fashion to select her own Vice President without a new election. I have not done the research regarding this.
I don't believe either that she would have to keep the Vice Presidency vacant, nor do I believe that if it were filled that this would mean that her 2nd in command (the appointed VP) would qualify for the Presidency instead of her because of her selection. I do not understand the argument how her selection in this scenario would in any way jeopardize her position or negate her ability to select a vice president to complete the term with.
Now after that term is completed and when the next election rolls around, it is possible that Pelosi in this scenario could run for the office of President on her own and it is also a possibility that the appointed VP (the one of her choosing) could also decide to run on his own too and both be primary contenders for their party's choice for the presidential candidate. Then of course the next election would decide the victor and it might occur that the person who Pelosi selected to be her VP might be elected in the next election to be the next elected President.
However, Sam, in the US, vice presidents are not elected by the people. We vote for president; each party's candidate selects their own running mate (their VP) and the party and candidate that wins is the winning ticket. I guess that sometimes the Vice Presidential candidate can also be influential. In the case of John McCain, some folks would not vote for McCain because of his age and because his running mate if something should happen to him might become president.
First-VP selections are crucial. How about poor Thomas Eagleton who resigned during the 1972 campaign because of mental health? Now he could fight it, but I'm not sure how successful he would have been.The language of the 20th Amendment focusing on choosing a President, not a VP. So, I think your assessment is correct, Bentley. I think Pelosi can choose her VP when she comes into office, and once the election rolls around, she can choose to dump the first VP and choose another one. This has happened a lot.
Also, I think the 20th Amendment's language is vague enough that Congress can pass a law where we could have a special election, too, to choose a new President. We have that for members of Congress when they die, like after Ted Kennedy died.
My point is I'm a little suspicious as to why every VP, who became President after their predecessor died, didn't fill the VP spot and their eventual choice was elected along side them in the next election. Behold...
John Tyler (Harrison's successor)-No VP
Millard Fillmore (Taylor's successor)-No VP
Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor)-No VP
Chester Arthur (Garfield's successor)-No VP
Ted Roosevelt (McKinley's successor)-Vacant 1901-1905
Calvin Coolidge (Harding's successor)-Vacant 1923-1925
Harry Truman (Roosevelt's successor)-Vacant 1945-1949
Lyndon Johnson (Kennedy's successor)-Vacant 1963-1965
John Tyler (Harrison's successor)-No VP
Millard Fillmore (Taylor's successor)-No VP
Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor)-No VP
Chester Arthur (Garfield's successor)-No VP
Ted Roosevelt (McKinley's successor)-Vacant 1901-1905
Calvin Coolidge (Harding's successor)-Vacant 1923-1925
Harry Truman (Roosevelt's successor)-Vacant 1945-1949
Lyndon Johnson (Kennedy's successor)-Vacant 1963-1965
Mod
I agree that VPs are very important and I also feel for poor Thomas Eagleton; but you are right in your assessment; of course I can think of a few presidents who never sought counseling who should have.
I also agree that the language of the 20th amendment is more presidential focused as it should be. I think that you are correct in terms of VP selection. And I am glad that you agree that Pelosi could choose her VP if all of a sudden she found herself in this situation.
I will do some more research but I believe the line of succession is clear and that congress would abide by that. I think the member of Congress passing scenarios are handled differently from state to state.
Mod
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.
Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Mod
That is an interesting observation Sam and one that bears some research. There must be a reason for the similarity. But what that is we will try to find out.
I think I found our answer. Before 1967, it was not mandatory to fill a VP vacancy. This changes after JFK as the Senate website suggests:Finally, after the death of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the resulting vice-presidential vacancy, Congress debated a constitutional amendment related to the structure of the vice presidency. In 1967, the Twenty-fifth Amendment, addressing presidential vacancy and disability, became part of our Constitution. The absence of any provision for filling a vice-presidential vacancy had become intolerable in the modern era. Added impetus for the change came from a growing public concern at the time about the advanced ages of President pro tempore Carl Hayden, who was 80, and House Speaker John W. McCormack, who was 76. The amendment states that the president may appoint a vice president to fill a vacancy in that office, subject to approval by both houses of Congress. Before a decade had passed, the provision was used twice, first in 1973 when President Richard M. Nixon appointed Gerald R. Ford to replace Spiro Agnew, who had resigned, and again in 1974, with the appointment of Nelson Rockefeller after Nixon himself resigned and Ford became president. The amendment also sets forth very specifically the steps that would permit the vice president to serve as acting president if a president becomes "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." Each of these changes further reflected the increased importance of the office.
(Source: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/h...)
So, they passed the 25th Amendment. This does not answer why these presidents decided not to bring on a VP after they assumed office.
Mod
U.S. Constitution: Twenty-Fifth Amendment
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Amendment Text:
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868 (other topics)The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment (other topics)
The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation (other topics)
Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment (other topics)
More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Andrew E. Taslitz (other topics)Thomas McInnis (other topics)
Thomas K. Clancy (other topics)
Christopher Slobogin (other topics)
Stephen J. Schulhofer (other topics)
More...
