Posted on 08/28/2021 9:43:19 AM PDT by jcon40
I don’t think there’s such a “tradition” here. There have only been two appointments of a VP under the 25th Amendment, both Republicans during the same Democrat-controlled Congress. When Agnew resigned, Congress basically dictated to Nixon that he nominate Ford.
When Ford became President and nominated his own successor, he nominated the liberal Nelson Rockefeller, even though his real preference probably would have been Don Rumsfeld or George Bush. Electoral politics are usually cited as the reason, but I suspect confirmation by the Democrat Congress also played a role. Rumsfeld famously blocked Rockefeller out of any real role in the administration anyway.
Not only that but once a recall is started, the election must carry on and the office holder subject to the recall election cannot accept another political office per California law.
Possible, but not guaranteed. Remember that every one of them has held firm against that larger stimulus bill, which is why both Manchin and Sinema are so important.
...You do The Great Reset and then you tear the country down
That’s what it’s all about!
She can propose it.
The House will pass it by simple majority, but the Senate will not.
> I don’t think there’s such a “tradition” here. <
Sorry, I was talking about cabinet appointments. (I should have made that clearer.)
You need a good flaming .....
———————-
I knew I could count on someone ... Thx
I suggest that they agree to confirm Jon Ossoff. Why?
1. Kemp can appoint a Republican to replace him.
2. Half of the other Republican governors who have Democrat Senators either legally cannot appoint a Republican replacement (AZ, MT, WV).
3. Ohio has no such law, but I doubt DeWine will play along.
4. I don’t know about MD and MA, but I wouldn’t put an R governor or a deep blue state in that position even if he would do it.
5. Warnock’s seat is up in ‘22 anyway. By appointing Ossoff, we get a crack at flipping both Georgia seats.
Certainly agreed on that. I just think VP is different, particularly when there is a Senate majority at stake.
I don’t see the appeal of Newsom. He is the subject of a recall, which seems to me to mean that a lot of Californians feel he has failed as governor. If that’s what she is looking for, there are a number of former Illinois governors who would be suitable. Or Cuomo.
However it all turns out, I always keep in mind that we have, as of today, 1,241 days until our national nightmare is potentially over. Maybe.
Correct, Senate approval required.
Gerald Ford comes to mind. (Michigan senator).
Newsome would never get 51 votes....nope!
The recall vote is required by law, can’t cancel it by resigning. It’s the administration that’s being recalled.
And if your Aunt had balls she's be your uncle.
Harris could nominate Susan Collins and the Governor of Maine could then appoint a Democrat.
One more:
6. I believe opening Ossoff’s seat create’s the mathematical (if not realistic) possibility of a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
No, YOU read the Constitution.
That has been said twice already on this thread and it is absolutely 100% false.
What cannot happen is that Electors for President and Vice President cannot vote for two individuals from their own state.
Therefore, if an election were close, it would be UNWISE to nominate two Texans or two Floridians (or two Californians) since one of the two would lose the electoral votes from their home state.
But if two residents of the same state can overcome that problem, then they absolutely can be President and Vice President, that does not involve the Constitution at all.
FALSE!
I will do exactly what you suggest and refer to the Constitution of the United States. Here is the beginning of the text of Article 2 of the Constitution
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. .... Article II
Section 1
more stuff about how the electoral college worksSo, the famous "President and Vice President can't be from the same State thing that we always hear isn't the actual prohibition. The actual Constitutional prohibition is on the votes that electors may cast.
If Biden resigns the governing law is NOT Article 2, Section 1 - because we don't use the Electoral College to replace a missing VP, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate AND House.
The Constitutional text for the replacement of the Vice President is in the 25th Amendment. Again, I will quote the relevant portions:
25th AmendmentSo, there you have it. In the current case the rules governing the normal election of the Vice President have nothing to do with the process to replace one mid-term. It's an appoint and approval process, not the electoral college.
Section 1In 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.
So, yes, Kamala and Newsome could be POTUS and VPOTUS in the scenario the OP presented.
Let's get back to the commonly held myth that the POTUS and VPOTUS are prohibited by the Constitution from being from the same party. Even in the initial election (as shown above by the actual text of the Constitution) there is no such prohibition!
Let us imagine that for whatever reason that the Democrats had wanted another person from Delaware to serve as VP in 2016, and nominated them to the position.
Well, what that means is that only Delaware's electors are Constitutionally prohibited from voting for both Biden and the Dem VP from Delaware. That's because the Electoral College delegates are residents of Delaware too.
So, let us imagine then that the the Delaware electors (Delaware has 3 electoral votes) vote for Biden for President, and vote for a place-holder candidate for VPOTUS who is from another State, essentially "spoiling" their VPOTUS vote.
They have broken no Constitutional prohibitions.
The electors from all other states are free to vote for the Democratic ticket of POTUS candidate Biden of Delaware, and VP Candidate X of Delaware,
because they themselves (the electors) are not from Delaware.
There is NO Constitutional prohibition on them voting for those two candidates (POTUS and VPOTUS) from Delaware.
Because it's such a small state with so few EVs it is highly unlikely that the three missing VP votes for the Democratic VPOTUS candidate would change the result of the election.
So, that's the real story. But it' is often explained as "the President and Vice President" can't be from the same state. It's probably impractical for them to be from the same state, particularly if it's a large delegate rich State like California. Re-electing the Harris-Newsome duo would be very hard, because California (unlike Delaware in my example above, which has only 3 electoral votes) has 55 electoral votes! That would be a lot for the VPOTUS to sacrifice, and you might end up with no clear winner for VPOTUS, throwing it into the House.
Cheers!
> > Read the Constitution - both can’t be from same state.
> No, YOU read the Constitution.
Jim Noble: YOU need to read my response more carefully. You are addressing the wrong person. I was replying to FirstFlaBn, who originally made the comment that you apparently object to.
Drop the crack pipe, get yourself straight.
Both chambers must approve
Nominating Collins would be the smart move for the Democrats. Whether it works would depend on whether she agrees to it.
That would be the GOP dream team. More likely Harris appoints Pelosi. Or Omar.
Of course not. Read your Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.