Will a blood clot force Cheney to step down?

This Is London ^ | 3-6-2007 | an idiot in London

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

Dick Cheney has been diagnosed with a blood clot in his left leg, leading to speculation he will be forced to resign as U.S. Vice-President.

The 66-year-old has a history of major health problems, including four heart attacks, and has undergone quadruple-bypass surgery.

He is a driving force in both the war in Iraq and the 'war on terror' and his resignation would be a huge loss to George Bush.

The vice-president is the leader of Washington's neo-conservatives and is believed to be a dominant influence on Mr Bush's military and foreign policies.

[HardStarboard]

>>> The nomination of Pelosi would be about as likely as a space alien walking through my door right now.<<<

With the level of hate for Bush and Cheney amoungst our liberal-wacko friends, the odds are still too high for my liking.

How sure are you there aren't lots of space aliens?

[The Pack Knight]

Apologies to you NP. The Anti-Nepotism Act was passed in 1967 post Bobby Kennedy.

I dug up the text of the Act. Here's the operative paragraph. (5 USC Sec. 3110)

b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

Note the term "appoint", and no exception is made for the office of Vice President. One might argue that the term "nominate" isn't there, but that could be construed as advocating for employment. The President IS covered by this law (exceprt from paragraph A)..

(2) "public official" means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress)...

And yes, since I know you're all dying to read more of this scintillating prose, here's the link.

Document on uscode.house.gov (lengthy URL)

So, in short, no, the President cannot nominate his brother as Vice President. The Anti-Nepotism Act is the law, and it conflicts with nothing in the 25th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.

[The Pack Knight]

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." I see no reason why this cannot apply to the Vice President, if Bush so chooses.

One COULD make the argument this clause only applies to appointments made under Article II, Section 2. If that's the case, read the previous paragraph...

..and he 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...

The Vice President's appointment is "herein otherwise provided for", namely in the 25th Amendment, which states, in 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.

I suppose he could commission an Acting Vice President, but since he cannot formally take the office before confirmation by both Houses of Congress, I don't think that Acting Vice President could be considered the lawful Vice President for purposes of Presidential succession.

In short, I do not think the President could fill a vacant Vice Presidency through recess appointment, at least not without leaving the Speaker as his (the President's) lawful successor. IF the Vice President steps down (not going to happen), and IF Congress refuses to confirm a successor (even less likely, unless the President nominates someone way out there), the President will likely serve out his term without a Vice President.

[Stone Mountain]

Sadly, far too few posters here, now, know even the most basic thing about politics or government and it keeps getting worse. Like you, I too am fed up with the sudden plethora of really ignorant posts.

Geez, lighten up. So some people posting here are ignorant. Well, it's a good thing they're posting here so they'll get enlightened, right?

[saganite]

Bush gets to make the nomination. You honestly think there's a chance he would nominate any Democrat much less her?

[zendari]

Then the question becomes:

Does "herein" refer to the entire Constitution, or only Article II?


I guess the other question is how long litigation of this would take through the courts and whether it would even be done.

[The Pack Knight]

Does "herein" refer to the entire Constitution, or only Article II?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that it wouldn't be the entire Constitution, considering the only other positions whose appointment is provided for in Article II is that of Electors and of the Vice President. Furthermore, the 25th Amendment specifically revises Article II. This clause is almost certainly there to prevent the President from claiming the power to appoint members of Congress and other elected officials. And, lets not forget, the Vice President is not simply a member of the President's staff or an officer of the executive branch, but an elected official in his own right. The process for choosing a Vice President is clearly laid out in the Constitution, separately from the President's authority to appoint Officers of the United States.

I'm more sure of this now than I was when I started; the President doesn't have the authority to appoint a Vice President unilaterally, even through a recess appointment. Nor, I think, should he. We may like the current President and dislike the current majority in Congress, but that's not a good enough reason, for me anyway, to give the President more authority than he was intended to have.

[HardStarboard]

Look saga....I finished high-school. I understand how Presidential succession works.

You started out by asking "who mentioned Pelosi?"

I merely pointed out that Pelosi is in the line of succession - evidently the fact I didn't qualify that by saying "in the tragic case both the POTUS and VPOTUS were to die" seems to have gotten your shorts in a knot.

Hopefully, you'll learn to cope.

[snugs]

The speculation on this thread is ridiculous for the third day running despite the blood clot we have photos of the VP going about his normal business. Here today on Capital Hill at a joint meeting of Congress

Vice President Dick Cheney and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (R) await the arrival of Jordan's King Abdullah to address a joint session of Congress in the U.S. Capitol in Washington to speak about peace in the Middle East March 7, 2007

[Kevmo]

Then it would actually be advantageous for someone like Hunter to turn it down? I'm not so sure about that. He would, to be sure, get all the publicity he needs either way. But having Air Force One, media access, republican support, and even all that extra time (what does a VP do, anyways?) would come in real handy at this stage of a campaign.

[saganite]

I made reference to Pelosi because you brought it up. She wasn't even mentioned in the article. Your "chuckling" at the thought of her taking orders from Bush is a non sequitur. It would never and can never happen. I can't help it if you don't know what you're talking about. You say you graduated HS. Good for you. You didn't get your money's worth though.

[HardStarboard]

Your memory of what you wrote is....flawed, to be charitable.

Your post #3 on the thread says:

"I didn't see any mention of Pelosi in the article. Where did you get that?"

That was before I had uttered a word.

High School was where I learned the heirarchy of succession to the Presidency. Graduate school was where I learned not to suffer fools gladly. Cheers

[saganite]

You're right. Your first post was the equally obnoxious post 93. Sorry for casting blame where it doesn't belong.

[nopardons]

Thanks! I knew that I was right, but my HTML skills are almost nonexistent, so I couldn't post that.

[CyberAnt]

"... not Carl Albert ..."


I never said Carl Albert became VP .. what are you talking about ..??

Gerald Ford was NOMINATED FOR VP - and was a voted into office. What does that have to do with Carl Albert ..??

[CyberAnt]

Well .. most of the people who have been on FR as long as you have are usually former McCainiacs .. so I was guessing your dislike of Bush had something to do with McCain.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. it's just the democrats wish-list .. getting rid of Bush and Cheney.

They have a special reason now .. they believe it would put Pelosi in the WH!

They are in effect like a "shooter" - foolishly believing that all they have to do to gain power is SHOOT the competition. That's so juvenile and petty.

[The Pack Knight]

I was agreeing with you. Carl Albert was the Speaker of the House. Ford was the minority leader. If the original poster was right, Carl Albert would have been Nixon's VP, and then President.

[The Pack Knight]

Tell me that's in a "Caption this photo" thread.

[edsheppa]

I have never liked McKeating. But if it hadn't been for CFR, I might have been able to hold my nose and vote for him in the end.

And I don't know why you say I dislike Bush. I voted twice for the man. But I'm a conservative first and, while I praise him for many good things, I don't hold my dissent when he does something wrong.