6
   

Can a former Prez be appointed Vice Prez???

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 01:13 pm
Setanta wrote:
Your claim about what i am saying is unfounded, and i don't appreciate having words put into my mouth.

Oh please, don't get your panties in a twist. Nobody's putting words in your mouth. Rolling Eyes

Setanta wrote:
Finally, i strongly suspect that if it ever came to the issue, the Supremes would have far less difficulty in resolving the issue than your position suggests.

I'm confident it will never reach the supreme court because we will never be faced with this situation. It will remain a mildly diverting intellectual exercise.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 02:14 pm
I agree that the situation is never likely to arise, nor the Supremes to rule in the matter.

But i see no purpose in continuing to discuss this, other than to note that my "panties" are not in a twist, but i do invite you to shove your panties up your pompous and snotty ass.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 02:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
I agree that the situation is never likely to arise, nor the Supremes to rule in the matter.

But i see no purpose in continuing to discuss this, other than to note that my "panties" are not in a twist, but i do invite you to shove your panties up your pompous and snotty ass.


I see you are in a chipper mood today Set.

Make that wood chipper :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 02:29 pm
His previous response was longer and less antagonostic.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 06:20 pm
Setanta wrote:
But i see no purpose in continuing to discuss this, other than to note that my "panties" are not in a twist, but i do invite you to shove your panties up your pompous and snotty ass.

Coming as it does from the god-king of pompous asses himself, I'm greatly humbled by your invitation, but I must regretfully decline.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 09:26 pm
Interesting. There's an ad for a heavy duty wood chipper at the top of the page now. And an industrial one, too. :wink:
0 Replies
 
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 02:20 pm
@mysteryman,
From Wikipedia:

While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear whether a two-term president could later serve as Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment both bar any two-term president from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.[8] Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election, and thus a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president.[9] The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus the courts have never been required to make a judgment regarding the matter.

8 Matthew J. Franck (July 31, 2007). "Constitutional Sleight of Hand". National Review. Retrieved April 20, 2014.

9 Scott E. Gant; Bruce G. Peabody (2006-06-13). "How to bring back Bill". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 03:55 pm
@gollum,
If this Supreme Court were to rule on this it would make a big difference whether the candidate were republican or democrat. If republican it would be a hell yes its OK, but if a democrat it would be a resounding hell no.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 04:15 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222-

Thank you.

I think it would be Bill Clinton trying to help his wife by running as Hillary's vice president.
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 04:17 pm
@gollum,
Quote:
While it is clear that under the Twelfth Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the President and Vice President, it is unclear whether a two-term president could later serve as Vice President. Some argue that the Twenty-second Amendment and Twelfth Amendment both bar any two-term president from later serving as Vice President as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the United States presidential line of succession.[8] Others contend that the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election, and thus a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president.[9] The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency, and thus the courts have never been required to make a judgment regarding the matter.


Related, and food for thought, if the same rationale were applied, then the entire line of succession for the presidency should also be required to meet the requirements for the presidency, but they are NOT. Next on the list after the Vice President is the Speaker of the House, then the President pro tem of the Senate... and number 8 on the list is the Secretary of the Interior. Except... that she, Sally Jewell, was born in the UK, thus disqualifying her for the presidency. The mechanism for dealing with this disqualification is merely that the next on the list, Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the Interior, becomes 8th in line. Thus it is conceivable that the same rule could be applied to the vice presidency, making the Speaker of the House next in line for succession, however that pretty much negates the purpose of the vice presidency. In point of fact, as we have seen in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), rational readings of the constitution can go out the window at the Supreme Court's whim.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 04:35 pm
@Banana Breath,

This is from the 12th Amendment -
Quote:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


The rest of the people in line do not have a constitutional restriction that they be eligible to be President to hold their office.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 04:54 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The rest of the people in line do not have a constitutional restriction that they be eligible to be President to hold their office.

And don't you find that odd? I see nothing in the Presidential Succession act (below) that says someone DISqualified from running directly for the presidency can't be APPOINTED to the presidency. Thus if Bill Clinton became Speaker of the House and the President and VP left... Bill would be president. (Again... at the whim of the Supreme Court)

Quote:
3 USC § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.
(a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.
(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.
(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that –
(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and
(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals.
(d) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service.
(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President.
(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them.
(f) During the period that any individual acts as President under this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided by law in the case of the President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act#After_the_Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 05:06 pm
@Banana Breath,
Quote:
3 USC § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.

(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.

Speaker Clinton would "fail to qualify".
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2015 09:16 pm
@engineer,
That's nice in theory, but in practice, things don't always work that way. In Article II of the Constitution, the president's qualifications are specified, requiring the candidate to be at least 35 years old and a natural-born U.S. citizen. But what the heck is a natural-born citizen? John McCain ran for president, and no significant authority stepped forward and said "wait, you're ineligible because you were born in Panama. Ted Cruz presumed the right to run for president despite having been born in Canada. Again, no significant authority stepped forward and said "wait, you're ineligible." And again, there remain significant questions as to whether proper procedures were followed leading to Bush assuming the presidency, or John Roberts swearing in Obama. If you don't think weasly lawyers and politicians can dance around your cited quote, you underestimate them. They'd probably start with the term "qualifying as acting president" which they would assert is radically different from "qualifying for being elected as the president of the united states" which is radically different from "holding the office of the president of the united states."
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2015 08:46 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath-

Thank you.

What significant question remains as to whether proper procedures were followed leading to John Roberts swearing in Obama?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2015 09:32 am
@Banana Breath,
The definition of a "naturally born citizen" is not in question. You can read about it here. Both McCain and Cruz qualify since they were born to US citizens. It does not mean (nor has ever meant) born in the borders of the US although that is one way to be a naturally born citizen. I think should any of this come to pass, it would be very straightforward. The first person on the list who also meets the qualifications stipulated in the Constitution to be President would take over.
Banana Breath
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2015 11:18 am
@engineer,
Quote:
The definition of a "naturally born citizen" is not in question.

The reference you cite is OPINION, not fact. Some issues in engineering have ONE absolute best answer, but the rest world doesn't work that way, especially the legal world. Most interesting issues have two or more opposing viewpoints that are all legitimate in their own ways. While your reference seems to state that a "naturally born citizen" includes one born abroad to American parents, it is NOT that simple, and I can provide a dozen examples and case law that prove the opposite of your claim. And Snopes doesn't agree with you either, stating that the issue is "undetermined."

Quote:
it's impossible to make any definitive statement about Senator McCain's presidential eligibility because the issue is a matter of law rather than a matter of fact, and the law is ambiguous. There is no disputing that, under the U.S. statutes and laws applicable to the offspring of Americans living abroad and to the Canal Zone, John McCain is a citizen of the United States. However, the difference between "citizen" and "natural-born citizen" is an important one in this case, and some of the legal distinctions between the two are still murky. (The particular sticking points in Senator McCain's case are whether the Panama Canal Zone was covered by existing citizenship laws at the time of his birth, and whether someone who was born outside the U.S. and holds U.S. citizenship status by virtue of a law passed after his birth and applied retroactively qualifies as a natural-born citizen.)

The framers of the Constitution didn't elaborate on the term "natural born citizen," there has never been a court case defining exactly what a "natural-born citizen" is, and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has definitively resolved the issue. It is therefore not completely inconceivable that someone could mount a legal challenge to Senator McCain's presidential eligibility, and that the issue would have to be decided in court:
"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be "unpredictable and unsatisfactory ... it is certainly not a frivolous issue."
The issue is even more complicated because the process of challenging a presidential candidate's eligibility is itself a murky issue, as the New York Times noted:
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision [regarding natural-born citizenship status] itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp


And many other complications to your simplistic view can arise as well. One example is a child born to American parents in Israel. That child by Israeli law can have two nationalities, and carry two passports, and they often do. Carrying two passports is illegal by American law however. Military service is compulsory in Israel at age 18 for all Israeli citizens (except Druze Arabs). and 8 U.S. Code § 1481 provides the following description of a circumstance under which one may lose citizenship:
Quote:
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required

Whether or not one does actually lose US citizenship however depends entirely on whether or not some US official has a reason to prosecute. Usually they don't.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2015 12:12 pm
@Banana Breath,
Engineer-

Is military service compulsory in Israel at age 18 for Israeli citizens who are non-Druze Arabs?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2015 12:52 pm
@Banana Breath,
Quote:
Some issues in engineering have ONE absolute best answer, but the rest world doesn't work that way, especially the legal world.


Fair enough. I had a physicist friend who would say "if you see a black sheep on a hill, you would say there is a black sheep while I would only concede it is black on one side." Personally, I have zero belief that the Supreme Court would declare that a US citizen at birth was not a "natural born" US citizen, but I'm assuming the sheep is fully black. Lawyers and physicists probably have more in common.

Quote:
Carrying two passports is illegal by American law however.

Not sure where you got this. From the State Department:
Quote:
A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2015 02:17 pm
@engineer,
Quote:

Quote:
Carrying two passports is illegal by American law however.
Not sure where you got this. From the State Department:
Quote:
A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality.

This is another area where the laws are quite murky and their enforcement is at the discretion of the enforcers. Dual citizenship wasn't recognized until 1967 in the USA, but supreme court decision, and even after that, the US discourages it and is loath to formally recognize it or otherwise embrace it. Some of the specific prohibitions that can come into play in trying to get two passports:
1) One might be applying for US citizenship in order to get the US Passport. However in the process, one is required to take the oath of allegiance in which one agrees to "Renounce or give up your citizenship in or allegiance to all other countries"
http://immigration.lawyers.com/citizenship/naturalization-allegiance-and-loyalty-to-the-us.html

2) A present US citizen might wish to get s second passport in another country but be required to take a similar oath to that country in order to get that nation's citizenship. That voluntary action pledging allegiance to another country can be taken as grounds for losing US Citizenship and rights to a US passport.
Quote:
a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice.
http://www.ascotadvisory.com/US_Dual_Citizenship.html

Again, this doesn't mean that there will necessarily be any action by the US government, generally push comes to shove only in cases such as spying, where someone for instance has US and Israeli passports and was caught spying for Israel, in which case these clauses are dug up and cited as a basis for revoking their US citizenship. This situation was among the considerations in the Jonathan Pollard case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2019 at 03:56:16