His Accidency
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 03:54:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  His Accidency
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: John Tyler was...
#1
President
 
#2
Acting President
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 15

Author Topic: His Accidency  (Read 1563 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 18, 2006, 10:41:02 PM »

The text is not clear.

However, either option leads to an absurd conclusion:

1. "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

The same provision that supposedly made him president, would have made him president in the case of a mere inability to discharge the duties of the presidency. He would continue, then, to be president until the term expired, or he himself died, resigned, or was unable to discharge the duties of the president, even after the disability of the former president was removed.

Not only would this be absurd, it would conflict with the clear design in cases where the vice presidency was vacant, and some other officer would merely act as president until the disability was removed.

2. But if he wasn't president, his salary would be unprotected.

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

This important protection of executive independence would then be removed.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2006, 10:55:44 PM »

I would say that Tyler was Acting President. The Constitution does not state that the Vice President shall "become President," but that the "Powers and Duties" of the Presidency "shall devolve on the Vice President." But the precise title is not, in my opinion, constitutionally significant. Whether he was called "President" or "Acting President," John Tyler would still have held the same "powers" and would still have been responsible for discharging the same "duties." The title makes no difference as far as the responsibilities of the executive branch are concerned.

There is, as you suggest, the issue of the Acting President's compensation. This is one situation in which the Constitution cannot be taken completely literally. In the words of Sir William Blackstone, "where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them." I would read "powers and duties" to include this protection, even though a literal reading might lead us to a different conclusion.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2006, 11:27:35 AM »

During the early years of the US, there was provision in law for a special election if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency was vacant (they simply copied all the electoral college language from the Constitution, so that states would choose electors who would vote for President and Vice President.  In the interim period between the dual vacancy and the election, another person would act as President (I can't remember if it was the House Speaker or Senator Pro Tem).

Clearly, this third person would be acting President, since his role was intended to be temporary.  But how can there be a distinction between one person who exercises the Powers and Duties of the Presidency until March 3, DDDD and another person who exercises the Powers and Duties of the Presidency until March 3, DDDD?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2006, 07:26:36 PM »

I believe that the original succession clause intneded for the Vice President to act as President - why else would they leave no option to fill the Vice-Presidency in the event of succession?
The original Constitution states that Congress may provide by law for the case where there is no President or Vice President.  Congress in March 1792 (before the 2nd presidential election) enacted a law that (1) set the schedule for an ordinary presidential election; (2) defined who would act as president in case of a double vacancy; and (3) provide for a special election to choose a President and Vice President.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.