Can the president fire an appointed vice president?

[AGA]

If the elected vice president (whom the president cannot fire) resigns and is replaced by someone appointed by the president, can the president fire the new vice president?

[brucejoel99]

No. An appointed Vice President, once confirmed by Congress, is as much a full-on Vice President as an elected Vice President is, & as such, is entitled to the same privileges & duties that an elected VP is (including not being fireable).

The only way to remove a VP - be they elected or appointed - is through the same constitutional process necessary to remove a President: impeachment by the House, & conviction by the Senate. The President could always try to make the VP's life miserable in hopes that the VP will resign, of course, but they can't fire the VP.

[Del Tachi]

No.  Vice Presidents are (and always have been) elected in their own right.  However, under normal conditions most chief executives have the political capital necessary to ask for the resignations of their minors.

[President Johnson]

No, as already stated. The constitution makes no distinction between elected and appointed vice presidents. Just as a president who succeeded to office from the vice presidency has the same powers and duties than an elected head of state. An appointed vice president can only be removed through impeachment, death or resignation. If the president is in his first term, he could pick a new running mate in the next election, though.

If dismissing an appointed vice president was possible, Garrett Walker would have fired Frank Underwood in House of Cards Season 2, when he started realizing Frank sabotaged his presidency behind the scenes.

[brucejoel99]

No.  Vice Presidents are (and always have been) elected in their own right.  However, under normal conditions most chief executives have the political capital necessary to ask for the resignations of their minors.

Gerald Ford & Nelson Rockefeller beg to differ.

[Del Tachi]

No.  Vice Presidents are (and always have been) elected in their own right.  However, under normal conditions most chief executives have the political capital necessary to ask for the resignations of their minors.

Gerald Ford & Nelson Rockefeller beg to differ.

'

Both were still "elected" in their own right (by the Senate).  I suppose their nominations could have been withdrawn before the Senate confirmed them, however.

[brucejoel99]

No.  Vice Presidents are (and always have been) elected in their own right.  However, under normal conditions most chief executives have the political capital necessary to ask for the resignations of their minors.

Gerald Ford & Nelson Rockefeller beg to differ.

'

Both were still "elected" in their own right (by the Senate).  I suppose their nominations could have been withdrawn before the Senate confirmed them, however.

Yeah, I'd still argue that "nomination/confirmation" is different from "election," but fair enough.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No.  Vice Presidents are (and always have been) elected in their own right.  However, under normal conditions most chief executives have the political capital necessary to ask for the resignations of their minors.

Gerald Ford & Nelson Rockefeller beg to differ.

'

Both were still "elected" in their own right (by the Senate).  I suppose their nominations could have been withdrawn before the Senate confirmed them, however.

And the House.

The matter of withdrawing the nomination is interesting, though. I suppose that once both houses confirms you, that seals the deal and you're, for all legal purposes, a Vice President, or Vice President-elect equivalent, and swearing in is mostly a formality, since terms for elected President and Vice President began automatically.

If we were to look for fictional examples, in lack of RL ones, Jack Ryan was confirmed as VP, but not sworn-in before the plane hits the Capitol, killing the President, and he still succeeded the office, despite not being sworn-in as VP. If swearing-in was a prerequisite, then a cabinet member who was a designated survivor at that time (the novel mentions two cabinet members surviving, due to being absent) would've succeeded Durling.

[Kingpoleon]

The real question is whether, upon being confirmed by the Senate and House, is then a confirmed official appointed by the President, like the rest of the Cabinet, or if he assumes the status of an elected official. I suspect the secondary confirmation of the House is indicative of the latter, and SCOTUS would likely agree. Asking for his or her resignation, instead of dismissal, is still allowed.

[brucejoel99]

The real question is whether, upon being confirmed by the Senate and House, is then a confirmed official appointed by the President, like the rest of the Cabinet, or if he assumes the status of an elected official. I suspect the secondary confirmation of the House is indicative of the latter, and SCOTUS would likely agree. Asking for his or her resignation, instead of dismissal, is still allowed.

Yeah, I'd think the fact that it's still the same job means the same rules apply.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The real question is whether, upon being confirmed by the Senate and House, is then a confirmed official appointed by the President, like the rest of the Cabinet, or if he assumes the status of an elected official. I suspect the secondary confirmation of the House is indicative of the latter, and SCOTUS would likely agree. Asking for his or her resignation, instead of dismissal, is still allowed.

Well of course, just as you can ask for an elected Vice President's resignation, and she or he can still tell you to f**k off.

Interestingly, before the 1956 election Eisenhower suggested to Nixon it might be better for him to exchange the vice presidency for a major cabinet post since "no sitting VP was elected President since Van Buren". Nixon, naturally, knew a cabinet secretary can be sacked at hand and smartly declined.