Just watching the BBC

[Coleman]

and they were reporting that Pompeo and Barr are planning to call the Presidential Succession Act to be unconstitutional. That neither Pelosi nor Grassley could become president or acting president if Trump and Pence can't serve. It should be Pompeo.

[muntrv]

1. 25th Amendment unconstitutional?

[nsd]

14. Not the 25th amendment.

The line of succession is defined by a congressional act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act

[Under The Radar]

35. We will have to get Amy's opinion on that

Just because it is in the constitution doesn’t mean it is constitutional.

[soothsayer]

2. For reals? Holy cow

Can Barr’s Covid please kick in now?

[Hekate]

11. Holy Coup, rather

Gods I hate these people

[vapor2]

32. He was shown hugging Kellyanne

[C_U_L8R]

3. Sounds like they expect someone to die

Maybe two or more.

[soothsayer]

6. They expect two people to die sounds like

[Tribetime]

29. Hopefully 4.....Barr n Pompass

[Thekaspervote]

4. Then it will have to go before SCOTUS. They can say it all they want, doesn't mean it will happen

[LovingA2andMI]

5. It's Not.

It was a LAW passed by Congress. The BBC is full of SHIT. Maybe they need to worry about what's happening in the UK and not here.

[Thekaspervote]

15. Oh no kidding!! I'm a BBC fan, but I really wish they would stay out of these kinds things

Okay.. I have no doubt that barr and pompous would dream something like that up, but really?

[Ferrets are Cool]

34. Why are you attacking the messenger? They are just reporting what they have heard from two

pompous assholes who don't give a shit about our constitution.

[Hekate]

20. I always thought BBC was fairly reliable. Don't shoot the messenger; they might be warning us.

[Thekaspervote]

25. True!! Just frustrated. Lots of illegal things are floated by these goons. it seems they

Might have wanted to put it in context...they have no power to do that and for me that’s what’s missing in their report

[Renew Deal]

24. It's a potential problem.

And would likely end up in the courts.

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14204428

Personally, I struggle to think of cabinet members as officers, but that's not the point. The point is whether congressmembers are officers.

[JI7]

7. Why wouldn't Pence be able to serve ?

[Laelth]

8. What? That's insane.

We need stability, now, and a clear order of succession, and these morons are actively seeking greater chaos and confusion?



-Laelth

[LovingA2andMI]

13. This post seems....

Trollish. To be Frank as it just bypass Pence.

[Laelth]

22. LOL. Take a chill pill. Look at my journal.

I am no troll, but, to be honest, I have no idea why you might find my post “trollish.” What did I say?



-Laelth

[BootinUp]

31. butting in to say that

was the OP that was referred to not your post i think

[Laelth]

41. Oh, yes.

That makes sense, contextually. Thanks.

-Laelth

[paleotn]

9. Yea, try that. See how it works out for you....

The Constitution is specific. Done. Finished.

On edit... They can call any fucking thing they like unconstitutional. So can the crazy guy at the end of the bar. Doesn't make it so. They don't get to make those decisions. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Government by litigation. . . . nt

[BigmanPigman]

10. I read the same thing yesterday.

I forget where but it pissed me off a lot.

[ecstatic]

12. When did they have this discussion...?

After all, trump is doing great, right??? And Pence doesn't have it, right????

[EndlessWire]

16. Not sure about this

How could they get this news?

But, if it were true, that would be setting aside the Constitution--suspending the Constitution.

[hlthe2b]

17. All right Alexander Haig Pompeo and Heinrich Himmler Barr--- even a corrupt SCOTUS can and WILL

read the constitution and apply Congress' succession act accordingly. Dream on. Maybe Alito and Thomas would go so far as to ignore the constitution, but I honestly don't think even Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would and I surely don't think Roberts would.

[colsohlibgal]

18. No Way

I can’t wait for this nefarious Criminal bunch to be be out of power and some of them to jail.

[Thekaspervote]

21. I really don't know who's worse...dotard or barr!

[Renew Deal]

23. It has to do with whether a member of congress is an "officer"

Clause 6: Vacancy and disability

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.
(Note: This clause was partially superseded by the 25th Amendment in 1967.)

The wording of this clause caused much controversy at the time it was first used. When William Henry Harrison died in office, a debate arose over whether the vice president would become president, or if he would just inherit the powers, thus becoming an acting president. Harrison's vice president, John Tyler, believed that he had the right to become president. However, many senators argued that he only had the right to assume the powers of the presidency long enough to call for a new election. Because the wording of the clause is so vague, it was impossible for either side to prove its point. Tyler took the Oath of Office as president, setting a precedent that made it possible for later vice presidents to ascend to the presidency unchallenged following the president's death. The "Tyler Precedent" established that if the president dies, resigns or is removed from office, the vice president becomes president.

The Congress may provide for a line of succession beyond the vice president. The current Presidential Succession Act establishes the order as the speaker of the House of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the Senate and then the fifteen Cabinet secretaries in order of each department's establishment. There are concerns regarding the constitutionality of having members of Congress in the line of succession, however, as this clause specifies that only an "officer of the United States" may be designated as a presidential successor. Constitutional scholars from James Madison to the present day have argued that the term "officer" excludes members of Congress.

The 25th Amendment explicitly states that if the president dies, resigns or is removed from office, the vice president becomes president, and also establishes a procedure for filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president. The Amendment further provides that the president, or the vice president and Cabinet, can declare the president unable to discharge his duties, in which case the vice president becomes Acting president. If the declaration is done by the vice president and Cabinet, the Amendment permits the president to take control back, unless the vice president and Cabinet challenge the president and two-thirds of both Houses vote to sustain the findings of the vice president and Cabinet. If the declaration is done by the president, he may take control back without risk of being overridden by the Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_6:_Vacancy_and_disability

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

27. Yes, this . . .

This is by no means a frivolous argument. Apparently, no less a personage than James Madison argued that members of Congress are not "officers" within the meaning of the Constitution. It is an unsettled question, to say the least.

People have of late been throwing out the term "constitutional crisis" willy-nilly, and usually with very little basis. But this would be a true "crisis" in that, if both Trump and Pence were to both die and/or be incapacitated at the same time, then we could have a situation where Pelosi and Pompeo could both lay claim -- and each would have a colorable claim -- to being the "acting President."

[Karadeniz]

26. With an honest SC, the succession line would remain. Having the speaker in third place makes sense

Because it in some way reflects a popular vote. I think it would be hard for Pompeo, reflecting an appointment by one and a few senators, to beat that. The secretary of state doesn't embody the will of the people or the spirit of democracy like the speaker does.

[avebury]

28. Pence better be watching his back and get a food/drink tester. nce

[Baitball Blogger]

30. It's a bloody coup attempt.

TRAITORS!

[BainsBane]

36. Human garbage

Is what these people are.

[Disaffected]

37. Good grief,

the House Speaker is elected and the Sec of State is not. What possible justification could they have for such an outlandish claim?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

38. The Speaker of the House . . .

. . . comes from the legislative branch (i.e., Article I) whereas, if "Officer," as used in the Constitution, is understood to mean someone from the executive branch (i.e., Article II) exclusively, then Article II, section 1, clause 6 would be communicating the notion that the line of succession for the President (rather obviously, the chief Article II officer holder) should be limited to those in the executive branch at that time.

There is nothing at all outlandish in such a reading of the Constitution. To the contrary, if anything, it seems more in line with the Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances principles that the Constitution fundamentally vindicates in dividing the powers and authorities of the federal government among Article I, Article II, and Article III institutions.

And remember, the same Framers who wrote Article II, section 1, clause 6 also provided for a procedure whereby the President would be elected by "electors" appointed by the several states, through whatever means each of those states might adopt. A "popular vote" for the President is not provided for on the face of the Constitution. Is there any reason then to suppose that the Framers would have had popular sovereignty in view when contemplating the line of succession for the President, such that the fact that the Speaker would be someone who presides over the House would be of any importance to them at all? I would have to think not, given the context of the original Framing.

For that matter, the U.S. Senate was not originally established as a legislative body, the members of which were selected by the "popular vote" of each state's residents. That didn't come about until 1913.

[Disaffected]

43. OK, thanks.

Puts a new light on it for me at least. To this non-American at least, it seems the US system of government gets murkier by the day, especially with the bunch of characters now in the administration...

[Thrax]

39. Translation:

Pence has tested positive. It's not being disclosed for national security reasons.

As for succession.
The law is on the books. Pelosi would be sworn in to position.
She would immediately discharge Barr and Pompeo.
New acting AG would not pursue such nonsense.

[MustLoveBeagles]

40. Welcome to DU

Translation: Pence has tested positive. It's not being disclosed for national security reasons.

If you turn out to be correct than the VP debate should be done remotely.

[roamer65]

46. If Pence is positive, he has better NOT do that debate in person.

Fuck him if he does.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

42. The argument is . . .

. . . that the Presidential Succession Act is itself unconstitutional, in that it includes in the line of succession persons -- the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore -- who are not "officers" within the meaning in Article II, section 1, clause 6 of the Constitution.

This gives rise to the nightmare scenario, a true "constitutional crisis," where both Pelosi and Pompeo would each claim to be the acting President.

[Thrax]

44. You missed the point.

The ship will not be rudderless. Upon a Trump and Pence demise Pelosi would be immediately sworn in under the existing law. She would then discharge all the rightwad clowns in the list of succession.
Sure some right wing outfit like Judicial watch could challenge the law. But, by the time it even reached a federal court room the next president would already be sworn in to position.
Rendering the case moot.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

47. I'm afraid you've missed the point ...

The constitutional crisis would arise when Pompeo -- and, as well, the entirety of the current administration -- refused to recognize Pelosi as the acting President. If the Presidential Succession Act is "unconstitutional," it doesn't become so only upon a court saying so.

The notion that this matter would be rendered "moot" reflects a misunderstanding of how the courts would act in such a matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. How do *you* think the courts would act?

Since, for most of US history, the law has said the Speaker and president pro tempore of the Senate come before cabinet members, and no one has challenged the law in the courts, it's not immediately obvious that they'd strike the law down the moment Barr objected to it. They'd have to consider the arguments properly, with representation from both (or more?) points of view. And the election of Biden would render it moot. They might strike the law down at some stage, but by then, Biden would be president, so it wouldn't affect the executive.

[brooklynite]

45. While you could challenge the specifics of the Presidential Succession Act...

...there would be no basis for saying that Pompeo WOULD be the alternative choice.