So this is incorrect. If Trump hypothetically managed to delay the election past January 20, the result would not be President Pelosi. It would be President Patrick Leahy.
Allow me to explain why. /1 https://t.co/8OxwOy1Ejq
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) March 18, 2020
Here’s his hypothesis:
Without an election, Trump and Pence’s terms would expire, as would every member of the House of Representatives. That means the president pro tempore of the Senate would become president. Because of the non-election, 35 members of the Senate would also be gone because of their expired terms. Of the 65 remaining members, there would be 36 Democrats and 29 Republicans, making octogenarian and die-hard Batman fan Patrick Leahy the president pro tempore (as he has been in the past), and therefore the new President of the United States.
(The Senate does not have to choose the longest-serving member of the majority party. That is just a custom.)
If you guys want to see a really interesting movie about presidential succession, I suggest The Man (1972) a film written by Rod Serling. The movie opens with the President and Speaker of the House dying in an accident. The VP is sick with only weeks to live and refuses the office. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Darth Vader (or at least his future voice) is sworn in as president. James Earl Jones was the first black president 36 years before President Obama. You can watch the whole movie for free on YouTube. I found it really interesting.
The Speaker is elected biennially.
As is the House.
The point he was making is that the Speaker’s term ALSO ends at the end of each congress. (That’s important because the Speaker does not have to be a member of the House. It is a completely separate job, although by custom the House chooses one of their own.)
As already pointed out, that happens by rule. Rules can be changed etc. See how Mitch handled Obama’s last nomination to the Supreme Court.
That’s assuming Trump and the GOP care a whit about the Constitution. That’s doubtful.
Also, not sure the hypothesis works for this reason: the Speaker of the House has no term that expires either. He/she doesn’t even need to be an elected Member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi holds two positions: she is both an elected Representative (as determined by her California constituents), as well as an elected Speaker of the House (as elected by the members). She holds those two positions independently. It is only the two-year Congresswoman’s gig that ends next January. Presumably she goes on as Speaker until a replacement Speaker is legitimately elected by the present or future House of Representatives.
That’s an interesting Constitutional question: can you have a Speaker of the House when there is no House?
Anyway, I’m sure our illustrious Supreme Court will be standing by to render a wise, carefully-considered, unbiased ruling . . . “Hellooo, President Falwell!”
fwald’s post is hilarious, and will remain so until it turns out to be horrifyingly real.
The speaker’s term expires when the congress adjourns, and a new speaker is elected when a new house is seated. “The term ends on the expiration of the Congress in which he was elected, unless he has resigned, died, or been removed from office.”
In the cited case, there is no Speaker of the House, and without a new House convened, there can be no Speaker selected.
Yes, that’s true. The Speaker’s term expires when the Congress adjourns under the current Rules and Precedents of the House. But that’s not a Constitutional principle. The rule can be changed at any time by the current House voting to change it. If we get to December and no new House has been elected, I would expect the current Democratic majority to amend the rule you’re citing, and to at least extend the term of the Speaker until such point as a new Speaker is chosen by a subsequent House of Representatives. It is within their power to do so, and they would be short-sighted if they failed to act to preserve their advantage.
wrong. since terms expire speaker of house and head of senate it goes to this succession Order of Succession to the Presidency
1 — President of the United States
2 — Vice-President of the United States
3 — Speaker of the House of Representatives
4 — President of the Senate Pro Tempore (becomes VP when Speaker becomes President)
(Cabinet Secretaries in Order of Post’s Creation — see Unit 7)
5 — Secretary of State
6 — Secretary of the Treasury
7 — Secretary of Defense
8 — Attorney General
9, etc. — Remaining Cabinet Secretaries so president Mike Pompeo god bless us
In the case cited, the Senate would still be able to convene because 65 of their members carry over and do not need to be re-elected, so they will be able to designate a President Pro Temp, who would become President.
(Since House members are all up for re-election in 2020, there would be no House of Representatives until an election is held, but there would still be a Senate because 65 of them have terms which do not expire until January 2023 or 2025.)
I’m not sure about the breakdown of governors in states with Senate elections, but governors in some states might be able to appoint senators to serve until an election has been held. That might affect the party affiliation of the President Pro Tempore. I doubt that would be Patrick Leahy though because even if the Democrats did control the chamber, I think they would forego the tradition and elect a younger person, probably a woman.
I haven’t researched that. According to the Twitter feed, there are 35 senators whose terms expire (Wikipedia says 33), and I haven’t checked out how many are in states with Democrat vs GOP governors, and how many of those states have dictated procedures for Senate vacancies. The 17th Amendment leaves the state legislatures to determine whether the governors may appoint temporary replacements. It says they “may” do so. Here’s a summary of where the states stand. In some cases, the governor must nominate a replacement from the same political party as the person who vacated the seat.
At any rate, one thing that’s clear is that the governors have no power to make an appointment until there is a vacancy, and there is no vacancy until Jan 3, 2021.
Actually, so long as the GOP regained control prior to Jan 20, 2021, the GOP could choose a new President Pro Tempore. The Senate can elect a new one whenever it pleases. In 2001 the it pleased the Senate to elect a new President Pro Tempore 3 times. Strom Thurmond had the office in the prior Congress, but on Jan 3 with the Senate split 50/50, VP Al Gore gave the Dems control and Robert Byrd took the office until Jan 20 when VP Dick Cheney took office giving the GOP control. Strom Thurmond was then President Pro Tempore until June 6 when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched from the GOP to become an independent caucusing with the Dems and Bobby Byrd was back.
I am certain the election will happen, but it’s possible many states will switch to mail in ballots if we are still in crisis mode. The problem is that whoever wins, there will be claims of ballot fraud from the losing side because mail in ballots just seem so much less secure than in person voting. I doubt Biden would make those claims if he lost, but many on the left might. But if Trump loses…
“so long as the GOP regained control prior to Jan 20, 2021”
True, but that’s the hard part, because their terms end on January 3, while Trumps ends on January 20, so they would have to control the NEW congress. Given that, the governors could start filling vacancies on Jan 3 where the state law allows it. It would be a real race against the clock.
Can a senator filibuster to prevent the sitting of new senators? I have never heard of such a thing, but it seems technically possible.
A useful reminder that Bernie Sanders is STILL the junior Senator from Vermont.
Maybe that’s why the public didn’t back his campaign this year: wait your turn Bernie; get to be senior Senator, acquire some maturity and gravitas, and then we’ll talk.