Mixing
impeachment trial of a Vice President
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Since the V.P. is also president of the Senate, what mechanism is there to prevent him from presiding over his own impeachment trial? Article I.3 makes no specific mention of this. Does a federal law cover this situation?
united-states senate
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Since the V.P. is also president of the Senate, what mechanism is there to prevent him from presiding over his own impeachment trial? Article I.3 makes no specific mention of this. Does a federal law cover this situation?
united-states senate
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Since the V.P. is also president of the Senate, what mechanism is there to prevent him from presiding over his own impeachment trial? Article I.3 makes no specific mention of this. Does a federal law cover this situation?
united-states senate
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Since the V.P. is also president of the Senate, what mechanism is there to prevent him from presiding over his own impeachment trial? Article I.3 makes no specific mention of this. Does a federal law cover this situation?
united-states senate
united-states senate
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
edited 2 hours ago
JJJ
2,87411136
2,87411136
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
asked 2 hours ago
user22945
211
211
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user22945 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The constitution is not explicit on this point.
If the VP is "absent" a president pro tempore is chosen (in practice the VP is nearly always absent) If the VP is on trial, this would prevent them from presiding; they would be "in the dock" so necessarily absent from the chair, and a president pro tempore would be chosen.
Having the VP preside at their own impeachment would be absurd. The Constitution is intended to be read in accordance with Common sense. "Ain't no rule says a dog can't be president". But we are expected to use a little common sense.
Mike Rappaort considers the omission of a direct instruction that the VP should not preside over their own trial to be a "textual mistake",
But when one of the textual mistakes is an absurdity, one can depart.
I think that if a VP were to be impeached, the senate would ask the chief justice to preside. They are required to do this for a Presidential impeachment trial, and I think they would want to have a Judge present for a VP trial too. The Senate is permitted to appoint anyone to preside, it does not have to be a Senator.
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The constitution is not explicit on this point.
If the VP is "absent" a president pro tempore is chosen (in practice the VP is nearly always absent) If the VP is on trial, this would prevent them from presiding; they would be "in the dock" so necessarily absent from the chair, and a president pro tempore would be chosen.
Having the VP preside at their own impeachment would be absurd. The Constitution is intended to be read in accordance with Common sense. "Ain't no rule says a dog can't be president". But we are expected to use a little common sense.
Mike Rappaort considers the omission of a direct instruction that the VP should not preside over their own trial to be a "textual mistake",
But when one of the textual mistakes is an absurdity, one can depart.
I think that if a VP were to be impeached, the senate would ask the chief justice to preside. They are required to do this for a Presidential impeachment trial, and I think they would want to have a Judge present for a VP trial too. The Senate is permitted to appoint anyone to preside, it does not have to be a Senator.
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The constitution is not explicit on this point.
If the VP is "absent" a president pro tempore is chosen (in practice the VP is nearly always absent) If the VP is on trial, this would prevent them from presiding; they would be "in the dock" so necessarily absent from the chair, and a president pro tempore would be chosen.
Having the VP preside at their own impeachment would be absurd. The Constitution is intended to be read in accordance with Common sense. "Ain't no rule says a dog can't be president". But we are expected to use a little common sense.
Mike Rappaort considers the omission of a direct instruction that the VP should not preside over their own trial to be a "textual mistake",
But when one of the textual mistakes is an absurdity, one can depart.
I think that if a VP were to be impeached, the senate would ask the chief justice to preside. They are required to do this for a Presidential impeachment trial, and I think they would want to have a Judge present for a VP trial too. The Senate is permitted to appoint anyone to preside, it does not have to be a Senator.
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The constitution is not explicit on this point.
If the VP is "absent" a president pro tempore is chosen (in practice the VP is nearly always absent) If the VP is on trial, this would prevent them from presiding; they would be "in the dock" so necessarily absent from the chair, and a president pro tempore would be chosen.
Having the VP preside at their own impeachment would be absurd. The Constitution is intended to be read in accordance with Common sense. "Ain't no rule says a dog can't be president". But we are expected to use a little common sense.
Mike Rappaort considers the omission of a direct instruction that the VP should not preside over their own trial to be a "textual mistake",
But when one of the textual mistakes is an absurdity, one can depart.
I think that if a VP were to be impeached, the senate would ask the chief justice to preside. They are required to do this for a Presidential impeachment trial, and I think they would want to have a Judge present for a VP trial too. The Senate is permitted to appoint anyone to preside, it does not have to be a Senator.
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
The constitution is not explicit on this point.
If the VP is "absent" a president pro tempore is chosen (in practice the VP is nearly always absent) If the VP is on trial, this would prevent them from presiding; they would be "in the dock" so necessarily absent from the chair, and a president pro tempore would be chosen.
Having the VP preside at their own impeachment would be absurd. The Constitution is intended to be read in accordance with Common sense. "Ain't no rule says a dog can't be president". But we are expected to use a little common sense.
Mike Rappaort considers the omission of a direct instruction that the VP should not preside over their own trial to be a "textual mistake",
But when one of the textual mistakes is an absurdity, one can depart.
I think that if a VP were to be impeached, the senate would ask the chief justice to preside. They are required to do this for a Presidential impeachment trial, and I think they would want to have a Judge present for a VP trial too. The Senate is permitted to appoint anyone to preside, it does not have to be a Senator.
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
answered 1 hour ago
James K
29.9k889126
29.9k889126
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
Surely the US follows the Nemo iudex in causa sua principle. I can't find it in official documents for this case though. For judges, it's called judicial impartiality (see canon 3c).
– JJJ
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
user22945 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user22945 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user22945 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user22945 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34410%2fimpeachment-trial-of-a-vice-president%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
