Mixing
Impeachment trial proceedings of a Vice President
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Since the Vice President 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 vice-president
edited 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
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
5
down vote
favorite
Since the Vice President 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 vice-president
edited 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
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
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Since the Vice President 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 vice-president
edited 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
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 Vice President 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 vice-president
united-states senate vice-president
edited 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
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 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
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 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
edited 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
edited 10 mins ago
WELZ
1591111
1591111
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
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 9 hours ago
user22945
261
asked 9 hours ago
user22945
261
261
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
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 8 hours 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
7 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
1
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is no need for federal or constitutional law excluding the VP. The Senate is a parliamentary body. It is competent to make and enforce its own rules, as provided in Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution:
[...] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. [...]
It is highly unlikely that any part of the judicial system would be willing to review the constitutionality of the Senate appointing someone other than the VP to preside. It would be a political question, rather than a legal question. See Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon) for an example of a defendant challenging a different aspect of the Senate's impeachment proceedings (and losing on this basis).
As a result, if the Senate passed a rule by simple majority excluding the VP, that would likely be the end of it regardless of alleged unconstitutionality. Even assuming arguendo that such an appointment were unconstitutional, there would be no means of judicial review and so the appointment would stick regardless.
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
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 8 hours 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
7 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
1
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
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 8 hours 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
7 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
1
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
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 8 hours 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 8 hours ago
James K
29.9k889126
answered 8 hours ago
James K
29.9k889126
answered 8 hours ago
James K
29.9k889126
answered 8 hours 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
7 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
1
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour 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
7 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
1
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour 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
7 hours 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
7 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
+1 but I’d think they’d probably have the President Pro Tempore preside.
– Viktor
6 hours ago
1
1
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
(Actually, the rule requiring the president be at least thirty-five years old effectively does say a dog can’t be president...) ;)
– KRyan
3 hours ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour ago
@KRyan But wouldn't "dog years" apply for a dog candidate?
– Michael Richardson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is no need for federal or constitutional law excluding the VP. The Senate is a parliamentary body. It is competent to make and enforce its own rules, as provided in Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution:
[...] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. [...]
It is highly unlikely that any part of the judicial system would be willing to review the constitutionality of the Senate appointing someone other than the VP to preside. It would be a political question, rather than a legal question. See Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon) for an example of a defendant challenging a different aspect of the Senate's impeachment proceedings (and losing on this basis).
As a result, if the Senate passed a rule by simple majority excluding the VP, that would likely be the end of it regardless of alleged unconstitutionality. Even assuming arguendo that such an appointment were unconstitutional, there would be no means of judicial review and so the appointment would stick regardless.
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is no need for federal or constitutional law excluding the VP. The Senate is a parliamentary body. It is competent to make and enforce its own rules, as provided in Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution:
[...] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. [...]
It is highly unlikely that any part of the judicial system would be willing to review the constitutionality of the Senate appointing someone other than the VP to preside. It would be a political question, rather than a legal question. See Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon) for an example of a defendant challenging a different aspect of the Senate's impeachment proceedings (and losing on this basis).
As a result, if the Senate passed a rule by simple majority excluding the VP, that would likely be the end of it regardless of alleged unconstitutionality. Even assuming arguendo that such an appointment were unconstitutional, there would be no means of judicial review and so the appointment would stick regardless.
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
There is no need for federal or constitutional law excluding the VP. The Senate is a parliamentary body. It is competent to make and enforce its own rules, as provided in Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution:
[...] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. [...]
It is highly unlikely that any part of the judicial system would be willing to review the constitutionality of the Senate appointing someone other than the VP to preside. It would be a political question, rather than a legal question. See Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon) for an example of a defendant challenging a different aspect of the Senate's impeachment proceedings (and losing on this basis).
As a result, if the Senate passed a rule by simple majority excluding the VP, that would likely be the end of it regardless of alleged unconstitutionality. Even assuming arguendo that such an appointment were unconstitutional, there would be no means of judicial review and so the appointment would stick regardless.
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
There is no need for federal or constitutional law excluding the VP. The Senate is a parliamentary body. It is competent to make and enforce its own rules, as provided in Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution:
[...] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. [...]
It is highly unlikely that any part of the judicial system would be willing to review the constitutionality of the Senate appointing someone other than the VP to preside. It would be a political question, rather than a legal question. See Nixon v. United States (no, not that Nixon) for an example of a defendant challenging a different aspect of the Senate's impeachment proceedings (and losing on this basis).
As a result, if the Senate passed a rule by simple majority excluding the VP, that would likely be the end of it regardless of alleged unconstitutionality. Even assuming arguendo that such an appointment were unconstitutional, there would be no means of judicial review and so the appointment would stick regardless.
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
answered 3 hours ago
Kevin
675215
675215
add a comment |Â
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-proceedings-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