Lyndon Law and Resign-to-Run Law (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 12:03:53 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Lyndon Law and Resign-to-Run Law (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Lyndon Law and Resign-to-Run Law  (Read 2676 times)
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


« on: August 12, 2012, 06:28:43 AM »

In 1960, due to the recent changes, LBJ was able to run for Vice President and reelection to the Senate simultaneously and that became known as the "Lyndon Law".

In 1988 Lloyd Bentsen took an advantage of this, getting reelected to the Senate, despite losing Vice Presidency.

Later, outside of Texas, Joe Lieberman won third Senate term in Connecticut, despite losing the Vice Presidency the same day in 2000, and, eight years later, Joe Biden won both races in Delaware.

Now, Paul Ryan is running for reelection as Congressman while being Romney's running mate.

So, what are the other states beside Texas, Connecticut, Delaware and Wisconsin, to allow such practice?

On the other hand, Florida just recently repealed (with Charlie Crist being a prospective running-mate for John McCain) their "resign to run" laws, which required their officeholders to resign while running for other office (no later than term of said office begins), whether winning or losing. That's why Wayne Mixson, who became Governor for three days in January 1987 as Bob Graham resigned to become a Senator, would succeed anyway if Graham lost.

Was or is there any other state with such provision?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2012, 01:10:48 PM »

Is there any legal reason Ryan could not serve in the House and as VP at the same time?

Yes.

Article I Section 6 Clause 2
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

This is also why we don't have members of Congress serving as Secretary of State or the like.
Secretary of State is more clearly unconstitutional because it is an appointed office.
Why would VP be considered "an Office under the Untied States" when Senator or Representative are not? I don't think you can separate the first and second parts of this to apply to different sets of offices  - they are meant to say that you cannot serve both, no matter whether you were elected or appointed first.

There are always problems with wording, it's like an invitation for endless interpretations.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.