If Nancy Pelosi became President in 2019, who'd become VP?

[Blue3]

If Nancy Pelosi became President in 2019, who'd become Vice President, and how?

[adrac]

If Nancy Pelosi became President in 2019, who'd become Vice President, and how?

There is no mechanism for someone to accede to the Vice Presidency, she would have to appoint someone, who would then need to approved by the Senate and the House.

[NewYorkExpress]

I guess the best question now becomes who would she appoint. Remember, the Senate has to approve her, and it'll most likely be either 50-50, or still in Republican control. So Republicans could easily refuse to confirm a Vice President out of spite, leaving us without a VP until after the 2020 elections, when either Pelosi wins a full term, or another candidate is elected.

[politicallefty]

If Nancy Pelosi became President in 2019, who'd become Vice President, and how?

There is no mechanism for someone to accede to the Vice Presidency, she would have to appoint someone, who would then need to approved by the Senate and the House.

That's right. It happened twice in the 70s (Ford and Rockefeller). The 25th Amendment (ratified in 1967) specifies the process:

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

If Pelosi became President, it wouldn't really matter who became the Vice President (unless the Senate was tied or something). Democrats would still control the House and her successor as Speaker would be next in line to the Presidency. She'd be a caretaker President and I think she'd nominate a noncontroversial VP who wouldn't run in 2020. If Biden didn't plan on a 2020 run, just bring him back to fill out the term.

I think one thing that should be changed about presidential succession is that the President Pro Tem should be removed from the order. Either that or we should just make the Senate Majority Leader the President Pro Tem.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think one thing that should be changed about presidential succession is that the President Pro Tem should be removed from the order. Either that or we should just make the Senate Majority Leader the President Pro Tem.

Some states does that. In New York the Majority Leader is also Senate Temporary President. And when there's no Lt. Governor, he assumes the office on an acting basis.

[TDAS04]

The person she appoints.  Not sure if she'd be allowed to appoint another Californian.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The person she appoints.  Not sure if she'd be allowed to appoint another Californian.

There's no law against President and VP being from the same state.

[brucejoel99]

Whoever she chooses to nominate as Vice President, subject to the approval of Congress.

However, said Vice President-designate would, provided Congress consents to the nomination, supercede Acting President Pelosi & immediately be sworn into office as the full-fleged President of the United States, as ONLY the Vice President can actually succeed to the Presidency directly (any other individual, such as Speaker Pelosi in this hypothetical, can only become Acting President, & could directly assume the office only by appointing themselves as Vice President, & being confirmed of course).

Now, to expand, the reason Pelosi would only be Acting President in this scenario & not the full-fledged President is that the Constitution & the 1947 Presidential Succession Act are clear that only 2 types of people can ever become a full-fledged "President of the United States:" a duly elected President-elect after he takes the oath of office; & a Vice President of the United States, upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President. Thus, the only person who can succeed to the Presidency is a Vice President. Every other officer (Speaker, President pro tempore, Secretary of State, etc.) can only act as President. (And yes, such a cultural misinterpretation of constitutional law in which non-Vice Presidents ascend to the full-fledged Presidency is a crime that shows such as Designated Survivor do commit; i.e. Kirkman, the HUD Secretary played by Keifer Sutherland, would become Acting President & *NOT* President when the Capitol's destroyed by a terrorist attack during the State of the Union address.)

So, in the event of a 2019 simultaneous double vacancy in the offices of President & Vice President, the powers & duties of the Presidency would fall to Speaker Pelosi (since she qualifies under the Constitution & would likely resign her office to serve) as Acting President of the United States for the remainder of the current presidential term through its (obvious) end on Jan. 20, 2021 (unless & until Acting President Pelosi avails herself of the constitutional option to nominate a Vice President who, upon confirmation, shall succeed to the Presidency).

And yes, if the Presidency is vacant (which would be the case here), the confirmation of a Vice President would cause automatic succession to the Presidency. For example, in 1973, when Carl Albert was next in line to assume the presidential powers & duties, had that office become vacant, between Agnew's resignation as Vice President & Ford's confirmation by both houses of Congress, he said he would only serve until the swearing in of a new Republican Vice President caused that new VP to immediately become President. All this confusion would be avoided if the Speaker could succeed to the Presidency itself. But in this scenario, however, Acting President Pelosi's VP-designate, once confirmed, would supersede her & be sworn into office as the full-fledged President.

Of course, there's always the chance Speaker Pelosi (or whomever this could ever occur to) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which, obviously, hasn't occurred yet).

TL;DR: Acting President Pelosi's Vice President would be whomever she chooses to nominate, but as soon as her VP-designate would be confirmed by Congress, that VP would supersede Pelosi's acting presidency & take over the full-fledged Presidency by default the moment they're sworn in as Vice President.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Whoever she chooses to nominate as Vice President, subject to the approval of Congress.

However, said Vice President-designate would, provided Congress consents to the nomination, supercede Acting President Pelosi & immediately be sworn into office as the full-fleged President of the United States, as ONLY the Vice President can actually succeed to the Presidency directly (any other individual, such as Speaker Pelosi in this hypothetical, can only become Acting President, & could directly assume the office only by appointing themselves as Vice President, & being confirmed of course).

Now, to expand, the reason Pelosi would only be Acting President in this scenario & not the full-fledged President is that the Constitution & the 1947 Presidential Succession Act are clear that only 2 types of people can ever become a full-fledged "President of the United States:" a duly elected President-elect after he takes the oath of office; & a Vice President of the United States, upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President. Thus, the only person who can succeed to the Presidency is a Vice President. Every other officer (Speaker, President pro tempore, Secretary of State, etc.) can only act as President. (And yes, such a cultural misinterpretation of constitutional law in which non-Vice Presidents ascend to the full-fledged Presidency is a crime that shows such as Designated Survivor do commit; i.e. Kirkman, the HUD Secretary played by Keifer Sutherland, would become Acting President & *NOT* President when the Capitol's destroyed by a terrorist attack during the State of the Union address.)

So, in the event of a 2019 simultaneous double vacancy in the offices of President & Vice President, the powers & duties of the Presidency would fall to Speaker Pelosi (since she qualifies under the Constitution & would likely resign her office to serve) as Acting President of the United States for the remainder of the current presidential term through its (obvious) end on Jan. 20, 2021 (unless & until Acting President Pelosi avails herself of the constitutional option to nominate a Vice President who, upon confirmation, shall succeed to the Presidency).

And yes, if the Presidency is vacant (which would be the case here), the confirmation of a Vice President would cause automatic succession to the Presidency. For example, in 1973, when Carl Albert was next in line to assume the presidential powers & duties, had that office become vacant, between Agnew's resignation as Vice President & Ford's confirmation by both houses of Congress, he said he would only serve until the swearing in of a new Republican Vice President caused that new VP to immediately become President. All this confusion would be avoided if the Speaker could succeed to the Presidency itself. But in this scenario, however, Acting President Pelosi's VP-designate, once confirmed, would supersede her & be sworn into office as the full-fledged President.

Of course, there's always the chance Speaker Pelosi (or whomever this could ever occur to) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which, obviously, hasn't occurred yet).

TL;DR: Acting President Pelosi's Vice President would be whomever she chooses to nominate, but as soon as her VP-designate would be confirmed by Congress, that VP would supersede Pelosi's acting presidency & take over the full-fledged Presidency by default the moment they're sworn in as Vice President.

I was going to say something similar.

I figured I'd just note that there is one wrinkle, I think: the fact that the Vice President becomes President, and not just Acting President, is a matter of tradition more than constitutional interpretation. John Tyler basically said, "No, I'm not Acting President, I'm just the President" after William Henry Harrison died, and that was accepted. At the time, the Constitution said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it was a legitimate argument whether the Vice President would become the President or just assume the powers of the office, and it was resolved by Tyler's assertion and the acceptance of that precedent. We haven't really had any chance to test the bounds of what "Acting President" really means in practice. I'd wonder if a Speaker assuming the office (side note: there are legitimate questions about whether it's constitutional for legislative officers to be in the line of presidential succession) would adopt a maximal view like Tyler's that might then become precedent too.

[NewYorkExpress]

Whoever she chooses to nominate as Vice President, subject to the approval of Congress.

However, said Vice President-designate would, provided Congress consents to the nomination, supercede Acting President Pelosi & immediately be sworn into office as the full-fleged President of the United States, as ONLY the Vice President can actually succeed to the Presidency directly (any other individual, such as Speaker Pelosi in this hypothetical, can only become Acting President, & could directly assume the office only by appointing themselves as Vice President, & being confirmed of course).

Now, to expand, the reason Pelosi would only be Acting President in this scenario & not the full-fledged President is that the Constitution & the 1947 Presidential Succession Act are clear that only 2 types of people can ever become a full-fledged "President of the United States:" a duly elected President-elect after he takes the oath of office; & a Vice President of the United States, upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President. Thus, the only person who can succeed to the Presidency is a Vice President. Every other officer (Speaker, President pro tempore, Secretary of State, etc.) can only act as President. (And yes, such a cultural misinterpretation of constitutional law in which non-Vice Presidents ascend to the full-fledged Presidency is a crime that shows such as Designated Survivor do commit; i.e. Kirkman, the HUD Secretary played by Keifer Sutherland, would become Acting President & *NOT* President when the Capitol's destroyed by a terrorist attack during the State of the Union address.)

So, in the event of a 2019 simultaneous double vacancy in the offices of President & Vice President, the powers & duties of the Presidency would fall to Speaker Pelosi (since she qualifies under the Constitution & would likely resign her office to serve) as Acting President of the United States for the remainder of the current presidential term through its (obvious) end on Jan. 20, 2021 (unless & until Acting President Pelosi avails herself of the constitutional option to nominate a Vice President who, upon confirmation, shall succeed to the Presidency).

And yes, if the Presidency is vacant (which would be the case here), the confirmation of a Vice President would cause automatic succession to the Presidency. For example, in 1973, when Carl Albert was next in line to assume the presidential powers & duties, had that office become vacant, between Agnew's resignation as Vice President & Ford's confirmation by both houses of Congress, he said he would only serve until the swearing in of a new Republican Vice President caused that new VP to immediately become President. All this confusion would be avoided if the Speaker could succeed to the Presidency itself. But in this scenario, however, Acting President Pelosi's VP-designate, once confirmed, would supersede her & be sworn into office as the full-fledged President.

Of course, there's always the chance Speaker Pelosi (or whomever this could ever occur to) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which, obviously, hasn't occurred yet).

TL;DR: Acting President Pelosi's Vice President would be whomever she chooses to nominate, but as soon as her VP-designate would be confirmed by Congress, that VP would supersede Pelosi's acting presidency & take over the full-fledged Presidency by default the moment they're sworn in as Vice President.

This all assumes a Republican Senate or a 50-50 Senate agrees to confirm anyone Pelosi nominates.

[brucejoel99]

snip

I was going to say something similar.

I figured I'd just note that there is one wrinkle, I think: the fact that the Vice President becomes President, and not just Acting President, is a matter of tradition more than constitutional interpretation. John Tyler basically said, "No, I'm not Acting President, I'm just the President" after William Henry Harrison died, and that was accepted. At the time, the Constitution said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it was a legitimate argument whether the Vice President would become the President or just assume the powers of the office, and it was resolved by Tyler's assertion and the acceptance of that precedent. We haven't really had any chance to test the bounds of what "Acting President" really means in practice. I'd wonder if a Speaker assuming the office (side note: there are legitimate questions about whether it's constitutional for legislative officers to be in the line of presidential succession) would adopt a maximal view like Tyler's that might then become precedent too.

Well, that being "a matter of tradition more than constitutional interpretation" re: the Tyler Precedent was a question that was finally indeed resolved by Section 1 of the 25th Amendment, which specifies that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

Of course, though, it's that amendment itself that doesn't specify whether officers other than the Vice President can become President rather than Acting President in the same set of circumstances, and with the Presidential Succession Act referring only to other officers acting as President rather than becoming President, it's the lack of implementation of the Act that means these things haven't been tested, but I believe the answer is clear based on a plain-text reading of the law. Whether the press/public would consider a long-term Acting President to really just be the President is a question none of us can answer. But I believe we're allowed to state w/ authority that the law wouldn't permit Speaker Pelosi, taking office after a double vacancy, to be anything other than Acting President.

Now, there's always the chance Speaker Pelosi (or whoever is next in line) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which again, of course, hasn't occurred yet).

[brucejoel99]

snip

This all assumes a Republican Senate or a 50-50 Senate agrees to confirm anyone Pelosi nominates.

Well of course, if she were to become Acting President by succession, then she'd likely be arguing that it's in the national interest for the House & Senate to confirm a Vice President (who, all things considered, could potentially immediately become President; see above), but w/ politics as polarized as it is today, who knows?

[Slander and/or Libel]

snip

I was going to say something similar.

I figured I'd just note that there is one wrinkle, I think: the fact that the Vice President becomes President, and not just Acting President, is a matter of tradition more than constitutional interpretation. John Tyler basically said, "No, I'm not Acting President, I'm just the President" after William Henry Harrison died, and that was accepted. At the time, the Constitution said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it was a legitimate argument whether the Vice President would become the President or just assume the powers of the office, and it was resolved by Tyler's assertion and the acceptance of that precedent. We haven't really had any chance to test the bounds of what "Acting President" really means in practice. I'd wonder if a Speaker assuming the office (side note: there are legitimate questions about whether it's constitutional for legislative officers to be in the line of presidential succession) would adopt a maximal view like Tyler's that might then become precedent too.

Well, that being "a matter of tradition more than constitutional interpretation" re: the Tyler Precedent was a question that was finally indeed resolved by Section 1 of the 25th Amendment, which specifies that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

Of course, though, it's that amendment itself that doesn't specify whether officers other than the Vice President can become President rather than Acting President in the same set of circumstances, and with the Presidential Succession Act referring only to other officers acting as President rather than becoming President, it's the lack of implementation of the Act that means these things haven't been tested, but I believe the answer is clear based on a plain-text reading of the law. Whether the press/public would consider a long-term Acting President to really just be the President is a question none of us can answer. But I believe we're allowed to state w/ authority that the law wouldn't permit Speaker Pelosi, taking office after a double vacancy, to be anything other than Acting President.

Now, there's always the chance Speaker Pelosi (or whoever is next in line) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which again, of course, hasn't occurred yet).

Yep, that last bit was basically my point. I agree with you about the reading, but I think the reading of the constitution Under Tyler was that the Vice President takes the powers of the presidency but not the presidency itself, but that got settled differently in practice. I think we barely know what an acting president really looks like except in theory.

[politicallefty]

TL;DR: Acting President Pelosi's Vice President would be whomever she chooses to nominate, but as soon as her VP-designate would be confirmed by Congress, that VP would supersede Pelosi's acting presidency & take over the full-fledged Presidency by default the moment they're sworn in as Vice President.

I don't agree with your interpretation, per Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the so-called "Acting President" only occurs during what the Constitution calls "Inability to discharge...". It is only with an inability can a "Disability" be removed. Removal, death, and resignation are not inabilities from which a disability can be removed. I think inability refers to a medical condition, such as a coma or Woodrow Wilson post-stroke. At that point, the Constitution says the next officer in line per federal law shall be the President until "Disability" is removed or the next President is elected and takes office.

I think this topic is presuming Nancy Pelosi becomes President due to removal/resignation of the President and VP. She would not be taking the powers and duties of a disabled President. There would be no disability to be removed. She would serve as President until the next one is elected, not until she chose a Vice President who would supersede her. And of course, if she wanted to serve out the term even with your interpretation, she could simply choose not to appoint a new Vice President. I couldn't imagine a scenario where a President Nancy Pelosi got a new VP confirmed only to turn around and try to claim the Presidency from her.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The presidential succession act of 1947 is pretty clear in specifying that it says who will “act as president”, not become president.

[politicallefty]

The presidential succession act of 1947 is pretty clear in specifying that it says who will “act as president”, not become president.

I didn't say otherwise, or at least that was not my intent. The term "Acting President" only became part of the Constitution upon the 25th Amendment and in those instances, under very limited circumstances that were assumed to be temporary. Every Vice President that ascended to the Presidency prior to the 25th Amendment is considered to be President, not "Acting President".

The Constitution does not specify what happens in the event that the Presidency and Vice Presidency are both vacant. It is left to Congress as a matter of law, which has been established per the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. That law names the Speaker of the House as the individual who shall act as President. Per Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, that individual shall act as President "until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." The disability clause only refers to inability to act, which the 25th Amendment formalized and expanded upon. Otherwise, the officer that acts as President shall continue to do so until the next election.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

She won’t. Pence would become president. He’s not getting removed