Should presidential powers be stripped away during impeachment?

[Sir Mohamed]

This is not about a potential Trump impeachment, more of a general debate. If the House votes to impeach the prez, should his powers be transferred to the VP (as acting prez) under the 25th amendment while the process is ongoing? Until the senate moves forward and either votes to impeach, thus making the VP a full prez, or acquittal? In the latter case, the officeholder regains powers and duties of the presidency.

I think this is a fine idea, preventing a prez from executive action influencing the impeachment process. The VP in acting capacity ensures a smooth ongoing of govt affairs.

Opinions and objections?

[Slander and/or Libel]

This is not about a potential Trump impeachment, more of a general debate. If the House votes to impeach the prez, should his powers be transferred to the VP (as acting prez) under the 25th amendment while the process is ongoing? Until the senate moves forward and either votes to impeach, thus making the VP a full prez, or acquittal? In the latter case, the officeholder regains powers and duties of the presidency.

I think this is a fine idea, preventing a prez from executive action influencing the impeachment process. The VP in acting capacity ensures a smooth ongoing of govt affairs.

Opinions and objections?

I think you'd need a couple of things to round it out. First, a time limit between the House voting on impeachment and the Senate acting on it. Second, I think making the Vice President the Acting President in this case is problematic, as the VP is likely somebody politically and personally tied to the president. I'd prefer if some kind of caretaker body were appointed for the duration of the impeachment process, perhaps from among governors or something like that.

[Ilhan Apologist]

Nope. The GOP would have impeached Obama every few months during his administration.

[HisGrace]

If the President uses the powers of office to influence the impeachment that would be obstruction of justice and all the more reason to vote to convict. That is, in an alternate universe where the Senate wasn't full of partisan hacks.

[brucejoel99]

No.

Impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. The House merely sits as a grand jury & votes on whether to indict based on the evidence it collects & the case that's built. This requires a mere majority. But during the process, the President ought to remain in office (as they do) with the full powers accorded to them by the Constitution, in part because the American legal system assumes innocence until proven guilty; in other words, innocence until conviction. Unless & until the Senate has held a full-blown trial that concludes with a 2/3rds guilty verdict, there ought to be no official reduction in or limitation on the President's authority.

[Sir Mohamed]

Nope. The GOP would have impeached Obama every few months during his administration.

I don't see how Biden as acting prez would have anything different than Obama.

[President Johnson]

No.

Impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. The House merely sits as a grand jury & votes on whether to indict based on the evidence it collects & the case that's built. This requires a mere majority. But during the process, the President ought to remain in office (as they do) with the full powers accorded to them by the Constitution, in part because the American legal system assumes innocence until proven guilty; in other words, innocence until conviction. Unless & until the Senate has held a full-blown trial that concludes with a 2/3rds guilty verdict, there ought to be no official reduction in or limitation on the President's authority.

I was actually leaning towards yes, but that answer convinced me to vote no.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Actually it's a standard in many countries to have impeached President suspended, and I'm personally leaning toward this. Yes, as the previous posted pointed out, it's just an "indictment", but on the other hand it's pretty customary for people to take a leave of absence while on trail.

My only worry is that it could be abused by the hostile House majority, but that could be fixed with setting some rules.

[SteveRogers]

No.

Impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. The House merely sits as a grand jury & votes on whether to indict based on the evidence it collects & the case that's built. This requires a mere majority. But during the process, the President ought to remain in office (as they do) with the full powers accorded to them by the Constitution, in part because the American legal system assumes innocence until proven guilty; in other words, innocence until conviction. Unless & until the Senate has held a full-blown trial that concludes with a 2/3rds guilty verdict, there ought to be no official reduction in or limitation on the President's authority.

I think the answer depends on the circumstances and the reasons the president is being impeached. If, for instance, the president were continuing to abuse his powers to obstruct an investigation during the impeachment process, it would be appropriate to invoke the 25th until the conclusion of the trial in the Senate in order to prevent the whole process from being tainted. Yes, in our criminal justice system the accused is innocent unless proven guilty, but  the accused can still have their bond revoked and be remanded into custody if they continue to commit new offenses while awaiting trial.

[Skill and Chance]

Actually it's a standard in many countries to have impeached President suspended, and I'm personally leaning toward this. Yes, as the previous posted pointed out, it's just an "indictment", but on the other hand it's pretty customary for people to take a leave of absence while on trail.

My only worry is that it could be abused by the hostile House majority, but that could be fixed with setting some rules.

This is the issue.  An opposition-controlled House would always make up a reason to impeach on day 1, and would also impeach the Vice President after they assumed the presidency, so we would likely end up with the Speaker of the House being acting president a majority of the time, rather than either of the people elected to the 4 year term. 

[President Johnson]

Actually it's a standard in many countries to have impeached President suspended, and I'm personally leaning toward this. Yes, as the previous posted pointed out, it's just an "indictment", but on the other hand it's pretty customary for people to take a leave of absence while on trail.

My only worry is that it could be abused by the hostile House majority, but that could be fixed with setting some rules.

This is the issue.  An opposition-controlled House would always make up a reason to impeach on day 1, and would also impeach the Vice President after they assumed the presidency, so we would likely end up with the Speaker of the House being acting president a majority of the time, rather than either of the people elected to the 4 year term. 

Well, in a healthy political climate, the House majority actually wouldn't. Today's Republican Party is a different story.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

No

[Mr. Smith]

nope, the great mess of checks and balances is why we're in such a mess right now.

[Hammy]

Only if you want permanent impeachment proceedings going every time the Presidency and Congress are controlled by different parties.