Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush and Cheney would not be removed at the same time. It's simply not going to happen. The only scenario where the Speaker would actually become president is if there was some sort of disaster. You can post wiki articles or whatever else you want, but you're referring to a situation that will not occur. You might as well be talking about aliens landing on the White House lawn. Look at what happened with Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Did the Speaker of the House become President? No. A new VP was appointed (Ford). He later became President. That is precedent.
If both the president and vice-president were impeached it wouldn't happen at the same time because the Senate is the jury and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is the judge and there is only one of him.
Who would become president would come down to politics and procedures. If Congress dragged its heals and refused to rapidly approve the new VP selection then Pelosi would become president by default because once both Bush and Cheney were gone that's it, she's in. If congress did not drag its heals and they actually approve a new VP before both impeachment's were completed Pelosi would remain Speaker of the House.
But it would be a procedure that Congress controls. Just because the president sends a nomination down for approval doesn't mean the Congress is going to jump right on it if they are in the middle of another impeachment. Unless of course the SCOTUS got involved. The Chief Justice is the trial judge in an impeachment and he could always adjourn the impeachment until the new VP selection was acted on.
If both the president and vice-president were impeached it wouldn't happen at the same time because the Senate is the jury and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is the judge and there is only one of him.
Who would become president would come down to politics and procedures. If Congress dragged its heals and refused to rapidly approve the new VP selection then Pelosi would become president by default because once both Bush and Cheney were gone that's it, she's in. If congress did not drag its heals and they actually approve a new VP before both impeachment's were completed Pelosi would remain Speaker of the House.
But it would be a procedure that Congress controls. Just because the president sends a nomination down for approval doesn't mean the Congress is going to jump right on it if they are in the middle of another impeachment. Unless of course the SCOTUS got involved. The Chief Justice is the trial judge in an impeachment and he could always adjourn the impeachment until the new VP selection was acted on.
Well, we're talking about the 25th amendment. And if Congress was deliberately trying to pull something like this, the Republican party would make sure that a VP successor was chosen that would be easily approved. It's not going to happen. Unless someone knocks off Bush and Cheney at the same time, Pelosi isn't going to be president. It's not something I even worry about (I don't think she could do any worse than Bush).
Well, we're talking about the 25th amendment. And if Congress was deliberately trying to pull something like this, the Republican party would make sure that a VP successor was chosen that would be easily approved. It's not going to happen. Unless someone knocks off Bush and Cheney at the same time, Pelosi isn't going to be president. It's not something I even worry about (I don't think she could do any worse than Bush).
Of course it's not going to happen, we're talking about theory here. Bush is not going to be impeached, neither is Cheney. So unless I missed a post where someone said that they ACTUALLY THOUGHT Pelosi was ACTUALLY GOING to be president, we are only talking about constitutional theory.
But by being the minority party in Congress the republicans are not going have much to say about how it plays out. If both Bush and Cheney, for whatever reason, are both going to be impeached because they committed some crime or something, then the ball is no longer in their court. At that point Congress and the SCOTUS will control how things develop. And just because the president sends down a nomination it doesn't mean it will be immediately acted on. Especially if the opposition party is in control and they choose to drag it out with hearings or something. Especially when you have a left wing extremist like Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, where both the approval of the new VP has to take place, and where the trial will take place. And even if Reid allows a rapid thumbs up or down on the new nomination the democrats out number the republicans, they can always turn down the nomination and move on with the trial.
Of course this is all theory. I'm not saying it is going to happen. But, if Bush and Cheney both committed some impeachable act, and both were impeached by the House, the Senate could play politics with this and it is possible we could end up with Pelosi as president. Unlikely? Sure, but still legally constitutionally possible.
My apologies to all of you for not taking the time to research this. It was late in the afternoon and I was on my way out the door. It was sent to me by a friend and I can usually trust his information but it was my bad for not verifying the attribution. I will not repeat my mistake again and I am sorry that this happened.
I agree with the thought wrongly attributed to the speaker with the exception of the illegal alien part. We should tax the really rich because they have most of the money and the economy is improved when the money is recirculated not when it is hoarded.
Of course it's not going to happen, we're talking about theory here. Bush is not going to be impeached, neither is Cheney. So unless I missed a post where someone said that they ACTUALLY THOUGHT Pelosi was ACTUALLY GOING to be president, we are only talking about constitutional theory.
But by being the minority party in Congress the republicans are not going have much to say about how it plays out. If both Bush and Cheney, for whatever reason, are both going to be impeached because they committed some crime or something, then the ball is no longer in their court. At that point Congress and the SCOTUS will control how things develop. And just because the president sends down a nomination it doesn't mean it will be immediately acted on. Especially if the opposition party is in control and they choose to drag it out with hearings or something. Especially when you have a left wing extremist like Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, where both the approval of the new VP has to take place, and where the trial will take place. And even if Reid allows a rapid thumbs up or down on the new nomination the democrats out number the republicans, they can always turn down the nomination and move on with the trial.
Of course this is all theory. I'm not saying it is going to happen. But, if Bush and Cheney both committed some impeachable act, and both were impeached by the House, the Senate could play politics with this and it is possible we could end up with Pelosi as president. Unlikely? Sure, but still legally constitutionally possible.
Actually, the Republican party has quite a bit to say about this. The Democrats, alone, cannot remove the President (or VP). They don't have the numbers. They would need to get some Republicans to go along.
I agree with the thought wrongly attributed to the speaker with the exception of the illegal alien part. We should tax the really rich because they have most of the money and the economy is improved when the money is recirculated not when it is hoarded.
Seriously?
You do realize that's basically a communist economy right?
I guess the article was written by the original poster since nobody else is credited for those words.
If you had read my apology you would have seen that I received this "article" in an email from a friend of mine. I admitted that I had not checked the authenticity of the attribution but when called on it I checked on snopes.com and found it to be false - which I conceded. I have no idea who actually wrote it but it was most assuredly NOT me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
