Or ultimate hardball, they could just refuse to do the vote and there's really not much the minority party could do to make them. Aside from the fact that it's probably all moot at that point because the whole system has collapsed into open lawless conflict. - ThreadSky

andycraig.bsky.social • 229 days ago

Or ultimate hardball, they could just refuse to do the vote and there's really not much the minority party could do to make them. Aside from the fact that it's probably all moot at that point because the whole system has collapsed into open lawless conflict.

Comments

dylanzwick.bsky.social•229 days ago

If they never do the vote, does VP-elect just become acting President?

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

If the Senate has chosen one assuming the EC also deadlocked on VP.

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

One… err, fun… quirk is the Senate has a two thirds quorum requirement in a contingent VP election. 34 senators could deny quorum. And theoretically the rest of the Senate could then have them arrested and dragged onto the floor by the sergeant at arms. If he can find them.

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

I suppose technically 35 because you need one there to question the presence of a quorum. But few enough the minority party could do it even with some defectors.

dylanzwick.bsky.social•229 days ago

Suppose it's a 50/50 senate and Harris casts the deciding vote making her the VP-elect. House refuses to vote.

Come Jan 20th she's acting President and... there's a 50/50 senate has no Senate President?

That would be so crazy.

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

Debatable but stronger interpretation is the 12th doesn't let the VP cast a tie-breaking vote. But if VP was vacant, that's why there's a PPT. But they don't get a tie-breaking vote, they already have a regular one. 50/50 with no VP, nothing including an organization resolution passes without 51.

mmister.com•229 days ago

Wouldn't a VP who is Acting President still be the President of the Senate, theoretically?

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/andycraig.bsky.social/post/3kwtjrnx64o2l

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

The 12th specifically requires "a majority of the whole number" of "Senators." Stronger reading is that excludes VP voting. But you can make the argument either way and it coming down to the incumbent VP casting a dubiously constitutional tie-breaking vote for herself is... not a great scenario.

andycraig.bsky.social•229 days ago

Though timeline-wise, the VP would still have a vote from Jan 3 when the new Congress starts, through Jan 6, until Jan 20 even if they're then becoming acting POTUS.

dylanzwick.bsky.social•229 days ago

And if no President or VP is chosen by inauguration day the 20th amendment just says Congress needs to figure it out?

dylanzwick.bsky.social•229 days ago

*that* has no Senate President.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply