Let's say that, hypothetically, the VP of the USA gets impeached (by the House). Then, the trial moves to the Senate. At some point, does the VP have to "recuse" himself or herself from the proceedings? Or is the VP -- the one under impeachment -- still able to cast a vote? Or a tie-breaking vote? At that point ... during a trial in the Senate ... is the VP still considered a "voting member" of the Senate? Or no longer? (Assuming the VP can only vote in a tie-breaking scenario?) Where is this addressed in the Constitution or federal rules/laws? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a two thirds majority of the Senate is required to convict in an impeachment, the Vice President’s role as a “tie breaker” would not come into play. He/She would not cast a vote. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that the "extra vote" (i.e., the 101st vote) would be inconsequential. But, nonetheless, does it even occur ... or is it barred? In other words: say, we have a tie ... 50/50. That's dispositive that there is no conviction. Understood. But, is there some law that requires a VP vote during a tie? Or some rule/law that -- in the case of impeachment -- the VP cannot vote. Would the official record be 50/50 ... or 51/50? Also, what rule / law / Constitutional clause controls this? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article 1 section 3 says "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." That doesn't say the VP has to vote, but what be the point of not voting? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "What would be the point of not voting?" Could be many things ... conflict of interest; appearance of a conflict of interest; ethics; federal rules, laws, procedures, protocols, etc. Not sure. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not voting would have the same effect as voting "No", since the bill can't move on without a majority. Kind of a vice-presidential "pocket veto". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Senate is "equally divided" on a question that needs a 2/3 majority, then whether the VP votes yes, no, or doesn't vote at all, has no (immediate) effect on passage — it could only be symbolic. I suppose arguably by the Constitutional text he/she might have the technical right to cast that symbolic vote, but I've never heard of it happening. The common understanding is that the VP vote is there to "break ties", and in a case where you need 2/3, a tie can't be "broken". --Trovatore (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be interesting to know if such a scenario has ever happened. In general, though, the VP cannot vote unless it's 50-50. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assume that this all happens after January 2023, when the new Congress is seated. Scenario 1: Assume that both President Biden and VP Harris get impeached -- and also convicted. At the same time. Who becomes President? Is that Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy? Scenario 2: Assume that just President Biden gets impeached -- and also convicted. VP Harris becomes President. VP Harris then selects a new VP. Correct? The Speaker of the House is not involved in this scenario. Is that correct? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct… if both positions become vacant at the same time (via death or other removal), the Speaker becomes President. If only the Presidency becomes vacant (via death or removal) the Vice President becomes President, and then appoints a new VP. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, the Speaker becomes Acting President (see United States presidential line of succession, fourth paragraph). The appointment of a new VP is subject to confirmation by Congress (this is a fine point I hadn't realized — for every other confirmation of a presidential appointment that I'm aware of, it's just the Senate, but for a new VP it's both houses of Congress). --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Trovatore ... is your reply for Scenario 1 or 2? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Scenario 1. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So, in Scenario 1 ... McCarthy becomes the new president (or "acting"). Who is the new VP? That is up to McCarthy to nominate? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes… McCarthy would nominate. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|