AHC/WI: VPOTUS Part of the Legislative Branch and Alternate Presidential Succession

Delta Force

Banned
Prior to the 12th Amendment, there were no separate electoral votes for President and Vice President. The candidate with the most electoral votes became President, and the candidate with the second most electoral votes became the Vice President. A faction/political party had to carefully coordinate votes to ensure that the right people won the right offices, which didn't always work out if the electors weren't voting for the same secondary person to become Vice President. If they failed, it was entirely possible for the President and Vice President to be from opposing factions/political parties.

Obviously you wouldn't want to have a rival in a position of power in the Executive Branch, and the Constitution makes that the case. The only role that the United States Constitution gives the Vice President is to be President of the Senate. Regarding succession, the Constitution only said that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President." It wasn't until the death of President Harrison and John Tyler's succession as President, not Acting President, that the precedent of direct succession as full President was established. However, throughout his term as President he was considered to be merely Acting President by many people, who felt that a special election should have been held to select a new President. If the Vice President was considered to be a member of the Legislative Branch that would make the case for Acting President stronger. The Constitution has a strict separation of powers, and it could be considered awkward to have a member of the Executive presiding over the Legislative Branch. Certainly the case for the President Pro Tempore or Speaker of the House becoming President instead of Acting President under the 1792 Presidential Succession Act would have been far more controversial.

Given this (and perhaps some other arguments), is it possible that the office of Vice President could have been considered part of the Legislative Branch? What kind of implications might that have had? Also, what if presidential death or incapacitation resulted in an Acting President taking over until the conclusion of a special election?
 
Regarding succession, the Constitution only said that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President." It wasn't until the death of President Harrison and John Tyler's succession as President, not Acting President, that the precedent of direct succession as full President was established. However, throughout his term as President he was considered to be merely Acting President by many people, who felt that a special election should have been held to select a new President.

Some people certainly preferred to call Tyler "Acting President" but who exactly called for a "special election"? From my reading, I don't recall anyone doing so.

Incidentally, it would have been a perfectly normal election, with nothing "special" about it. There is no constitutional mechanism for a POTUS or VP to be elected for any term other than four years, so any new ones chosen would be entitled to that tenure.



Given this (and perhaps some other arguments), is it possible that the office of Vice President could have been considered part of the Legislative Branch? What kind of implications might that have had? Also, what if presidential death or incapacitation resulted in an Acting President taking over until the conclusion of a special election?
Some people saw it that way even OTL. Iirc, at least one VP (it might have been Thomas R Marshall) stopped attending Cabinet meetings because he was a member of the legislative branch rather tan the executive, so his attendance was inappropriate.
 
Some people certainly preferred to call Tyler "Acting President" but who exactly called for a "special election"? From my reading, I don't recall anyone doing so.

Incidentally, it would have been a perfectly normal election, with nothing "special" about it. There is no constitutional mechanism for a POTUS or VP to be elected for any term other than four years, so any new ones chosen would be entitled to that tenure.



Some people saw it that way even OTL. Irc, at least one VP (it might have been Thomas R Marshall) stopped attending Cabinet meetings because he was a member of the legislative branch rather tan the executive, so his attendance was inappropriate.

Well, sort of. Section 10 of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 calls for a special election if both the President and Vice President are removed from office. This election is to be held in December, or December of next year if there are less than two months to go until December and the term isn't about to expire. In a case of "Inartful Drafting" Section 12 doesn't make it clear whether this special election resets the clock and gives the new President a four year term, it just says that "The term of four years for which a President and Vice President shall be elected shall in all cases commence on the fourth day of March next succeeding the day on which the votes of the electors shall have been given."
 

jahenders

Banned
While history shows that our leaders chose to change that, I don't take it as a given that "you wouldn't want a rival in a position of power in the administration." Perhaps I'm assuming more maturity and bi-partisanship than would sometimes occur, but I think there could be value to a former rival becoming part of the core team, providing alternate viewpoints vs. groupthink, providing another avenue for input from (and unofficial messages to) the opposition party, etc.

Prior to the 12th Amendment, there were no separate electoral votes for President and Vice President. The candidate with the most electoral votes became President, and the candidate with the second most electoral votes became the Vice President. A faction/political party had to carefully coordinate votes to ensure that the right people won the right offices, which didn't always work out if the electors weren't voting for the same secondary person to become Vice President. If they failed, it was entirely possible for the President and Vice President to be from opposing factions/political parties.

Obviously you wouldn't want to have a rival in a position of power in the Executive Branch, and the Constitution makes that the case. The only role that the United States Constitution gives the Vice President is to be President of the Senate. Regarding succession, the Constitution only said that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President." It wasn't until the death of President Harrison and John Tyler's succession as President, not Acting President, that the precedent of direct succession as full President was established. However, throughout his term as President he was considered to be merely Acting President by many people, who felt that a special election should have been held to select a new President. If the Vice President was considered to be a member of the Legislative Branch that would make the case for Acting President stronger. The Constitution has a strict separation of powers, and it could be considered awkward to have a member of the Executive presiding over the Legislative Branch. Certainly the case for the President Pro Tempore or Speaker of the House becoming President instead of Acting President under the 1792 Presidential Succession Act would have been far more controversial.

Given this (and perhaps some other arguments), is it possible that the office of Vice President could have been considered part of the Legislative Branch? What kind of implications might that have had? Also, what if presidential death or incapacitation resulted in an Acting President taking over until the conclusion of a special election?
 
Have a different first VPOTUS other than John Adams; the Senate didn't like him and stripped him of most of his legislative power. If there was a VPOTUS more popular in the Senate, the role could come to be seen as a primarily legislative role.
 
Well, sort of. Section 10 of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 calls for a special election if both the President and Vice President are removed from office. This election is to be held in December, or December of next year if there are less than two months to go until December and the term isn't about to expire. In a case of "Inartful Drafting" Section 12 doesn't make it clear whether this special election resets the clock and gives the new President a four year term, it just says that "The term of four years for which a President and Vice President shall be elected shall in all cases commence on the fourth day of March next succeeding the day on which the votes of the electors shall have been given."


Does it really matter what Section 12 says?

There doesn't seem to be anything in the Constitution authorising congress to provide for a Presidential term other than four years.

And in any case it has no bearing on the case of a Vice-President succeeding. Congress is only authorised to provide by law for a double vacancy.
 
Top