I wonder what changes the development of The US would see if The US Constitution had a relatively small change in its formation and implications that could follow.
The US did not have an Office of Vice-President.
Perhaps, the Office of Vice-President is seen as contrary to the idea of separation of powers, given that the Vice-President would be elected as an executive figure who ran for Presidency is also legislative officer by virtue of his or her constitutional authority to preside over the Senate . Maybe it's considered superfluous. Whatever the reason, there is no Vice-President.
Before I address, potential Presidential elections or treaty ratifications, I would like to examine governmental structure without a Vice-president.
Presidential Succession:
I would argue that a logical choice of successor that the framers would have put in place would be "President of Senate". Given the framers views on the Senate and how it was supposed to represent the interests of each state and viewed as the elite, and given that President pro temporae, while mostly a ceremonial title was at times in The US history the first-in-line after the Vice-President and is still in the line of succession after the Speaker of the House. For example, where Andrew Johnson removed from office the rules at the time would have made The President pro temporae Benjamin Wade President. I feel the order choosen in the unamended consitution would be President of Senate then Speaker of The House.
Election of President of the Senate: The President of the Senate is elected by The senators by in a similar fashion to that of Speaker of the House by majority vote of its members.
The Title of Presiding Officer: I chose to use "President of The Senate" in reference, as I feel it makes historical sense. Though I could see an argument that it would choose something such as, "Speaker of The Senate" such a distinction may not have an effect. Though it might be an interesting distinction to note A president at the time, was a humble position. Being a Speaker of a given body had a connection with parliamentary authority through the already historical use of the Title in The House of Commons and House of Lords which the framers modeled a lot from.
Office of President pro temporae: Where there a designated President/Speaker of The Senate . It would be similar to that of Speaker pro temporae in the US House of Representatives where a member is temporarily appointed to preside over the body to get them accustomed to the rules.Though there could be a reason the Office may still be a Constitutional designated role, and that would be in Presidential Impeachment Trials in the Senate explained in more detail below.
Suffrage of The President of The Senate: Since all states receive 2 senators, motions could end up being deadlocked even with the President's vote. Would the framers entitle the President of The Senate with a privilege as the Vice-President to break a tie-casting vote? I argue that the answer would most likely be no. Where the POS given such privilege, in effect it would be granting more representation to a single state and that President as well. However, suppose there are a total of thirty senators, and a Senator abstained from voting on a contentious issue, the vote stood fourteen for and fourteen against. The motion doesn't pass as it doesn't gain a majority. Traditionally, the Speaker of the House doesn't vote or debate, and one could see a similar tradition arising in the Senate potentially,but if the Senate had elected one of their own to the President of Senate, given that they are an elected member they retain suffrage and if though it stands as 'a tie' because of the abstention , if the President choose to do so they could break the tie as it stood in favor of the measure because the senator is not being given extra representation as The President , but exercising its suffrage already granted as a Senator representing a given state.
Presiding Officer for Trials of Presidential Impeachment: In cases where the President is impeached by the House of Representatives, I could see three occurrences. Either the President of the Senate presides, a President pro temporae presides, the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court presides.
Argument for President of The Senate:
In our history, The Office of Vice-president was chosen at the framing as the runner-up in a Presidential race and first-in-line to succeed. It was seen that the Vice-President presiding over the President could be conflict of interest. Not because the Vice-President and President were political allies, but because they could in fact be rivals. Remember due to Hamilton convincing South Carolina not voting for Adams and the New York delegates being 'faithless electors' and casting their second vote for Jefferson became Vice-president to Adams who where of opposing parties. Yes, a rare occurrence, but the framers saw this as a possible frequent occurrence.
Given that there is no Office of Vice-president in this scenario and the President of The US and President of Senate may not be seen as potential rivals as much, as the President of Senate would have been first elected by state legislature to gain his or her seat, if an elected Senator, in the Senate then would need to gain support of the Senators to gain the Office of President of The Senate. Though there may exist political animosity the President of Senate didn't seek the position against The President of The United States. Thereby, one could make the argument that President of Senate represents the confidence of the States to manage the Senate. It could also be argued that a trial to remove The President was already sanctioned by the House of Representatives therefore the potential for a Senate 'coup' is checked by The House of Representatives. Another consideration is a separation of powers issue. The Speaker of The House presides over Impeachments in their body despite being in line to Presidency, if not first,is that not a conflict of interest? The Justice of Supreme Court should be above politics and giving the Justice a role in such proceedings could be seen as forcing them to participate in politics. Keeping with the POS, is republican in nature as it preserves the independence of the Senate and legislature.
Argument for a President pro Temporae: If the POS is chosen as successor while there is a President Trial, even though it may be seen as not being a direct rival to The President does still stand to benefit from a conviction of the President. If the argument about Senate independence is accepted, but the fear of an ambitious President of Senate exists one could foresee a provision where the President of Senate temporarily is required to appoint someone or the Senate has formal vote for the President pro temporae and they preside over Senate, since they are not the direct successor, it could be seen as a way of avoiding the conflict of interest of the President of Senate while preserving the independence of the Senate. I could see this option being favored by moderate anti-federalists who disliked the Supreme Court.
Argument for Chief Justice: Chief Justice of Supreme Court. The argument for this would be similar to why the Chief Justice presides as we know the consitution the conflict of interest of the successor leading the trial to remove the obstacle to Presidency and it may be argued that the Senators are too accountable to the people to preside without bias. I could see this option being favored by Federalists.
Political Power of President: It's hard to say exactly how the position would grow or not. Though I feel the President of the Senate would be regarded much in the same way the Speaker of The House is as we know it. A successful administration would need to gain the support of The President of Senate to accomplish what they want.
Edit:
Presidential succession : After some discussion I feel a more likely succession line is going through the Cabinet before Congressional Officers.As they would have been seen as closer to the elected government and it would have made a more smooth continuity of government.
The US did not have an Office of Vice-President.
Perhaps, the Office of Vice-President is seen as contrary to the idea of separation of powers, given that the Vice-President would be elected as an executive figure who ran for Presidency is also legislative officer by virtue of his or her constitutional authority to preside over the Senate . Maybe it's considered superfluous. Whatever the reason, there is no Vice-President.
Before I address, potential Presidential elections or treaty ratifications, I would like to examine governmental structure without a Vice-president.
Presidential Succession:
I would argue that a logical choice of successor that the framers would have put in place would be "President of Senate". Given the framers views on the Senate and how it was supposed to represent the interests of each state and viewed as the elite, and given that President pro temporae, while mostly a ceremonial title was at times in The US history the first-in-line after the Vice-President and is still in the line of succession after the Speaker of the House. For example, where Andrew Johnson removed from office the rules at the time would have made The President pro temporae Benjamin Wade President. I feel the order choosen in the unamended consitution would be President of Senate then Speaker of The House.
Election of President of the Senate: The President of the Senate is elected by The senators by in a similar fashion to that of Speaker of the House by majority vote of its members.
The Title of Presiding Officer: I chose to use "President of The Senate" in reference, as I feel it makes historical sense. Though I could see an argument that it would choose something such as, "Speaker of The Senate" such a distinction may not have an effect. Though it might be an interesting distinction to note A president at the time, was a humble position. Being a Speaker of a given body had a connection with parliamentary authority through the already historical use of the Title in The House of Commons and House of Lords which the framers modeled a lot from.
Office of President pro temporae: Where there a designated President/Speaker of The Senate . It would be similar to that of Speaker pro temporae in the US House of Representatives where a member is temporarily appointed to preside over the body to get them accustomed to the rules.Though there could be a reason the Office may still be a Constitutional designated role, and that would be in Presidential Impeachment Trials in the Senate explained in more detail below.
Suffrage of The President of The Senate: Since all states receive 2 senators, motions could end up being deadlocked even with the President's vote. Would the framers entitle the President of The Senate with a privilege as the Vice-President to break a tie-casting vote? I argue that the answer would most likely be no. Where the POS given such privilege, in effect it would be granting more representation to a single state and that President as well. However, suppose there are a total of thirty senators, and a Senator abstained from voting on a contentious issue, the vote stood fourteen for and fourteen against. The motion doesn't pass as it doesn't gain a majority. Traditionally, the Speaker of the House doesn't vote or debate, and one could see a similar tradition arising in the Senate potentially,but if the Senate had elected one of their own to the President of Senate, given that they are an elected member they retain suffrage and if though it stands as 'a tie' because of the abstention , if the President choose to do so they could break the tie as it stood in favor of the measure because the senator is not being given extra representation as The President , but exercising its suffrage already granted as a Senator representing a given state.
Presiding Officer for Trials of Presidential Impeachment: In cases where the President is impeached by the House of Representatives, I could see three occurrences. Either the President of the Senate presides, a President pro temporae presides, the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court presides.
Argument for President of The Senate:
In our history, The Office of Vice-president was chosen at the framing as the runner-up in a Presidential race and first-in-line to succeed. It was seen that the Vice-President presiding over the President could be conflict of interest. Not because the Vice-President and President were political allies, but because they could in fact be rivals. Remember due to Hamilton convincing South Carolina not voting for Adams and the New York delegates being 'faithless electors' and casting their second vote for Jefferson became Vice-president to Adams who where of opposing parties. Yes, a rare occurrence, but the framers saw this as a possible frequent occurrence.
Given that there is no Office of Vice-president in this scenario and the President of The US and President of Senate may not be seen as potential rivals as much, as the President of Senate would have been first elected by state legislature to gain his or her seat, if an elected Senator, in the Senate then would need to gain support of the Senators to gain the Office of President of The Senate. Though there may exist political animosity the President of Senate didn't seek the position against The President of The United States. Thereby, one could make the argument that President of Senate represents the confidence of the States to manage the Senate. It could also be argued that a trial to remove The President was already sanctioned by the House of Representatives therefore the potential for a Senate 'coup' is checked by The House of Representatives. Another consideration is a separation of powers issue. The Speaker of The House presides over Impeachments in their body despite being in line to Presidency, if not first,is that not a conflict of interest? The Justice of Supreme Court should be above politics and giving the Justice a role in such proceedings could be seen as forcing them to participate in politics. Keeping with the POS, is republican in nature as it preserves the independence of the Senate and legislature.
Argument for a President pro Temporae: If the POS is chosen as successor while there is a President Trial, even though it may be seen as not being a direct rival to The President does still stand to benefit from a conviction of the President. If the argument about Senate independence is accepted, but the fear of an ambitious President of Senate exists one could foresee a provision where the President of Senate temporarily is required to appoint someone or the Senate has formal vote for the President pro temporae and they preside over Senate, since they are not the direct successor, it could be seen as a way of avoiding the conflict of interest of the President of Senate while preserving the independence of the Senate. I could see this option being favored by moderate anti-federalists who disliked the Supreme Court.
Argument for Chief Justice: Chief Justice of Supreme Court. The argument for this would be similar to why the Chief Justice presides as we know the consitution the conflict of interest of the successor leading the trial to remove the obstacle to Presidency and it may be argued that the Senators are too accountable to the people to preside without bias. I could see this option being favored by Federalists.
Political Power of President: It's hard to say exactly how the position would grow or not. Though I feel the President of the Senate would be regarded much in the same way the Speaker of The House is as we know it. A successful administration would need to gain the support of The President of Senate to accomplish what they want.
Edit:
Presidential succession : After some discussion I feel a more likely succession line is going through the Cabinet before Congressional Officers.As they would have been seen as closer to the elected government and it would have made a more smooth continuity of government.
Last edited: