NEW BOT Телеграм, страница

Forwarded from SHELLSHQCK

Interesting turn of events happening with Joe Biden this evening.

Where is “Joe?”

👀37👍8❤2

2.53K viewsMajFreddy🇺🇸, 07:22

Constitutionality
The 1947 act has been widely criticized over the years as unconstitutional.[41] Akhil Amar, who is a legal scholar in constitutional law, has called it "a disastrous statute, an accident waiting to happen".[42] There are two main areas of concern.
Meaning of "officer"
There are concerns regarding the constitutionality of having members of Congress in the line of succession. The Constitution's Succession Clause—Article II, Section 1, Clause 6—specifies that only an "Officer" may be designated as a Presidential successor. Constitutional scholars from James Madison to the present day have argued that the term "Officer" refers to an "Officer of the United States", a term of art that excludes members of Congress. During a September 2003 joint hearing before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration and Committee on the Judiciary, M. Miller Baker said:
The 1947 Act is probably unconstitutional because it appears that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate are not "Officers" eligible to act as President within the meaning of the Succession Clause. This is because in referring to an "Officer", the Succession Clause, taken in its context in Section 1 of Article II, probably refers to an "Officer of the United States", a term of art under the Constitution, rather than any officer, which would include legislative and state officers referred to in the Constitution (e.g., the reference to state militia officers found in Article I, Section 8). In the very next section of Article II, the President is empowered to "require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" and to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, "Officers of the United States". These are the "Officers" to whom the Succession Clause probably refers. This contextual reading is confirmed by Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, which reveal that the Convention's Committee of Style, which had no authority to make substantive changes, substituted "Officer" in the Succession Clause in place of "Officer of the United States", probably because the Committee considered the full phrase redundant.[43]
In "Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?", Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar refer to the Incompatibility Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2)—which bars officials in the federal government's executive branch from simultaneously serving in either the U.S. House or Senate—as evidence that members of the Congress cannot be in the Presidential line of succession.[15]
Bumping
The current act is also controversial because it provides that an officer who is acting as president due to the disability or failure to qualify of an officer higher in the order of succession does so only until the other officer's disability or disqualification is removed. If this happens, the previously ennoscriptd officer can "bump" the person then acting as president.[28] During testimony in 2004 before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Akhil Reed Amar stated that this provision violates "the Succession Clause, which says that an officer named by Congress shall 'act as President ... until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected'".[44]
In its 2009 report, the Continuity of Government Commission argued that as well as going against the language of the Constitution, bumping violates the doctrine of separation of powers by undermining the independence of the executive from the Congress:

Wikipedia

Akhil Reed Amar

American legal scholar

👍20❤11💔1

3.59K viewsMajFreddy🇺🇸, 07:32