Transfer of US Presidential power when both the President and the Vice President are incapacitated According to Article II, section 1, clause 6 of the US Constitution, in the case of death, removal, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers of the office, both of the President and the Vice President, Congress may by law provide who will act as President (and it currently does in the Presidential Succession Act, with the Speaker of the House as first in line). I have a question about how this would work in a case where both the President and Vice President are incapacitated (i.e. alive but unable to perform any actions). The 25th Amendment, sections 3 and 4, provide the two ways in which the President can be determined to be unable to discharge the powers of his office. Under section 3, the President can declare himself unable to discharge the powers of the officer for a period of time, which he can't do when incapacitated. Under section 4, either the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet, or the Vice President and another body that Congress may by law provide, can declare the President to be unable to discharge the duties of his office. Since the Vice President is also incapacitated, this is not possible either. So in this case is there no way to declare the President (and the Vice President) unable to discharge their duties to have someone further down the line of succession act as President? (I guess one alternative would be for Congress to impeach both the President and Vice President, which would immediately make the next in line the Acting President, although it seems unreasonable to impeach them if they did not do anything wrong.)
Under article II, section 1 of the Constitution: 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, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The 25th Amendment doesn't cover the case of the President and Vice-President becoming incapacitated simultaneously, so instead the original section of the Constitution can be consulted. And unlike the 25th Amendment, this is quite clear: Congress passes a law deciding who the acting President is. The current law is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
The US legal code regarding threatening a president is 18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency. The first clause defines how threatening the president is illegal. The second clause starts off by defining "President-elect": The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. So the key here is that they are the "the apparent successful candidates […] as ascertained from the results of the general elections." It doesn't define this phrase though, especially the word "apparent". It appears that the prosecutors in the case mentioned in the question are arguing that Donald Trump became the apparent President-elect when, after Election Day, voting results began coming in and he was projected to win 270 electoral votes. Given the amount of stock that most Americans seem to put into the media's coverage of who wins the election (and the fact that the person in question seems to have assumed he would be president), that's unlikely to be contested.
The Twenty Second Amendment is quite clear on this: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice In your question, the President has been elected twice - unless of course the President was actually the Vice President (or elsewhere in the line of succession) at the start of the first term, in which case theres other limits: and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. So, someone who has held the office of President after being elevated to it rather than elected to it, but served no more than 1 year 364 days of that first term, could possibly, by the wording of the Twenty Second Amendment, be eligible to resign within their second term and stand again but only once more.
The US Constitution Art. 1 §3 cl. 4 says The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. No clause of the Constitution limits how a person can vote in the Senate (or the House). Congress has not enacted any legislation that addresses this question, and nothing in the Constitution empowers Congress to limit the right to vote. Art 1 §5 cl. 2 says Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. That is, the Senate can set up rules for how it will conduct business. The Senate is not empowered to exclude a member's right to vote, they with a supermajority they can expel a member (or convict and remove a vice-president, given an impeachment from the House). It should also be remembered that the VP is not a member of the Senate, the VP has a limited right to vote which is granted by the Constitution, and which cannot be taken away except by constitutional amendment. Harris would therefore be empowered to vote for herself, under the tie-breaker clause.
Well, moral obligations are not laws, nor sometimes even moral obligations. Some laws are based on what some courts and legislatures think are moral obligations. We think cannibals have a moral obligation not to eat people; cannibals think non-cannibals are fools for passing up a good BBQ. As for a leader's moral responsibility for millions of lives, we can take as extreme examples Mao, Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., that there are no obligations. The law that could apply in the case of a POTUS who does not "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..." (oath of office for POTUS) is that of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", the grounds for most impeachments. But "faithfully executing the Office of President" has no moral obligation; it has legal implications, that's all. High crimes or misdemeanor are legal definitions, not moral, and depend on previous cases of what a crime or misdemeanor is. Insobriety can be illegal; there are laws on the books concerning public drunkenness. But in the contest of POTUS (one who is hopefully not passed out on the sidewalk in front of the WH), it remains to be seen if insobriety is a high crime or misdemeanor. That would be up to the House Judiciary Committee and US House of Representatives, which by Constitutional powers handles impeachment proceedings. The Twenty-fifth Amendment outlines who succeeds the president due to "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office," but it does not state who has the power to declare a President incapacitated. It's possible that a POTUS who incapacitates himself with alcohol is guilty of a "high crime or misdemeanor." But how drunk do you have to be to be incapacitated? Drunk enough to think a Game Boy is the nuclear football? Again, that's up to the House. Some past presidents have arguably been functional alcoholics (or functional recovered alcoholics.) But incapacitated? That can be subjective when it comes to the application of the law. And morals have little to do with it, unless those morals have a basis in that same law. Update 12/04/16: Some federal judges have been impeached due to drunkenness: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments.html and http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
Impeachment In addition to the Constitutional qualifications, one may become ineligible to federal office by being impeached by the House, convicted and removed from office by the Senate, and having the Senate add the &quot;disqualification&quot; term to the sentence. This is surely something done by the legislature but it is not done by passing a law. Criminal Conviction One may also become ineligible by being convicted of treason or insurrection, and possibly other relevant federal offenses. Specific Laws Specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2381 provides that: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (emphasis added) 18 USC §2383 provides that: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (emphasis added) 18 USC §2385 (originally passed as the Smith Act)provides in relevant part that: Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. (emphasis added) 18 USC §2387 provides in relevant part that: (a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (a) (1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (a) (2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. (emphasis added) (See also Chapter 115 which collects these and related sections of title 18.) (See also the Wikipedia article) (See further &quot;A Civilian's Guide to Insurrection Legalese&quot; from The Marshall Project.) Case law In United States v. Burr, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 470 (1807) Chief Justice Marshall wrote an opinion overturning the conviction of Aaron Burr, because Burr was not actually present at the overt act proved, as charged in the indictment. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945) a conviction for treason was overturend because the court held the &quot;overt acts ... as proved were insufficient to support a finding that the accused had given aid and comfort to the enemy&quot; Possible Future laws While treason is defined (or more exactly limited) by the constitution (Article III section 3), nothing in the constitutional provision requires or specifically authorizes that the penalty include ineligibility to office. (It merely says &quot;The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason&quot;.) There is no specific Constitutional authorization for 18 USC 2383, 2385, or 2387, or their penalty sections beyond the general authority of Congress to pass laws and define crimes and their penalties. I am not certain that &quot;employment&quot; in 2385 and 2387 includes elective office, but I suspect it does. 2383 clearly includes elective office. Thus Congress has passed laws, with no specific constitution authorization, that deny people, as punishment for relevant crimes, eligibility to office or employment under the United States. What Congress has done in one case, it could do in another, if it saw fit. Congress could pass a law creating a new offense, or modifying an existing offense, to add the penalty of disqualification. But the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws would mean that such a law would not apply to conduct that occurred before the law was passed or amended. Conviction required Congress may not declare a person guilty of a particular crime; that would be a bill of attainder, which is also specifically prohibited in the Constitution. A criminal conviction by a court is required to trigger the ineligibility provisions of sections 2381, 2383, 2385, 2387, or any similar law. Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. This forms another ground whereby an individual can be barred from some federal and state offices, but it is not one that can be invoked by Congress for specific people by name. Indeed it is not clear how it can currently be invoked. This provision requires a judicial determination that it applies to a specific person. From 1868 to 1872 there was a law in force for this purpose, but in 1872 Congress granted a broad amnesty which exempted most of those who would otherwise have been subject to this provision because of the US Civil War, and the law was soon repealed. In the wake of the events of 6 Jan 2021 several bills have been introduced to create ma new enforcement mechanism for this provision. To the best of my knowledge, none have yet been passed into law. See &quot;The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Provision and the Events of Jan. 6&quot; for so9em relevant details and background. That article also says: Section 3 is different from a disqualification from federal office imposed as a sentence for an impeachment conviction. A disqualification sentence from the Senate is final and not, for all intents and purposes, subject to judicial review. By contrast, Congress cannot simply declare an official outside of that body ineligible under Section 3 without the concurrence of the courts. To hold otherwise would allow simple majorities in Congress to oust federal and state officials without judicial scrutiny ...
It's never happened so there is really no definitive answer. There are plausible arguments both ways. Many impeachment cases have been dismissed in the Senate before a trial is complete, or before a Senate trial is commenced, because a resignation has made the process moot.
Yes, the President can certainly veto such a law. Per the US Constitution (emphasis added): Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. This can have a very real effect: legislators are under no obligation to vote the same way on a veto override as on the original bill. The reason the President needs to supply written objections in the first place is that it lets legislators reconsider, see if they're swayed, or see if they think this is a matter where a Congressional majority needs to be respected even if they disagree (they can change their mind in either direction). They can also get a sense of public reaction. And because the threshold for this is "present and voting," it's possible that just more legislators show up. Even if legislators won't be swayed, it still matters for pocket vetoes. That's where the President neither signs the bill nor returns it within 10 days; normally this is equivalent to signing, but if Congress adjourns in the meantime, it means the bill does not become a law. Because "Congress adjourns" is a necessary part of a pocket veto, it's impossible to override the veto (you can't do it if you're not in session). And even when this doesn't apply either, it matters for politics. Example of a futile veto: Public Law 100-4. Passed 406-8 in the House, 93-6 in the Senate. Vetoed; veto was overridden 401-26 in the House and 86-14 in the Senate (note that at least 7 Senators who voted for the bill voted not to override the veto). Example of an effective veto: While technically there was a conference report agreed to by both houses, and it doesn't seem to have had a roll-call vote (my guess is it was agreed to by unanimous consent; side note: many, many laws don't have roll-calls to check on, because they're passed by voice vote or unanimous consent), H.R.10929 from the 95th Congress was passed in the House by a vote of 319-67 and in the Senate by 87-2. After President Carter vetoed it, the House voted on whether to override the veto. The motion to override was defeated 191-206: after the veto, they couldn't even get a simple majority to override the veto of the bill which had been passed by an overwhelming supermajority. I mentioned it above, but the two-thirds threshold is "present and voting." As a general rule, any time you see a fraction of something needed for a vote to succeed in a deliberative assembly, then unless it specifies some other denominator, it's talking about the fraction of members present and voting. Relevant CRS report on override procedure.