Would a U.S. President&#39;s Executive Orders be nullified if he/she is removed from office via the 25th Amendment? I am curious to know if the Executive Orders of a U.S. President would be nullified if he/she is removed from the Office of the Presidency via the 25th Amendment, especially if it is proven that he/she was mentally or physically incapacitated on the day(s) when those Executive Orders were signed.
No. They could be, but the &quot;nullification&quot; wouldn't be automatic. That is because, as the Congressional Research Service says in its excellent &quot;Executive Orders: An Introduction&quot;: &quot;Once issued, a valid executive order has the force and effect of law. Executive orders do not, by default, expire when the issuing President leaves office. Instead, an issued executive order remains in effect until it is either struck down in court, modified, or revoked.&quot; Because executive orders persist but can be easily changed, one of the first orders of business of a new administration is to revoke, modify or re-issue inherited executive orders. As far as your hypothetical, most commenters agree that when the President is expected to return to office quickly, the Acting President's job is simply to &quot;keep shop.&quot; However, in extreme cases, such as the one you outline, they also agree the Acting President can exercise the full-range of Presidential powers. Thus, the Acting President could revoke the problematic orders. (This is discussed in Yale Law School's in the Yale Law School's &quot;Reader's Guide&quot; to the 25th Amendment.) If you want to know more, the Wikipedia page on Executive Orders gives a short (and harmless) summary. For more detail, see either the CRS pamphlet cited above, or their earlier pamphlet,&quot;Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation.&quot;
There are two possible scenarios: The Vice-Presidential President and a mass Write In. In the first, if the elected President is removed from office after 2 years in office, than the Vice-President (and the entire eligible line of succession for that matter) would be eligible to run for two terms, giving the Former Veep the ability to serve for a total of 10 years. If the Veep ascends to President prior to the 2 year mark, it counts as his first term for 25th Amendment Purposes and he can only run for one more election. In the second scenario, if there is a mass write in campaign of a former two term President that wins, the votes will not be counted as the candidate is not eligible under the terms of the 22nd Amendment. Under Article II of the Constitution, no person who is ineligible from office may ever ascend to the office of President. In terms of the 25th Amendment, the Presidential Line of succession currently is starts with the Vice-President, then the Speaker of the House, then the President pro tempore of the Senate, followed by the Cabinet by order of Creation of office. Only the Vice-President is exclusively barred from being a non-Native Borne U.S. citizen. However, the rest of the offices in the succession line are not barred in such a manner, so there could arise a case in which the line has a member who is not a native born citizen (Currently Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao is a naturalized citizen and not eligible to become President. Were she eligible, she would be 14th in line.). As such, she is omitted per the Presidential Succession Act and the line below her is elevated. She is also disqualified from being a Designated Survivor, as they role entails that they must be legally authorized to be President should the worst happen.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are about civil and criminal court proceedings. They do not apply to a university's internal disciplinary procedures, which are the subject of the Dear Colleague letter. Note for example the text of the Fifth Amendment: ... or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. A university's disciplinary procedures do not deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property. Typically, they only decide whether to suspend or expel the person as a student at the university, or apply other academic punishments (failing grades, marks on transcript, etc). I don't think there needs to be any law "affirming" this. Rather, there is simply no law that requires universities to use Fifth / Sixth amendment standards in their internal disciplinary procedures.
Many laws control the conduct of the executive branch &quot;Attempting to control the conduct of the executive branch&quot; doesn't imply a violation of the constitutional separation of powers. Congress has many laws that control the executive. 35 USC 101 tells the Patent and Trademark Office what subject matter is patentable. 15 USC 1052 tells the Patent and Trademark Office that it must provide registration unless a trademark falls into one of several categories. There are many many more. This power comes from Article 1, Section 8 The power to enact laws that tell the executive branch what to do stems from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives congress the power &quot;to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.&quot; Example of intrusion on Executive authority But, when a statute intrudes on the authority conferred on the Executive by the Constitution, it is not constitutional. An example where Congress intruded on Executive authority is Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). The court held that &quot;the power to recognize foreign states resides in the President alone&quot;, and that &quot;if Congress could alter the President’s statements on matters of recognition or force him to contradict them, Congress in effect would exercise the recognition power. An exclusive Presidential power disables the Congress from acting upon the subject.&quot; (Citing Youngstown Sheet &amp; Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), an important separation of powers case that went the other way: the Executive issued an order that infringed on the law-making powers vested in Congress.) Executive acknowledges that Congress can control how vacancies are filled There is a case before the Supreme Court in October term 2016, where the Executive is defending its interpretation of a statute that concerns how particular executive employees are hired, fired, or directed: National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc.. The Executive is not challenging the constitutionality of the statute, though. The Executive even argues, basically, &quot;If Congress wanted to control us, it has the ability to and knows how to control us.. it just didn't in this case.&quot; No bills of attainder United States v. Lovett 328 U.S. 303 (1946) is another case where Congress went too far. The background here was that Congress passed a law that said &quot;no salary or other compensation shall be paid to certain employees of the Government (specified by name)&quot;. The court held that: &quot;Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial, are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.&quot; This principle was refined in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). The court upheld an act that directed &quot;the Administrator of GSA to take custody of appellant's Presidential materials&quot;. Even given this specific direction to take a particular action, the court found that &quot;the Act does not, on its face, violate the principle of separation of powers.&quot;
In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a similar provision in Maryland's constitution violated the First Amendment and could not be enforced. So presumably the North Carolina provision is similarly unconstitutional and unenforceable. It's not clear why it wasn't removed in 1971. I found references to a 2009 incident in which an avowed atheist named Cecil Bothwell was elected to the Asheville, NC city council. Opponents apparently threatened to mount a legal challenge to his eligibility under the Article VI provision. It's not clear if they actually tried to do so, but in any event, Bothwell served his full four-year term and was then re-elected for another.
The question actually asked, "what legal theories would support or harm...", is somewhat unclear. But what the questioner seems to be asking is, basically, what would happen if you tried it? The answer, it seems to me, is pretty straightforward. In the hypothetical case, you have been publishing a notice for years, saying "I have not been served with a subpoena." You then get served with a subpoena that includes a gag order. The gag order, presumably, includes wording prohibiting you from revealing the existence of the subpoena. You then cease publication of the warrant canary. By doing so, you have revealed the existence of the subpoena, and you are in violation of the gag order. You will be subject to whatever penalties you would be subject to if you violated it in some other way; for example, by publishing a notice that said, "Hey! We got a subpoena! It's a secret!" The distinction between revealing the existence of the subpoena by action, rather than by inaction, is a false one. It's exactly the kind of cutesy legal formality that non-lawyers love to rely on, but real judges ignore. If you tell someone: "Hey, you know John Smith's three sons, Joe, Ted, and Bill? Joe and Ted are good people; they have never molested any children. As for Bill--well, I don't have anything to say about Bill." If Bill is not a child molester, you have defamed him, and you are not going to convince a judge otherwise. The EFF link you link to tries to claim it'll "work" because courts are reluctant to enforce speech. Even if that were true, that might mean your canary would be effective in the sense of giving the public notice of the subpoena. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be liable for giving the public notice. For example: I put up a billboard saying "Bill Smith is a pedophile." Even if the court can't force me to add the word "not", that doesn't mean the billboard isn't defamatory. Realistically, though, courts compel speech all the time. Court-ordered apologies, disclosures, and notices are not unusual. And if ever a court would be inclined to compel speech, it would be in a situation like this one, where a company intentionally set out to get around a gag order with this kind of convoluted sea-lawyering.
No, votes would not have to be postponed. The Constitution has nothing specific to say about this. (It's not that long - you can and should read it through and check for yourself, and searching is even easier.) The Constitution's only reference to the Speaker of the House is Article I Section 2: &quot;The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers [...]&quot;. (Other than the 25th Amendment which prescribes the role of the Speaker in receiving declarations as to whether the President is incapacitated.) The House's procedures, and the Speaker's role in them, are left up to the Rules of the House of Representatives, which the House makes for itself. (US Constitution, Article I, Section 5: &quot;Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings [...]&quot;.) Rule I, Section 8 provides: (a) The Speaker may appoint a Member to perform the duties of the Chair. Except as specified in paragraph (b), such an appointment may not extend beyond three legislative days. (b)(1) In the case of illness, the Speaker may appoint a Member to perform the duties of the Chair for a period not exceeding 10 days, subject to the approval of the House. If the Speaker is absent and has omitted to make such an appointment, then the House shall elect a Speaker pro tempore to act during the absence of the Speaker. So if the Speaker is ill, she can appoint a temporary substitute (Speaker pro tempore), who can preside over all House business, including votes. If she cannot or does not do so, the House may elect a Speaker pro tempore with the same authority. (That election itself would be presided over by the Clerk of the House, an administrative official, as specified by Rule II Section 2(a).) Either way, there would be no need for votes to be postponed.
SCOTUS Justice Samuel Chase was impeached though not convicted by the Senate. Here is a list of federal judges investigated for impeachment, and a list of federal officials impeached. The first federal judge to be removed from office was John Pickering, and the most recent is Thomas Porteous. Only Congress has the power to impeach: SCOTUS cannot review an impeachment, and the presidential pardon power does not extend to impeachments. Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution states that "... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."; Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 says "The House of Representatives ...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment", and Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article 2, Section 4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Taken together, one might think that a civil officer can only be removed for criminal conduct while in office. This is by no means guaranteed, since it does not say that explicitly, and it is up to the Senate to determine whether, for example, lying during a confirmation hearing about previous conduct would satisfy the requirements of Article 2, Section 4. In order for them to make that determination, the House would have had to also previously decided that the alleged situation does constitute the conditions in that clause, since an official has to be both impeached and convicted, involving both houses. The conviction furthermore requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate ("no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present").