The phrase &quot;by and with the [Advice and] consent of the Senate is defined once in the U.S. Constitution The constitution introduces the phrase &quot;by and with the advice and consent of the Senate&quot; and clarifies that &quot;consent&quot; means &quot;provided 2/3 of the Senators present concur&quot;. It then uses this phrase again, without repeating (or modifying) the clarification, and both times the intention is to tightly constrain the President's actions, so as to be &quot;with the consent of the Senate&quot;. Such usage is a very common &quot;device&quot;, with the short phrase now appearing in the clarification's stead, not needing to repeat the entirety of it. Consequently, the President has the power to: nominate Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States but can only make treaties and turn nominations into appointments [with the advice and consent of the Senate], which means he can only make treaties and turn nominations into appointments [provided 2/3 of the Senators present concur]. How is it possible that a given party seems unable to block any such appointments? Wasn't this precisely the intent? To ensure that these specifically enumerated positions would compel the nomination of people who would pass this higher bar as properly non-partison selections, to increase the likelihood of appointing excellence? If not, why call these things out at all? Requiring only a simple majority invites a tyranny thereof, invites factional politics, invites an unconstrained President, the very things the framers were so determined to prevent. Were they truly this inept? Or is it we who are failing--we who cannot think, and read, and understand? For reference-- USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. reads as: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”.
&quot;two thirds&quot; is not presented as a definition of &quot;advice and consent&quot;, it's an additional qualification.
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").
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.
Part of the problem you'll find is that there are so few impeachments in U.S. History (Only 21 articles of Impeachment have ever been drafted, of which only 8 resulted in convictions) and SCOTUS is so selective on cases it chooses to hear, that only one case has ever been heard and that was upheld (Nixon v. United States). In that case, SCOTUS ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the legal question before it (was the new trial format a proper trial by the senate), but did not have an opinion one way or another to suggest that SCOTUS could not review other cases that come before it. One of the reasons they also haven't is in order to have a legal case in the U.S., the plaintiff must suffer actual harm. More impeachments ended without a conviction than with either acquittal (8), resignation before trial conclusion (4), and expulsion from senate (1, and will never occur again as Congressional office holders are not impeachable following this particular case). Since no harm was caused and courts do not rule on hypotheticals, a case with actual harm (conviction) must occur in order for SCOTUS to even consider hearing the case. Nixon does not bar SCOTUS from hearing more appeals resulting from Impeachment, it only bars those relating to the manner in which the senate chooses to hold the trial.
The constitution does not actually forbid "abusing a position for financial gain", and thus it is left to the political process to address any such actions (voting for a different candidate), or the legislative process (defining certain acts as forbidden) – or, the impeachment process. The court system in the US does not have the power to decide on their own what politicians can and can't do, if there is no underlying law. It is within congressional power to define limits on the act of any politician, for example Congress could pass a law requiring the President and Vice-President to have no business interests or stocks during their term of office; they could require that of cabinet members or members of Congress. Such a law would, of course, either require presidential approval or else sufficient support in the houses of congress to override a veto. There are various limits on what government folks can do. 18 USC 202(c) is an example of a limit on the limits: Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms “officer” and “employee” in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge It is possible that a president could engage in a criminal act such as theft, and that is not permitted and would be grounds for impeachment. The president does not, however, have the power to e.g. unilaterally send all government hotel business to a certain hotel company, nor can he declare that 10% of all government expenditures must be deposited in his personal bank account, so the mechanisms whereby corrupt rules of certain other nations can get away with that is that those executives have vastly more power in their countries than POTUS does. With congressional support, though, such acts could come about. If it did, it would not be too surprising if SCOTUS ruled based on common law and considerations of justice that such a law / act was illegal, but it would not be a textualist argument.
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.
See Article VI of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. This seems to me that it pretty clearly establishes the Constitution as taking the place of any previous laws. In particular, Article XI of the Articles is in conflict with Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution ("New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union"). The Constitution says that Congress's action is required to create a new state, and doesn't mention any exceptions. The Constitution's terms presumably take precedence. If Canada wanted to become a state, it would have to be admitted by Congress under Article IV Section 3.
The executive can only make laws within the scope of the powers granted to them by the constitution (of which there are very few) or delegated to them by congress. An executive order that oversteps those bounds is void as recent experience has shown.