I’ve never liked Joe Biden. Not as a U.S. Senator, or Vice-President, or President. But I’ll be the first to acknowledge that his decision, announced yesterday, to relinquish his party’s presidential nomination, which he was set to formally receive at the Democratic National Convention next month, was the right thing to do.
Way to go, Joe!
First, however, Democratic Party bigshots decided — most importantly with money — that Mr. Biden was not cognitively up to the mighty arduous task of running for president. This fact became ever clearer to many Democrat representatives and senators the more they envisioned themselves becoming collateral political damage.
President Biden held out against their calls for his ouster for weeks after that fateful June debate. The subsequent campaign stops and high-profile interviews designed to showcase his abilities illustrated, instead, that our commander-in-chief was frail, feeble, feckless.
Now the president has endorsed his Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democrat’s new standard bearer this fall. Still, stay tuned for an interesting DNC convention where Harris may face other challengers for the nomination.
And, as Detective Columbo used to say, “Just one more thing.”
There has been no word on whether in the coming days, not weeks, we will see the first female president of these United States, Kamala Harris.
If Democrats are too scared to have Biden as their leader this fall, should the American people really be okay with Biden sticking around for six months to be ours? Giving national and world leadership a
Thanks, but no thanks. Hello, President Harris.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
11 replies on “President Next”
I see no improvement in making Kamala Devi Harris President or Acting President.
Biden would have been removed just past the two-year mark, but Harris wasn’t even up to the job of being a spokesmodel for the ruling class. Given a choice between another twenty-one months with Biden as President, or twenty-one with her, the establishment left gambled on the demented old man. Of course, they would have been better served by the demented old man had he not sought a second term, but he desperately didn’t want to retreat from Trump.
I would suggest that President Harris might be removed by invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, but that invocation requires action on the part of a Vice President, whereas I expect the Office of Vice President to go unoccupied until the next Inauguration, should Biden resign the Presidency. Nor would a Democratic Cabinet have been keen to elevate the Speaker of the House, currently a Republican.
Biden’s current term ends in six months. Invoking the 25th Amendment doesn’t remove him. Just from the text of the amendment, I think the office of the VP would not be considered vacant. Harris would not invoke the 25th while there was a chance Biden would win. Now that he has been pushed out by the elites, there is no reason to hide the truth of his condition. She would be expected to be front and center during the campaign whether or not she gets the nomination. She can’t hide from the public.
Indeed, in those cases in which the Twenty-Fifth Amendment describes the Vice President becoming Acting President, the Office of Vice President is not vacant.
(Some related discussion may be found in my ‘blog.)
But I don’t imagine even Biden clinging to the Office of President after Harris were explicitly made Acting President, given that he’d have no chance of returning to the pretense of power and responsibility. Upon his resignation, Harris would, under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, go from Acting President to President, and then the Office of Vice President would be vacant.
The last time that the Office of Vice President became vacant as a result of a resignation from the Office of President was of course 9 August 1974, and the Office of Vice President remained vacant until 19 December that year.
The time has come for Harris to do her duty under the 25th Amendment. All of Joe’s cabinet secretaries should admit he is unable to adequately lead the nation. Kamala would assume the duties of the presidency but she would not BE the president. She would be the acting president while Joe remains in office until the end of the term. I’m not sure Harris would be any better than Biden but at least she won’t hide from the public like Joe has.
And it would give the citizens a chance to give her a ‘test drive.’
From a sure fire loss to a likely win! Yesterday was a turning point. The republic may be saved from a tyrant!
I was wondering when you’d think that you’d got your verbal-marching orders. Now I’m wondering just how awkwardly you’ll pivot again if the nominee is not Harris after all.
Harris is not eligible so assume the presidency. She is not a natural born citizen. SCOTUS has ruled on eligibility at least three time.
She does not qulify.
The relevant passages of the US Constitution are these:
Article II, §1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Fourteenth Amendment, §1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Kamala Devi Harris was born in Oakland. Her parents were not themselves citizens, but were not diplomatic personnel, so that she was subject at birth to the jurisdiction of the United States and of the state of California.
SCOTUS Decisions:
The Venus, 12 U.S 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S 3 pet. 243 243 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
First and foremost, both you and I know that some rulings have flown in the face of the actual wording of the US Constitution, and I’d bet doughnuts to dollars* that I can find you rejecting some rulings for exactly that reason.
Moreover, you cited two decisions that were prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, then a ruling not on who were or were not a citizen but instead upon which citizens could vote,† and then a ruling that a person born in the United States to subjects of a foreign state was indeed an American citizen.
— — — — — — — — — —
* In an early age, I would have bet dollars to doughnuts.
† And the point of Minor v. Happersett was that the Constitution were silent (in 1875) on just who had the right to vote, not that the Constitution prohibitted voting by some category of citizen.