Could a Vice-President-Elect Warren defer taking office to keep a new Senate Majority ??

[Las Vegas Mixx]

The only given constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, a job with virtually no power since the Vice President can only vote in the event of a tie.

If Elizabeth Warren is elected to the Vice Presidency, her Senate replacement prior to a special election would likely be a Republican appointed by the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. That could mean losing the Senate majority.

If it is clear after the November election that the Senate Majority depends upon keeping Elizabeth Warren in the Senate during the important first few months of President Clinton's first term, could a Vice President-Elect defer taking office until it was politically more advantageous to do so? Alternatively, could she resign before assuming office and let the new President appoint a temporary Vice President, again until it was politically safe to give up her seat in the US Senate?

[PoliticAverse]

1. Did you miss the articles about how Harry Reid thinks this could play out? n/t

[Mass]

2. No.

Anyway, if we have to go to such extremities, she is not the right candidate.

There are plenty of good choices that would not require such extreme solutions. Not giving names. I am sure the Clinton campaign has a list of names ready. But, this is impractical and most likely not constitutional.

[Wounded Bear]

3. IIRC, Mass would have a special election to replace her...

Rachel Maddow was discussing this. It seems she would remain a Senator at least until inauguration day, which would wipe out 90 or so days of her seat being vacated. Impact might be minimized.

Regardless, I'd still kind of like to see her stay where she is. She has taken hold of Teddy's seat and made it a force in liberal politics again. Would love to keep that, especially if we can flip the body. She'd make a helluva Banking/Finance chairman, whatever that committee is called.

[JHB]

4. No. Stop trying to draft her.

#WarrenForSenateAndStayingThereForALongTime

[LVZ]

5. Maybe - those answering NO are probably not qualified lawyers ...

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

However, Reid probably has a handle on the best strategy.

You probably cannot "defer" taking office but you probably could choose to "decline" the position if elected.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

6. The notion of Warren being able to "defer" taking office . . .

. . . is, constitutionally-speaking, a non sequitur. The plain language of Amendment XX provides, in relevant part, that the "terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January . . . and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

That is to say, the Vice President-elect becomes the Vice President at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2017, by operation of the Constitution itself. There is no process or mechanism by which this could be "deferred."

[whistler162]

8. But, are you a lawyer with 200 years

of experience in Constitutional law and has written 300 books on the subject or are you just someone who can actually read and understand the Constitution?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

9. Well, I actually am a lawyer . . .

. . . but my legal background, I shall confess, served only to inform me that the answer to the question posed was already set forth in the text of Amendment XX. Apart from that, I'm just winging it with my bad eyesight and my command of English, such as it is.

[HooptieWagon]

7. Like we need more Clinton Drama caused by her skirting laws.