A possible (though highly unlikely) scenario: Rice v. Pelosi SCOTUS case!!

[jjrjsa]

Yes, a case similar to Bush v. Gore. How could this happen? Follow me here, let's assume that:

-This november, Democrats win the house of representatives and current minority leader Pelosi becomes speaker.

-Bush/Cheney become so unpopular that impeachment becomes all but inevitable, so much that there's enough Dems/Reps to reach the 66 votes needed to REMOVE from office.

Now, if as many want the house impeaches both Cheney and Bush, the Senate removes and the house does not allow a new VP to be appointed, this would mean for the first time in our history we would have no President or VP at the same time. Now what? Well, the order of succession points to the speaker of the house, would be Speaker Pelosi, so that's it right? Swear her in and lets appoint a VP, right? Well...

There's always been a question about the speaker taking over as president. A constitutional question. A member of the legislative branch cannot hold an executive office. If president Bush wants to appoint Bill Frist as secretary of Health and Human services, he has to resign first. Same for the other branch, if he wanted to appoint First to the SCOTUS, he would have to resign. Now, this could raise the question of whether or not a member of congress can take the office of president. Of course, if she resigns, then she is no longer speaker. Also, since we've never had to go beyond VP for succession, the law of succession has never been tested and yes, it's a law, the constitution only sets President and Vice President, the rest is all statutory.

NOW... the next person in line for the presidency who does not hold a seat in congress would be Condi Rice. She could sue saying the law that is preventing her from taking her seat as president is unconstitutional and violates separation of powers. IF THIS HAPPENS, ONCE AGAIN THE SUPREME COURT WOULD GET TO PICK THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. So... who do you think the supreme court that picked GW, now with the addition of Chief Roberts and Justice Alito, would pick?

Yes, I have a lot of time in my hands and I want to think what you all think of this
:crazy: :silly:

[BrklynLiberal]

1. It would make a GREAT movie!!!!

[MyNameGoesHere]

2. But kindasleazy

is his* mistress (or whore if you like). Automatically excludes "it" from taking office.

[FtWayneBlue]

3. There is another problem with impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6 :

"When the President of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside"

The person who holds this office is Roberts, a Bush appointee. What chance do you think there will be of an impartial trial? I don't imagine there is much chance Roberts would recuse himself.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes, but Roberts would PRESIDE.. He doesn't present, nor

does he have a vote or say in outcome....While he might be able to exclude a witness (something I'm not even sure would be the case with an ipeachment), it has always appeared to be a ceremonial or moderator type position.

Any constitutional lawyers feel free to correct me...