Short Questions Weekend - Send your short questions in!
Hey, y’all! This week is gonna be a little different! Instead of going in-depth on one particular question, I’m gonna answer a few smaller questions that don’t necessarily need a big long post!
I know it won't happen, but theoretically could Bill be Hillary's VP? Does being president make it so you can't be VP?
This answer is surprisingly complicated, but in short: Bill Clinton probably cannot be Hillary’s VP. The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Coupled with the Twenty-Second Amendment, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,” that would seem to preclude Bill Clinton or, indeed, any former two-term President from serving as VP, because one of the Vice President’s two constitutional duties is ‘taking over the job if the President dies.’ (The other, by the way, is ‘breaking ties in the Senate.’)
There is some theoretical ambiguity here with the use of the word “elected” in the Twenty-Second Amendment - it says nothing about appointments, or assuming the Presidency by other means. It also raises some questions about the Presidential Line of Succession - for example, could a former President serve as Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs? Would he be disqualified because he’d have to become President if the VP, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Attorney General, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy and Education all died?
Interestingly, there is some precedent there - the current Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, is a naturalized US citizen, and is therefore ineligible to be President. Because of this, she gets skipped in the line of succession.
So I've been thinking about statehood of US Territories recently, and had a thought about how it would impact congress. Lets say one or several of the US Territories and/or DC became states- would that increase the current number of US Representatives, or would some states have to lose representatives in order for these new states to gain them?
This exact question is one that the House of Representatives had to address multiple times! Congress is required to allocate Representatives proportionally every ten years after the census tells them how many people are living in each state. And because the population has been growing steadily over the lifespan of the nation, more and more representatives were being added to Congress - from 64 representatives in 1793, all the way up to 435 in 1911. But in 1911, Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1911 (catchy name) and permanently set the number of seats in the House to 435. Since then, the proportion of seats has changed with the population, but the number of seats has not.
So if, for example, Washington DC and Puerto Rico were admitted as states, the number of representatives in the House would temporarily increase to 437 - one representative for each state. But following the next census and congressional election, that number would go back down to 435, and representatives would be reapportioned based on population. Both states would get Senators, though, and the number of Senators in the Senate would permanently go up to 104. This exact thing happened when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the union in 1959!
I don't know if you saw it but this morning the Oklahoma state legislature voted to call for President Obama's impeachment over the trans bathroom thing. You've written a lot about impeachment recently, so: Can they do that? Or is it just Republicans being angry?
Sure, I saw it. If you don’t know what we’re talking about: The Oklahoma state legislature, which is dominated by Republicans, passed a resolution last night calling for President Obama to be impeached. This is the latest front in a fight over a set of recommendations that the Obama administration set forth about how school districts should accommodate transgender students; namely, that they should be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
The Oklahoma legislature believes that this is an overreach of federal authority, preferring, I suppose, to leave discrimination against transgender youth to state and local authorities. To that end, they have introduced a bill that would allow students to claim a religious right to be separated from transgender people in bathrooms, and would build separate (but presumably equal!) facilities in public schools for those religious objectors to use. (n.b.: There have been zero reported cases of transgender people - or people claiming to be transgender - assaulting anyone in a public restroom.)
In short, the answer to your question is “no.” The Oklahoma state legislature has no authority to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States, and any resolution to that effect is entirely without force of law. It’s a taxpayer-funded temper tantrum that will go down with other national embarrassments in the history books, taught with a kind of wince, a cautionary tale for future generations of lawmakers, a collective “I can’t believe this is who we were once.” In the meantime, trans folks are caught in the crossfire, and are just looking for a place to pee without being harassed.
If you have any other short questions, please feel free to send them in here. I’ll be answering them all weekend! (You can, of course, send longer questions in too - but I might not get to those right away.) Thanks, as always, for your questions, your comments, your reblogs, and your support!