Could Paul Ryan be president of the Senate, while remaining chairman of the House Budget Committee?
Well, if anyone could handle the workload, it would be him. Of course, it would partially depend on how much power he would try to take as president of the Senate, which has devolved to a pretty meaningless position in modern times. No reason that couldn’t change, though, depending on how amenable Mitch McConnell would be.
[Update a few minutes later]
Sorry, added missing link.
Do House rules permit someone not an elected member to serve as a committee chairman?
He’ll be on both ballots, so he’ll be reelected to his district regardless of what happens in the presidential race. The issue is whether or not the Constitution allows him to hold both positions simultaneously, or if he has to resign from his House seat and have a special election to replace him. It is not obvious that it prevents the former.
I think it’s rather obvious that it would not fly politically.
There have been several presidential elections wherein someone on one of the tickets was also up for re-election for the seat he already held in Congress, so that part I was aware of.
What I wasn’t aware of was the contention that a man could constitutionally hold both the office of VP and a seat in the House. To be honest, I’m pretty sure the first veep who tests this will lead to a change in the law by some means or another, assuming the courts conclude that it would have worked otherwise.
I’ve also read that there’s no rule requiring a Speaker of the House to be an elected member thereof; if this extended to committee chairmanships Ryan could find that a safer way to stay in charge of the Budget Committee.
No reason that couldn’t change, though, depending on how amenable Mitch McConnell would be.
Well, if he wants to the VP can preside over every single meeting of the Senate and no one can stop him. He might find himself not being renominated as VP candidate or he might trigger a constitutional amendment though.
Is it constitutionally possible for someone to be both a member of the House and an officer of the Senate at the same time? The VP isn’t a member of the Senate of course, but he is in a sense part of it, both as its formal president and because of his casting vote. It would be different from a President who was still in the House.
And aren’t Congressmen physically barred from the Senate, except in case of impeachment proceedings?
As I said, the matter is in dispute. It’s probably moot, though — politically, he’d be unlikely to attempt to keep his House seat if he moves to the Naval Observatory.
The Hill ran a peice about this. WI will hold a special election if Ryan becomes VP.
Only if Ryan resigns…
I’m pretty certain this cannot happen — and any sane Supreme Court would rule against it, if the notion rose so high. Consider that you’re suggesting that a single individual might hold multiple federal offices simultaneously, and contemplate what might happen if a batch of politicians embarked on such careers.
Suppose every senator tried to serve simultaneously as a Congressman, cabinet officer, maybe Federal judge, maybe a State Dept civil servant. Does this seem like a good idea? I think common sense is opposed.
Unlike this situation, there actually are laws and Constitutional amendments against all your nutty examples, and if you had actually followed the link, you’d have known that. But I’m not surprised that you didn’t…
Seems to me that the incompatibility clause precludes a VP or P retaining their senate or house seat. The argument that they can seems predicated upon the P and VP not being “offices of the United States” and thus barred by the incompatibility clause. Here is the clause in question;
“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”
I don’t find the argument that the P and VP are not offices under the United States to be convincing.
Further, given the disregard for the constitution under Obama, do we really want to start off a new Admin by pushing the boundaries to this extent? I think it would be asking for trouble.
I’d have absolutely no problem with Ryan taking a very active role in the Senate as President of the Senate. He would clearly have that power. In fact, if the Republicans don’t get the pickup of 3 net seats they need for control (assuming Ryan is VP) that might be a good way to go, and as a fringe benefit would make Harry Reid apoplectic.
It would be a pretty clear violation of the separation of powers to have one member in two branches of the government at the same time. That is why if he didn’t resign his seat the Supreme Court would probably step in with a clear ruling on it.
Funny, how the right wing who claim we should follow the Constitution seems to always be looking for loopholes in it to give them more power 🙂
I don’t think Rand is advocating this, just asking if it was possible and it looks like everyone thinks it is a bad idea.
Wodun,
If it was possible, VP Biden and President Obama would have kept their senate seats, as well as well as Presidents Ford, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, etc. You get the idea.
That’s why Lindsey Graham cannot be both an Air Force officer and a senator. Oh, wait…
FC,
Actually that is still an open question.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40634.pdf
But Congress has allowed it as not disqualifying a member on the grounds the military is not part of the civilian governance authority in the U.S. and so it is not an “government office”.
It would be a pretty clear violation of the separation of powers to have one member in two branches of the government at the same time.
If it is clear, I’m sure you can point to the clause in the Constitution that makes this claim?
Leland,
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
Good job. You beat Mr. Rabbit by 30 minutes, though he managed much better decorum in answering Rand’s question. B-
I figured it would be oblivious, but clearly you are not that familiar with the Constitution.
Well, you obviously went from B- to FAIL. 😀
There have been debates in recent years as to whether the Vice Presidency is an executive office or a legislative one; its only constitutionally prescribed duty is to preside over the Senate.
Personally, I do believe the veep is part of the executive — but if it came to the Roberts Court who knows how they would rule?
The text of Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, of the U.S. constitution makes quite clear the fact “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office”.
This is not unprecedented. LBJ tried to retain his leadership over the Senate Democratic Caucus after being elected VP in ’60. He got his replacement Majority Leader to actually make the motion in caucus, and apparently thought he had bulled the rest of the caucus into approving this power-grab. But in the event, he was strongly rebuffed on the basis of a “separation of powers” violation, in spirit if nothing else. It never got litigated, because he was humiliated out of the attempt.
In short, it wouldn’t fly on the basis of “no executive interference in the institutions of Congress” rather than anything to do with House vs. Senate turf considerations. The VP can only preside over the Senate, he has no vote other than tie-breaking, and tradition holds that he cannot serve on any committees, cannot participate in debate, address the Senate, or do anything other than overseeing procedure, presiding over impeachment trials, the Electoral College, and the like.
This would never happen. Ryan isn’t LBJ, and LBJ didn’t try his squalid little “nothing’s changed!” routine with another House altogether!