Humanities desk
< February 1	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 2

When a U.S. President is impeached and removed, who becomes Vice President?

Assume that Trump gets convicted. Pence becomes President. Who becomes Vice President? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The answer is "no one". The office becomes vacant. Under the Constitution as originally written, there was no way of even filling the office other than through election, which meant it stayed vacant, a rather glaring oversight. Harry Truman consequently served his first Presidential term without a VP. This was finally fixed with the 25th Amendment; now, the President may nominate someone to fill the office, contingent upon approval by a majority of both Houses of Congress. This notably was done not many years after the adoption of the Amendment by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned; he nominated Gerald Ford, who became VP and then succeeded Nixon after Nixon's own resignation, thereby becoming the only person to become President while never having been elected either President or VP. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new president Pence would then appoint a new vice president, who would need to be confirmed by the Congress. This happened in the early 1970s. Vice president Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace and was replaced that way by Gerald Ford. When Richard Nixon resigned, Ford became president and he appointed Nelson Rockefeller as vice president. Both Ford and Rockefeller were confirmed by Congress. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the Ford administration, the U.S. had a president and a vice president, neither of whom were elected by the American people, but only by the voters of Michigan and New York. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a joke after the 2016 election that Trump had taken out a cheap insurance policy against impeachment: the premium was just one Pence. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the joke you mention is that I see no evidence that GOP senators would be unhappy with a hypothetical President Pence in the abstract. However, such a presidency would probably be fatally wounded from the beginning. In my opinion, almost all of these senators have now purchased tickets on the Trump train and are well aware of the venom he directs at anyone who opposes him in any way. Bravery is in short supply and "going along to get along" is the dominant philosophy today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the joke was that the Democrats would be even less happy with President Pence than they are with President Trump, and therefore they would avoid impeaching Trump--or at least avoid removing him. It seems to be working for now: Trump's first impeachment looks headed for acquittal. They might have been able to bring a stronger case against him, but taking him out might also have taken out Biden.

That brings the question: suppose Biden is elected President in November, but the GOP takes over the House of Representatives. Since the new Congress starts in the first week of January but the presidential inauguration isn't til January 20, it might be possible to impeach Biden before he even takes office, or at least have the articles ready to go. And if Biden is tried and convicted before the inauguration, to they have to swear him in before they can remove him? I bet the Framers never thought about that one! Maybe they weren't so smart after all! ;-) 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that aspect of the joke and concede it may have had some elements of truth in the very early days of the Trump administration. At this point, though, I do not think that many Democrats would prefer Trump over accepting Pence as an 8 month fill-in for an impeached and removed president. But we are all sure that we are discussing a hypothetical scenario. It is almost certain now that Trump will be acquitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dynamics of the electoral college, I see no plausible scenario where Biden wins the presidency while the GOP regains the House of Representatives. That would require the Democrats to win the swing states in the presidential race and the Republicans to win dozens of House seats in blue states. Anything is possible but that seems very unlikely to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can't be President before they take office as President, which happens on January 20, per the 20th Amendment. Biden or anyone else elected would not be President until January 20th. "President-elect" isn't a federal office. With that said, there's never been anything keeping the House from impeaching the President one second after they take office, apart from voluntary observance of norms. Of course, an impeachment simply is an accusation, which is then tried by the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required for conviction. For that matter, remember that if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House elects the President. I read something recently arguing the Framers envisioned such a thing would happen more often than it has. Remember, the rabble were never intended to vote for President in the first place. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be possible to impeach someone from the presidency even when they are not in office at the time of impeachment. Something like that happened to Secretary of War William W. Belknap, who resigned during a scandal in 1876, but was impeached anyway subsequent to his resignation. The Watergate burglars were arrested in July 1972 and convicted in January 1973, not long after Nixon's 2nd inauguration. One can imagine an alternate version where 1) Nixon isn't the incumbent, but still bugs his opponents' offices etc.; and 2) his complicity is uncovered before the inauguration. I'd like to hope in this scenario, he could be impeached or otherwise disqualified before taking office. Or another possibility, if Donald Trump literally shot someone on 5th Avenue after the 2016 election but before his inauguration, some kind of intervention would likely take place. OTOH it would be interesting if they inaugurated him inside a jail cell, like LBJ's inauguration on board a plane in 1963. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how can you be "removed" from the office of President, if you are not even in the office of President? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit conflict, but 1) Belknap was not in office (he had already resigned) when he was impeached, so it doesn't seem like that far a stretch to be impeached before entering office; 2) Nixon's (unconsummated) impeachment was during his 2nd term, about stuff he did during his 1st term; 3) Impeachment in the United States (2nd paragraph) explicitly says some impeachments have happened for crimes committed before the person took office. So I don't see a blocker to any of this. Admittedly it is untrodden territory. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of moving this block down to the bottom for clarity. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to follow up on this idea of Biden being elected and impeached, which some editors above have discussed. In order to impeach a President ... does it have to be for some misconduct that he committed while he was President? Or can it be for some misconduct before he took office? In the hypothetical Biden scenario, we would be talking about his conduct prior to being elected President; and not his conduct while in the office of President. Is that feasible? Or is impeachment only limited to conduct taken while in office? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford famously said "[a]n impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office." Constitutionally, this is true. Someone is impeached when the House passes one or more articles of impeachment by majority vote. The Constitution states that impeachment should be on the grounds of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", and many scholars have debated over the exact impact of that phrase. However, as a practical matter, the only body that could hypothetically review an impeachment conviction would be the judiciary, and in Nixon v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal impeachments were not subject to judicial review, which closes off this avenue, unless the Court decided to overturn its own precedent. As that article notes, some of the justices expressed concern in that decision that the judiciary would not be able to intervene even in the case of a blatantly trivial impeachment, like on a coin toss, or for having a bad haircut. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have suggested sterner remedies than impeachment for Donald Trump's haircut. Others, though, call it America's answer to William of Orange. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Festubert 1918

This source [1] says "A Military Medal is awarded to Rifleman G. Beckley, 9-11-19: Action for gallantry and great courage in action under heavy fire." It refers to George Healii Beckley Kahea. My questions are:

What battle/skirmish would the 55th Lancashire have been in at Festubert in 1918?
What is the "Military Medal" being referred to?
I read in a 1932 thesis that the medal was personally awarded by George V in person; would this have been possible?
Is the source referring to November 9 or September 11, 1919 for the date of the award? It is quoting a British source but also found in an American newspaper, so I don't know without guessing.

KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this Military Medal. I don't know about the specific awarding. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, "9-11-19" is misquoted; the reproduction quality isn't great, but the date is clearly enough "9-11-18".

Second, that would be this Festubert. That article only mentions a battle in 1915, but there was fighting around there again in April 1918. I have online access via ProQuest and my local library to old Globe and Mail articles, and I found one dated April 13, 1918, pages 1 and 4 of the paper, under the headline "OVER 110 GERMAN DIVISIONS IN ATTACKS ON WEST FRONT". As well as Festubert, another place mentioned is Loisne, which you can find in Google Maps and it is indeed near the same Festubert where the 1915 battle was. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

55th Lancashire (King's Own) regiment from the article isn't right. The 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division in 1918 had battalions from the King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) and the King's Regiment (Liverpool).
There's a medal card at the National Archives for Beckley, George of the Liverpool Regiment and Royal Fusiliers, don't see one for a Beckley in the King's Own.
"Chapter V. Givenchy—Festubert" of The Story of the 55th, West Lancashire Division. p. 85

There is also something in the chapter "55th (West Lancaster) Division" of the book The Territorial Divisions, 1914–1918: "After two months' training, when much-needed drafts were absorbed, the Division entered the line in the Givenchy—Festubert area on 15th February, 1918."[2] Here, "the line" means "the battle line". The subsequent battle in April was the Battle of the Lys (1918); you can see Festubert on the map in that article where the dashed and solid blue lines meet near the bottom. --Lambiam 06:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your third question; yes, it was quite possible that it was presented personally by the king. I found this article which says; "The medal [the Military Medal] was confirmed in the London Gazette on 8th May 1918 and was awarded by King George V in a public investiture in Leeds in May 1918". Many other investitures were held at Buckingham Palace, Holyrood Palace in Scotland or Cardiff Castle in Wales. The king and other members of the royal family made frequent visits to the front, when presenting medals was one of the main duties. This photo shows King George V presenting a Distinguished Conduct Medal in France to an American signaller in July 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the medal card at the National Archives linked above by Lambiam (above) has a preview which is just legible through the watermarks, but only shows him receiving the Victory Medal and the British War Medal, which were issued to everybody who served in a war zone. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 20174 Pte. G. Beckley, L'pool R. (Vancouver) in the Gazette for 7 October, 1918. Somewhere i saw that not all M.M. are on the medal cards, ~~but can no longer find where i saw that~~ here it is. Not completely sure it's the same George, the division history above does not mention any Liverpool battalions being cut off, but does talk of the King's Own surrounded on the first day of fighting. That's not the regimental number from the medal card, anyone know what that number would be in the Gazette? It's probably him tho, Royal Fusiliers on the medal card, only Beckley in the Gazette around the right date, hometown Vancouver.—eric 00:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If his battalion can be found, the war diaries are £3.50 each. May or may not be mentioned.—eric 00:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit puzzled by the description of Beckley as a "Rifleman" in the original post, indicating that he was in a rifle regiment; a line infantry soldier would usually be a private. However, we have an article, Liverpool Rifles, which in 1908 was renamed 6th Battalion (Rifles) King's Regiment (Liverpool). Rather speculative, but this battalion did serve in the Battle of the Lys and specifically in the Battle of Estaires (9–11 April) which was fought around Festubert. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/6th actions on the 9th (pp. 92-100) could match the newspaper account. KAVEBEAR do you have any other sources?—eric 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They said it would be over by Christmas" in 1917 (film)

In 1917 (2019 film), one of the young British soldiers says something like "They said it would be over by Christmas" to his commanding officer, in complaint at the dangerousness of their orders. I always thought this idea dated to 1914, the first year of the war, when people still hoped it would be over quickly. By 1917 - the war's fourth year - were people really still telling each other it would be "over by Christmas"? Or was this an ironic joke by the soldier, mocking the public's naivety in the early days of the conflict? Lfh (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that it was meant as an ironic joke by that character. HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; Celluloid Wars: A Guide to Film and the American Experience of War (p. 99) has a British soldiers' joke from 1917; "They say the first seven years will be the worst". Alansplodge (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. Lfh (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]