Jody Baumgartner The spring semester has officially started – today is the end of the first week of classes. Some few of us are back to face-to-face, but most of us are still online… and hoping that this is the last ‘virtual’ semester.
Here’s to a safe, successful semester – and to looking forward to getting back to normal (not the “new”) “normal”!
Today, Jan. 20, at noon, Joe Biden will take the presidential oath of office. Unlike most of his predecessors, Donald Trump will not be in attendance at the inauguration ceremony.
This is not the first time an outgoing president has been absent from their successor’s inauguration. “Three presidents have declined to attend their successor’s inauguration. In 1801, John Adams left town at 4am the morning of President-elect Thomas Jefferson’s swearing in. In 1829 his son, John Quincy Adams, would one-up his famously obstinate father by departing the White House the night before Andrew Jackson took office. And in 1869, Andrew Johnson refused to attend Grant’s inauguration” (from https://listverse.com/2021/01/15/top-10-fun-facts-from-us-presidential-inaugurations/)
Dr. Sharon Paynter of the Dept. of Political Science is heading the Rural Opportunity Grant Program study, funded by the SECU Foundation. The study, which began in August of 2020, will run through July of 2021. Together with partners in Bertie, Halifax, Hertford, Martin, and Northampton Counties, ECU and its partners will focus on challenges related to affordable housing.
Kassab, Hanna Samir., (2020). “Soft Power and Struggles for Leadership: The United States, Russia and China” Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations: An International Journal (CCPS), vol. 6, no. 2, 507-538.
Abstract: This article argues that struggles for global leadership and soft power are at the center of gaining consent of the ruled. The United States once led the world in leadership. It is now facing serious challenges because of its own doing. The Iraq War (2003) was a disaster, not just for American power projection, but for its global standing. The political soft power vacuum was an opportunity for great powers. The rise of China and the resurgence of Russia opened new fronts in their desire for global leadership. Without followers, one cannot be a leader. This makes the battle for weak states part of the international system.
In the News: Removing a President From Office (Part II)?
The 25th Amendment technically allows for a president to be removed from office, but, this was quite arguable not it’s original intent. The Amendment was written for situations in which a sitting president was alive, but physically incapable of discharging the duties of the office. This was the case, for example, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919 and was incapacitated through the end of his presidency.
In order to remove President Trump by way of the 25th Amendment, the vice president, with the majority of the Cabinet, would have to declare the President incapacitated for reasons of mental health. This, again, was not the original intent, but would likely stand up to constitutional scrutiny if enacted.
One detail: Invoking the 25th Amendment makes the vice president “acting” president only. He or she does not assume the office in the same way as if the president was removed after impeachment, resigned or dies in office.
In the news: Removing the president from office (Part I)?
The US Constitution contains two provisions for removing a president from office, although technically, only one of these was intended for permanent removal.
Presidents can be impeached, or formally accused, for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ by a simply majority (greater than 50%) the House of Representatives. Three presidents throughout history have been impeached: Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.
When this occurs, a ‘trial’ is conducted in the US Senate, where the Senate votes whether to remove the president from office. A two-thirds majority vote is required for this.
Removing a president from office by way of the 25th Amendment is different, and will be the subject of Wednesday’s post.
Dr. Baumgartner recently published “Is It Funny if No One is Watching? Public Response to Late-Night Political Satire.”
Abstract: “The past decade has seen a dramatic shift in substance and tone in the political humor found on late-night television talk shows in the U.S. Relatively light-hearted political comedy has in many cases been replaced by more politically oriented political satire. This change has been welcomed by media elites, and most hosts seems to have embraced the idea that their material should be socially and politically relevant. However, we know less about how the public views this change. I present evidence that suggests that public reception to late-night political satire is mixed. Using Google Trends, Nielson ratings and public opinion data, I show that the viewing public seems to be ambivalent about tuning into meaningful political satire as opposed to light-hearted political comedy.”
Counting the Votes in Congress: “Since the mid-20th century, Congress has met in a Joint Session every four years on January 6 at 1:00 p.m. to tally votes in the Electoral College. The sitting Vice President presides over the meeting and opens the votes from each state in alphabetical order. He passes the votes to four tellers—two from the House and two from the Senate—who announce the results. House tellers include one Representative from each party and are appointed by the Speaker. At the end of the count, the Vice President then announces the name of the next President.
“With the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution (and starting with the 75th Congress in 1937), the electoral votes are counted before the newly sworn-in Congress, elected the previous November.
“The date of the count was changed in 1957, 1985, 1989, 1997, 2009, and 2013. Sitting Vice Presidents John C. Breckinridge (1861), Richard Nixon (1961), and Al Gore (2001) all announced that they had lost their own bid for the Presidency” (https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/).
Continuing our series on the Electoral College: Did you know? “Since the Electoral College’s founding, there have been 167 cases of “faithless electors,” or electors voting for someone other than their party’s candidate… Of the 167 faithless electors in United States history, 71 changed their votes because of the death of their candidate, 3 abstained, and 93 opted to vote differently for personal reasons… Though some states have laws mandating that electors vote as promised, no “faithless elector” has ever been severely prosecuted” (see https://www.factretriever.com/electoral-college-facts).
Part VI in our series on the Electoral College: Did You Know? “A similar electoral college was previously used by the Holy Roman Empire. From the Middle Ages until 1792, leaders of the Holy Roman Empire were elected by a college of prince-electors from various German states.” (History.com).
But, with very few exceptions, the system has not been emulated by other countries. It is, in other words, pretty unique to the American republic.
See: https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-electoral-college.