Constitutional issue
Sir: In the May 26 issue of your journal Louis Claiborne comments that Louis Heren would have been wiser to have left "interpretation of the American Constitution to Americans."
As an American, may I state that Mr Heren's commentary was much more realistic than Mr Claiborne's. It is improbable that the President will resign. It is ridiculous to suggest that Mr Agnew, untainted by Watergate should resign merely because his politics are extremely unpopular with the left wing of the Democratic party.
Mr Claiborne denies that Mr Agnew's resignation would "cheat the people (n) or defeat the constitutional objective." Those who voted for Mr Nixon in the primaries, at the convention and in the November election were voting for a political position as well as a man, and voted in the knowledge that Mr Agnew would immediately succeed Mr Nixon if the office of president became vacant. Any other succession would shake the American political system to its foundation stones.
In his article of May 26 he states, " I suggest that once President and Vice President are gone, and only then, the Constitution leaves Congress free to write a law calling for new elections, instead of giving the permanent succession to the Speaker, as the present law does." He is incorrect.
The twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1967, states: "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress." As the office of Vice President would become instantaneously vacant upon a presidential resignation and the subsequent succession of the Vice President to the Presidency, the twenty-fifth Amendment would come into effect. If the new President resigned before a new Vice President was selected, the office still would devolve on the Speaker of the House.
As ex post facto (retrospective) legislation is forbidden by Article One of the Constitution, Congress would not be able to change the order of succession after the (ex-vice) President had resigned, as the Speaker of the House would have already become President. Any change would require another resignation after the bill changing the order of succession became law. Such a complicated and confused course of events would put a gigantic amount of strain upon the American Constitutional structure.
Also, the section of Article 11 of the Constitution which gave Congress the authority to establish the order of succession after the Vice President, which Mr Claiborne uses as the base of his argument, would seem to block his desire for a new election. This section gives Congress the authority to de clare " what officer shall then act as President." It does not give Congress any authority to delegate this power to the electorate.
The officer thus selected would, ac cording to Constitutional precedent established by the succession of the Vice President, become a new President with all Constitutional powers. The word ' act' in the Constitution would not limit this, as similar language is used in the Twelfth Amendment description of the succession of the Vice President. A course of action such as Mr Claiborne desires would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Charles A. Baer 2 Egerton Gardens, London SW3
Previous page
