White House concedes Shulkin didn't resign. Will there be a constitutional showdown?

[jillian]

President Trump has bypassed Shulkin's deputy, and has instead chosen Robert Wilkie to be the acting department head. However, this could be illegal. Could this turn into another Andrew Johnson style fiasco?


But on Monday, White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp said during an interview on Fox News that White House chief of staff John Kelly gave Shulkin an “opportunity to resign” from the job.


“General Kelly called Secretary Shulkin and gave him the opportunity to resign. Obviously the key here is is that the president has made a decision,” Schlapp said. “He wanted a change in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He felt it was time.”

White House appears to shift explanation on whether Shulkin resigned or was fired

why would there be a constitutional showdown?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

A "constitutional crisis" over the firing of the Secy. V.A. Affairs"? Surely you jest. It goes to show how deep in fantasy land the angry crazy disappointed left has immersed themselves.

So are you saying that it was legal for Donald to bypass the Shulkin's deputy?

 

[jillian]

And that ain't even a tenth of it.....

you think you would have let Obama get away with that....????



Even Bush2 would not have been cut a break by Republicans for all of this unethical and abuse of power behavior.....

You would have defended Obumbles to the death no matter what he did.

ijit trump troll say what?

you keep insulting the smarter guy's intellect. that's so funny.

but then again, uneducated idiot trump trolls aren't smart enough to get it

 

[radical right]

You would have defended Obumbles to the death no matter what he did.

You have attacked Obama to death, no matter what he did.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

President Trump has bypassed Shulkin's deputy, and has instead chosen Robert Wilkie to be the acting department head. However, this could be illegal. Could this turn into another Andrew Johnson style fiasco?


But on Monday, White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp said during an interview on Fox News that White House chief of staff John Kelly gave Shulkin an “opportunity to resign” from the job.


“General Kelly called Secretary Shulkin and gave him the opportunity to resign. Obviously the key here is is that the president has made a decision,” Schlapp said. “He wanted a change in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He felt it was time.”

White House appears to shift explanation on whether Shulkin resigned or was fired

why would there be a constitutional showdown?

Because if there's any court action it seems like it would revolve around competing constitutional questions. Can the Congress limit the President in this way? If yes, what happens if Trump simply refuses to comply?

 

[jillian]

President Trump has bypassed Shulkin's deputy, and has instead chosen Robert Wilkie to be the acting department head. However, this could be illegal. Could this turn into another Andrew Johnson style fiasco?


But on Monday, White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp said during an interview on Fox News that White House chief of staff John Kelly gave Shulkin an “opportunity to resign” from the job.


“General Kelly called Secretary Shulkin and gave him the opportunity to resign. Obviously the key here is is that the president has made a decision,” Schlapp said. “He wanted a change in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He felt it was time.”

White House appears to shift explanation on whether Shulkin resigned or was fired

why would there be a constitutional showdown?

Because if there's any court action it seems like it would revolve around competing constitutional questions. Can the Congress limit the President in this way? If yes, what happens if Trump simply refuses to comply?

it doesn't rise to crisis level, imo. it will just address the line of succession and Donald's overreach.

 

[Care4all]

And that ain't even a tenth of it.....

you think you would have let Obama get away with that....????



Even Bush2 would not have been cut a break by Republicans for all of this unethical and abuse of power behavior.....

You would have defended Obumbles to the death no matter what he did.

I didn't vote for Obama, dummy!!! duh...

 

[TNHarley]

Trump has broken the emolument clause of the constitution....duhhh

Lol omfg just stop already. The first couple was funny but my gawd woman. Grow the fuck up.
I find it SO strange all this shit matters now. Lol disingenuous hacks

 

[Care4all]

Trump has broken the emolument clause of the constitution....duhhh

Lol omfg just stop already. The first couple was funny but my gawd woman. Grow the fuck up.
I find it SO strange all this shit matters now. Lol disingenuous hacks

what in the world are you implying? That Obama did any of that? PLEASE spare me your b.s.!

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

And that ain't even a tenth of it.....

you think you would have let Obama get away with that....????



Even Bush2 would not have been cut a break by Republicans for all of this unethical and abuse of power behavior.....

You would have defended Obumbles to the death no matter what he did.

ijit trump troll say what?

you keep insulting the smarter guy's intellect. that's so funny.

but then again, uneducated idiot trump trolls aren't smart enough to get it

YOU calling someone an idiot? That's hilarious. Now run along...

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

And that ain't even a tenth of it.....

you think you would have let Obama get away with that....????



Even Bush2 would not have been cut a break by Republicans for all of this unethical and abuse of power behavior.....

You would have defended Obumbles to the death no matter what he did.

I didn't vote for Obama, dummy!!! duh...

You would have defended Obumbles to the death no matter what he did.

You have attacked Obama to death, no matter what he did.

Obumbles had it easy compared to how you're going after Trump...

 

[OKTexas]

How on Earth could this be a constitutional showdown?

Bypassing Shulkin's deputy appears to be a violation of the Vacancies Act. If it is, anything Wilkie does could become void. But more importantly, such a violation could be grounds for impeachment. This could, be similar to Andrew Johnson's impeachment for firing his War Secretary, allegedly in violation of laws of the time.

You should have read the act. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998

What are you seeing differently than legal experts?

From the link:

"(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the General Accounting Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

"(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;

"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or

(1) is irrelevant if the president choses someone else. Pretty damn simple.


.

 

[OKTexas]

How on Earth could this be a constitutional showdown?

Bypassing Shulkin's deputy appears to be a violation of the Vacancies Act. If it is, anything Wilkie does could become void. But more importantly, such a violation could be grounds for impeachment. This could, be similar to Andrew Johnson's impeachment for firing his War Secretary, allegedly in violation of laws of the time.

yep

if he was fired, trump can't legally pick the temporary replacement.... if he had resigned, then trump could.

Not what the law says.


.

 

[OKTexas]

A "constitutional crisis" over the firing of the Secy. V.A. Affairs"? Surely you jest. It goes to show how deep in fantasy land the angry crazy disappointed left has immersed themselves.

So are you saying that it was legal for Donald to bypass the Shulkin's deputy?

Yes, do you understand what "notwithstanding" means?


.

 

[Seawytch]

How on Earth could this be a constitutional showdown?

Bypassing Shulkin's deputy appears to be a violation of the Vacancies Act. If it is, anything Wilkie does could become void. But more importantly, such a violation could be grounds for impeachment. This could, be similar to Andrew Johnson's impeachment for firing his War Secretary, allegedly in violation of laws of the time.

You should have read the act. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998

What are you seeing differently than legal experts?

From the link:

"(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the General Accounting Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

"(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;

"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or

(1) is irrelevant if the president choses someone else. Pretty damn simple.


.

It's not irrelevant, as the link states. It matters if he resigned or was fired.

 

[OKTexas]

How on Earth could this be a constitutional showdown?

Bypassing Shulkin's deputy appears to be a violation of the Vacancies Act. If it is, anything Wilkie does could become void. But more importantly, such a violation could be grounds for impeachment. This could, be similar to Andrew Johnson's impeachment for firing his War Secretary, allegedly in violation of laws of the time.

You should have read the act. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998

What are you seeing differently than legal experts?

From the link:

"(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the General Accounting Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

"(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;

"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or

(1) is irrelevant if the president choses someone else. Pretty damn simple.


.

It's not irrelevant, as the link states. It matters if he resigned or was fired.

or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

I'd say being fired qualifies, you folks aren't grasping at straws anymore, you're grasping at thin air, like 80,000 feet high thin.


.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

I'd say being fired qualifies, you folks aren't grasping at straws anymore, you're grasping at thin air, like 80,000 feet high thin.

That is a strained argument. The phrase "unable to perform the functions and duties" is standard legal jargon for incapacitation less than death. Your argument would distort the phrase into a new form. This statute is a checks-and-balance/anti-corruption law. The objective of the statute is to prevent the President from trying to use new vacancies as a loophole to exercise a greater breadth of power than intended by the constitution. There is no basis to infer a new meaning to the phrase when such a new meaning would defeat the primary objective of such a statute. There are rational arguments that could support the President's actions in this situation, but yours is not among them.

 

[OKTexas]

or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

I'd say being fired qualifies, you folks aren't grasping at straws anymore, you're grasping at thin air, like 80,000 feet high thin.

That is a strained argument. The phrase "unable to perform the functions and duties" is standard legal jargon for incapacitation less than death. Your argument would distort the phrase into a new form. This statute is a checks-and-balance/anti-corruption law. The objective of the statute is to prevent the President from trying to use new vacancies as a loophole to exercise a greater breadth of power than intended by the constitution. There is no basis to infer a new meaning to the phrase when such a new meaning would defeat the primary objective of such a statute. There are rational arguments that could support the President's actions in this situation, but yours is not among them.

None of that alters this:

Just read the words I've put in bold, the rest is superfluous.

"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or


.

 

[jc456]

President Trump has bypassed Shulkin's deputy, and has instead chosen Robert Wilkie to be the acting department head. However, this could be illegal. Could this turn into another Andrew Johnson style fiasco?


But on Monday, White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp said during an interview on Fox News that White House chief of staff John Kelly gave Shulkin an “opportunity to resign” from the job.


“General Kelly called Secretary Shulkin and gave him the opportunity to resign. Obviously the key here is is that the president has made a decision,” Schlapp said. “He wanted a change in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He felt it was time.”

White House appears to shift explanation on whether Shulkin resigned or was fired

Who give a shit?

-Geaux

That's the spirit! Who cares if the President violated a law intended to prevent cronyism and corruption? Who cares if the White House is lying to escape responsibility for breaking the law?

you certainly didn't when obummer was in office. DACA to just say one.

 

[Seawytch]

or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

I'd say being fired qualifies, you folks aren't grasping at straws anymore, you're grasping at thin air, like 80,000 feet high thin.

That is a strained argument. The phrase "unable to perform the functions and duties" is standard legal jargon for incapacitation less than death. Your argument would distort the phrase into a new form. This statute is a checks-and-balance/anti-corruption law. The objective of the statute is to prevent the President from trying to use new vacancies as a loophole to exercise a greater breadth of power than intended by the constitution. There is no basis to infer a new meaning to the phrase when such a new meaning would defeat the primary objective of such a statute. There are rational arguments that could support the President's actions in this situation, but yours is not among them.

None of that alters this:

Just read the words I've put in bold, the rest is superfluous.

"(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1), the President (and only the President) may direct a person who serves in an office for which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346; or


.

That doesn't negate the part about resigning versus firing. It matters if he was fired or resigned.