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

[jc456]

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.

TAKING A DUMP OR A BREATH, ACCORDING TO SNOWFLAKES, IS GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT.

If Obama had done 1/100th of the impeachable offenses that Trump has done or If bush2 had done 1/100th of the impeachable offenses Trump has done, BOTH would have been impeached already.... and that's a fact, jack!

Trump is nowhere near the previous two turds. They lead exponentially in terms of impeachable offenses.

DACA was obummer's

 

[Seawytch]

Shulkin says he was fired. Here's why it matters - CNNPolitics

What could this mean legally?
If Shulkin was indeed fired, Trump's decision to replace him with Wilkie instead of following VA's line of succession, could imperil any decisions Wilkie makes while serving at VA in an acting capacity. There could be legal challenges to any actions that Wilkie makes, at a moment where VA is at a crossroads and decisions are looming about some of the department's biggest functions.

Given the lengthy process for Senate confirmation, Wilkie could serve in an interim capacity for months.

 

[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


.

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

Just more very thin air, regardless of how a vacancy occurs only the President has the authority to fill it, temporarily or other wise. Technically, the deputy was in charge till Trump designated some one else, if you want to get into the semantics game.


.

 

[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

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.

Care to provide some evidence?

 

[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.

Care to provide some evidence?

Of what?

 

[eagle1462010]

He was fired as a result of having a good time in Europe on the taxpayers dime.

The President can appoint a replacement and he did so......