When a president is removed by impeachment, shouldn't they be replaced by the runner-up in the previous election and not by their own VP?
- Old Man DirtLv 73 weeks agoFavorite Answer
Back when the runner up got the job of being VP, that was the way it was. But at some point the idea of a runner up got replaced with the Electoral College voting also for the VP. I am not sure when that happened, but it was early in US history and before the "Party system" developed.
The constitution is clear on the issue of the elected VP assuming the office of president.
- MikeLv 73 weeks ago
Not in the Constition We are not a Banana Republic
- DavidLv 73 weeks ago
- wombatfreaksLv 73 weeks ago
The constitution provides the order of succession in the event a president is removed, incapacitated, or dies
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ChrisLv 63 weeks ago
You are telling us you think impeachment is for the purpose of letting the losers of an election throw out the winners and take their place. This is incorrect. Wildly incorrect.
- 3 weeks ago
jailing him and some of his closets sycophants will be enough for me.
- rickyLv 73 weeks ago
Yeah, and shouldn’t football games be determined by the least amount of penalties. Think how nice and safe everyone would be. And they would tie zero to zero in every game. No losers. There would be no real reason to even play, just show up and sign autographs for people that appreciate what a nice player you are. Yup, makes sense!
- 3 weeks ago
No, Hillary. That's not how it works.
- NancyLv 63 weeks ago
Well, that would require changing the Constitution. It would also require that the replacement NOT have been someone who was elected by the people. The VP is elected by the people to take the President's place. The loser isn't.
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
If I had a bullet for every idiot on yahoo answers, well there would be a lot less idiots.