And, what would happen if monkeys fly out of your butt? The odds of those two things happening are about the same.
.
2007-04-06 05:07:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by FozzieBear 7
·
5⤊
7⤋
Speaking strictly hypothetically, if a president and vice president were impeached and removed from office at the same time then the speaker of the house would become president. If however the president were impeached and removed and no action has been taken yet against the VP, the VP would then become president. The new president could nominate someone to be vice president. The senate would have to confirm that person. If it was apparent that the new president was going to be impeached too the senate could either delay the confirmation until after the trial or speed it through in order to ensure a smooth transition.
Either way its a messy and highly unlikely scenario.
2007-04-06 05:15:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
While I would rather have Pelosi in charge than Bush or Cheney, I think one reason Dems are not pushing impeachment is for the very fact that they don't want to been seen as just trying to get the presidency.
I think that by just making the President accountable for some of the corruptness going on around him, they are just guaranteeing their nomination to the White House in 08. That way, their positions will be even more legitimized instead of being spun as a power play.
2007-04-06 05:19:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by genmalia 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
nope....you could not do it at the same time....if you impeach GW..PS HE HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME>>>>they are in your wild drug induced imagination>>>Then Cheney becomes President and APPOINTS a vice Pres
If you get Cheney..and you have NO PROVABLE CRIMES HERE EITHER....GW appoints a replacement...either way the TRAITOR Pelosi will NEVER get the job...she may be 3rd in succession line but that is in the case of an accident or disaster where both are killed or rendered unable to fulfill the duties of office....now go get your munchies you've had enough of the other stuff...
2007-04-06 05:15:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The short answer is yes, she would fill the remaining period as president.
The long answer is far more complex and would involve the same Supreme Court that put Bush/Cheney in the White House in the first place.
Sorry folks. This isn't going to happen. Bush will have to do something very stupid, orders of magnitude higher than what he's already done.
2007-04-06 05:09:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Floyd G 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
No. There would have to be a trial in the Senate first, then a majority vote to convict. It's very likely they would have separate hearings and these would not and could not be simultaneous. If Bush were convicted first, Cheney would succeed him, and appoint a VP. (He would not appoint Pelosi!). This VP would become President when Cheney was convicted. If Cheney was convicted first, Bush would appoint a new VP...
2007-04-06 05:09:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
together as Pelosi, as Speaker of the dwelling house, could be next in line to alter into President, there is little risk of an impeachment passing the dwelling house, and nil risk of the Senate convicting the two one.
2016-10-21 04:51:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Constitution does not confer upon the Speaker the right of succession to the Presidency. That is done by law and can be changed at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947
2007-04-06 05:11:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Matt 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but they would have to commit a crime first. And would you really want a woman that has lied as President?
2007-04-06 05:26:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The MOST LIKELY SCENARIO is what happened to NIXON.
When the TRUTH came out EVEN REPUBLICANS were DEMANDING HIS RESIGNATION.
If the FULL TRUTH about BUSH AND CHENEY comes out, THE ENTIRE NATION WILL DEMAND THEIR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL AND A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
2007-04-06 05:26:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
God forbid that we would actually get someone in there that would actually seek diplomatic recourse in the problems of the Mid East
or
listen to the American people
2007-04-06 05:10:08
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋