Talk:Presiding Officer of the United States Senate

Proposed deletion

This article reflects a misunderstanding. There is no office of "Presiding Officer of the United States Senate". The term just refers to who's presiding at the moment. That can be the Vice President, the President Pro Tempore, or someone designated by the President Pro Tempore. Usually, unless there's something unusually important going on, it's some junior senator. --John Nagle 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was copied, verbatim, from http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/presiding_officer.htm. I have expanded and removed the request for deletion.

That's just a quick glossary, not a description of actual titles. The way the Senate officially handles this can be seen in this issue of the Congressional record. On that day, the President Pro Tempore wasn't present, and Sen. Allard (D-Colorado) was presiding. He called the Senate to order, then had a note from the President Pro Tempore read which appointed Sen. Allard as "Acting President Pro Tempore". "Mr. ALLARD thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore." The term "presiding officer of the United States Senate" just isn't used. --John Nagle 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "presiding officer of the United States Senate" just was used just before he was appointed Acting Prez. pro temp. If it means that much to you, it should be merged with [[Acting President pro temporSee my further discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presiding Officer of the United States Senate.—Markles 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Watch what happens next year

Next year is going to be interesting. With the Senate so closely balanced, and the Republicans in the minority, Cheney may spend more time presiding. Few Vice Presidents preside much, but we may see an exception next year. --John Nagle 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

copy edit

So, this lede is not quite up to snuff:

1. the President pro tempore term/position is used before it is defined. More generally, early in the lede it says "The actual role is usually performed by one of three people" without no actual discussion of or connection to this term and position. It would be much better to say the Vice President is the constitutionally designated person, and then discuss ways in which other people can be appointed. This entire chunk should probably be rewritten; the details isn't needed in the lede
2. "the aforementioned Rule I" - what aforementioned Rule I?
3. besides, "one of three people" is misleading. Three roles or positions, yes. But the lede itself discusses FOUR people: the VP, the "most senior senator of the majority party", a "junior senator" and the Chief Justice. We can do better, people.

CapnZapp (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding #2, Rule I is both mentioned and linked in paragraph 1 before being re-referenced in paragraph 3. Regarding #3, I've changed the word from "people" to "officials". Regarding #1; I'm not sure what you mean: The President Pro Tempore position is explicitly defined and bluelinked the first time it is mentioned. It's the first sentence of paragraph 3. --Jayron32 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tyler President Date

The U.S. Senate lists Tyler as stopping being VP on April 6. [1] If you want to change that, please provide a source. meamemg (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that I need to state this fact, but here it goes: Upon William Henry Harrison's death on April 4, 1841, Vice President John Tyler immediately and automatically acceded to the presidency of the United States, thus leaving the vice presidency vacant. That the president's term commences not on the date that he is sworn in, but on the date that the term begins (i.e., March 4 prior to the 20th Amendment and January 20 since then for regular terms, and on the date of death or resignation of the prior president in cases of accession to office), is an elementary principle of constitutional law. Believing otherwise leads to the myth that David Rice Atchison, not Zachary Taylor, was America's 12th president, or the more dangerous belief that there is a vacancy in the presidency until such time as the person acceding to the office places his hand on the Bible. But if you all want to see a source stating that John Tyler's presidential term started on April 4, 1841, immediately upon the death of William Henry Harrison, see http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-harrison-dies-after-one-month-in-office, http://presidentialmuseums.com/presidents/10jt/ The World Almanac and Book of Facts and countless other sources.

I don't know for sure why the U.S. Senate website lists Tyler as having remained Vice President until April 6, 1841, two days after his accession to the presidency, but the likeliest explanation is that whoever typed in the information for that section of the website saw that Tyler took the presidential oath on April 6 and went with that. If you all wish to ignore every U.S. history book and general-reference book in the world and follow blindly what the U.S. Senate website (mis)states as the date on which Tyler ceased being the vice president, be my guest, but you are doing a grave disservice to the millions of people that look to Wikipedia for correct information. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not a mistake; it reflects the pre-25th Amendment ambiguity in the U.S. Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

According to [2] he formally became president upon taking the presidential oath of office. meamemg (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Who was President of the United States on April 5, 1841? Harrison was dead, so it wasn't him. Unless there is some source for the presidency being vacant on April 5, or unless there is a source for someone else being president on that day, it must have been Tyler. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the way we understand presidential succession today, Taylor was POTUS on 4/5/1841. In 1841, however, it was unclear whether Taylor was POTUS or Acting-POTUS following Harrison's death. Then, even after Taylor had set precedent by actually assuming the office of the presidency (wasn't just "acting" as president), it still remained unclear (the ambiguity remained for over a century, until the 25th Amendment was adopted) whether one became POTUS the moment the office became vacant or when one took the oath of office. Drdpw (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drdpw:, I respectfully must point out that it is incorrect to claim that the controversy regarding Tyler's accession to the presidency was related to whether it was necessary that he first take the oath of office, which, in turn, makes your conclusion that "back then it was understood that his term of office started when he took the oath" incorrect.

When President Harrison died, Tyler asserted that he now was the President of the United States pursuant to Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "[in] case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the same office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President" (emphasis mine). Tyler (and others who understood the VP to become President upon the death of the President) believed that "the same" referred to the "office" of the presidency, while those who thought that the VP merely was an Acting President upon the death of the President argued that "the same" referred to "the powers and duties" of the presidency. Neither side ever convinced the other side of who was right, but John Tyler claimed to be President, not merely Acting President, and that's what history books deems him to have been. The interpretation that eventually won the day, and one with which I agree wholeheartedly, is that "the same" refers to "the office," given that the phrase "the powers and duties of the same office" only is mentioned in the context of a President with "inability to discharge" said duties, and such phrase has no relevance to the case of removal, death or resignation of a President.

However, one does not need to accept this prevailing interpretation to acknowledge that Tyler's term in the presidency, whether as "Acting President" or as plain-vanilla "President," commenced the moment that President Harrison died. Tyler claimed that he was President, and his detractors claimed that he was Acting President, but neither side claimed that whatever it was that "devolved on" him, be it "the office" or "the powers and duties" of the office, took place when he took the oath of office as President. Tyler believed that he had become President on April 4, while his detractors believed that he became Acting President on April 4. The oath of office required by Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with becoming President or becoming Acting President; it merely is something that a President must do to execute his office, which is why the clause provides that a President must take such oath "[b]efore he enter on the execution of his office" (emphasis mine).

In fact, if John Tyler is understood to have become "Acting President" rather than "President" upon William Henry Harrison's death, then it would have been unnecessary and misleading for him to have taken the oath of office as President, given that he would have assumed the "office of the President." Please permit me to quote at length from the Wikipedia article on Acting President of the United States:

"A Vice President does not take the presidential oath of office when becoming Acting President. As stated above, an Acting President is not the same as President. An Acting President merely exercises the powers and duties of the President, without actually holding the office of President.

In the three occasions when the Twenty-fifth Amendment has been invoked, there is no record of the Vice President having taken the oath. In the case of the Amendment's second invocation by President George W. Bush in 2002, a detailed account of the procedure was subsequently given by the White House Press Secretary, and no mention whatsoever was made of the oath being taken by the Vice President. Instead, it is recorded that Vice President Cheney was informed by telephone that he was now Acting President once the invocation letters signed by the President were transmitted to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate.[5] Likewise, there is no historical record of Vice President George H. W. Bush taking the oath when he filled in for President Ronald Reagan during Reagan's colon surgery nor of Cheney taking the oath the second time he assumed George W. Bush's presidential duties."

So those who believed that John Tyler became Acting President, not President, upon the death of President Harrison would be the last people to accord any import to when John Tyler took the oath of office as President, since such act was proper only to persons who hold the office of the President. That means that, even if we disregard the judgment of history and assert that John Tyler wasn't really the President (and merely was Acting President) due to Harrison's death occurring over a century prior to the 25th Amendment's clarification that the VP becomes President upon the death, resignation or removal of the President, Tyler became Acting President on April 4, 1841, not on April 6, 1841.

Now, if we assume, arguendo, that Tyler became Acting President on April 4, 1841, when did he cease being the Vice President of the United States? The answer would be "on March 4, 1845, when the presidential term ended and James K. Polk became (the real 10th) President of the United States." Granting Tyler's detractors their premise that only "the powers and duties" of the office of the presidency devolved upon Tyler, then Tyler remained as Vice President for the rest of the presidential term for which William Henry Harrison had been elected President and John Tyler had been elected Vice President. Thus, arguing that "things were different back then because it wasn't clear that the VP became President when the President died" only means that there was no vacancy in the Vice Presidency, whether commencing on April 4 or on April 6, 1841. I don't think that that's your position, or that of anyone else editing this article.

So, the question remains, should this article claim that John Tyler's Vice Presidential term did not end (and his presidential term did not begin) until April 6, 1841, or should it have the same April 4, 1841 date that is accepted as the commencement of John Tyler's presidential term in every other Wikipedia article on Tyler or the presidency and, frankly, in every other source I ever have seen (with the sole exception of that U.S. Senate website entry of which I first became aware when this article was amended a couple of days ago)? I don't think that I need to state what my opinion is on this matter, and I hope that I convinced those on the fence that April 4, 1841 is the correct date on which Tyler ceased being the Vice President and commenced being the President. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC) | Corrections: AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

When Tyler became US President (upon Harrison's death) on 4 April 1841, he ceased to be presiding officer (i.e US Vice President) on that date. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Then why do several reliable sources indicate that he didn't become president until 6 April 1841? meamemg (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Because those sources erroringly go by when the US President took the oath of office. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

At the time they may not have given it as much consideration as to exactly when Tyler technically became president (or acting president). After all, Congress does not appear to have been in session, since Tyler was not in Washington at the time. But in any case, here's a source for April 4. Rlendog (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

1883 gap

I don't see an account being made of the time from March 3 to Dec. 3 in 1883. There was no Vice President, because this is still during the unexpired Presidential term of Garfield. PLEASE FIX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B124:2A80:43E6:23CD:B2E7:259 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No fix needed, and no vacancy existed. Davis's term as president pro tempore ended with the end of 47th United States Congress on March 3, 1883, and then, when the 48th United States Congress convened on December 3, 1883, George Edmunds was electerd to succeed Davis president pro tempore. Drdpw (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drdpw, according to the article List of presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, George F. Edmunds served as President Pro Tempore from March 3, 1883 to December 2, 1883, then again from December 3, 1883 to January 14, 1884 (no real gap from the prior term assuming that it had ended at midnight of the prior day) and finally from January 14, 1884 to March 3, 1885. Similarly, the George F. Edmunds article sets forth that Edmunds served as President Pro Tempore from March 3, 1883 to March 3, 1885. Are both such articles wrong, or is there a gap in the list provided in the article on Presiding Officers of the Senate? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The articles are correct, and I am wrong - mea culpa. Drdpw (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, it happens to all of us. We’re only as knowledgeable as the sources that we’ve read, so if you had read a source with incomplete information you would have no way of knowing that Edmunds had been elected PPT on March 3 prior to his December 3 (re)election. But you looked into it when you became apprised that what you had read was incomplete, and corrected your mistake, and that’s what counts. Cheers, AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Chief Justice listed as the presiding officer

Yes, the President was on trial for one or more articles of impeachment when that happened (Chief Justices Salmon Chase in 1868 and William Rehnquist in 1999). Does this imply that the Senate can NOT handle non-trial business during such period? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.94 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think entries in the congressional record such as https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1999/2/3/senate-section/article/s1134-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22The+Vice+President%22%2C%22The+%5C%22Vice+President%5C%22%22%5D%7D&r=29 confirm that the VP continues to be the presiding officer of the senate during the impeachment time periods, when the Senate is in Legislative or Executive business (i.e. not sitting in trial). meamemg (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Bush (41), Cheney & the prez pro tempores

Bush (41) & Cheney were still Vice President of the United States, while performing duties as Acting President (respectively in 1985, 2002 & 2007) & therefore were still President of the Senate & thus presiding officer - at least in name. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

When the VP is acting as President of the United States pursuant to Section 3 of the 25th Amendment, he is the only person in the government who can discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President, and thus the only person with the power to nominate, withdraw the nomination of, or make a recess appointment of judges, ambassadors or cabinet officers, sign or veto bills passed by both houses, etc. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President pro tempore shall be the person entitled to preside over the Senate "in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States." The Framers couldn't have meant for "when he shall exercise the Office of President" to mean "when the VP becomes President" instead of "when the VP is discharging the powers and duties of the office of President," for the simple reason that when the VP becomes President of the U.S. *he no longer is the VP*, so there would be no doubt that he no longer would be able to preside over the Senate. Besides, the structure of the Constitution, including, in particular, its separation of powers, require us to read "when he shall exercise the Office of President" to include such times as the VP is Acting President, because otherwise the same person simultaneously could wield the executive powers of withdrawing a judicial nomination and nominating a new judge (and actually appointing him if the Senate is in recess) as well as the legislative powers of presiding over the Senate confirmation hearing for his judicial nominee and casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate if the Senators are evenly divided. For these reasons, a VP serving as Acting President of the United States would not be able to preside over the Senate. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"when he shall exercise the Office of President", which means Acting President. Ok, thanks for the clarification :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems right. It is not clear that the framers even considered that the VP "became" president if the president died but was "merely" filling in and exercising the office of president until a new president was elected. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Gore (1999) & Pence (2020)

The vice president can still preside over the US Senate on other matters, when a presidential impeachment trial is in recess. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

True. It is a debatable point whether Chief Justices Chase, Rehnquist and Roberts should be listed at all. I think that they should be listed because the Constitution specifically prohibits the VP (and the PPT, for that matter) from presiding over the Senate when it is sitting as a court of impeachment of the incumbent president.

But the case in 2021 is far clearer. Even when the second Trump impeachment trial is ongoing, the President of the Senate will be the Vice President, since, unlike in the case of the impeachment trial of an incumbent president, the VP is not constitutionally prohibited from presiding. The only reason why Leahy will be presiding over the Senate on the days on which the trial is being held is because Kamala Harris will be absent. Given that we do not list the PPT as being the President of the Senate when the VP is merely absent--as opposed to when the VP is acting as President of the United States, during which period the VP is constitutionally prohibited from presiding over the Senate--we should not list Leahy as the President of the Senate even when he is presiding over the impeachment trial of an ex-president. There have been 17 impeachment trials in the history of the Senate that did not involve the sitting president, so the Chief Justice did not preside over them, and no one has bothered to check whether the VP, the PPT or some other senator presided over the trial because, irrespective of who presided over the trial, the President of the Senate at the time, pursuant to the Constitution, was the VP (or, if the office was vacant, the PPT).

@GoodDay, @Drdpw AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Rehnquist’s history of impeachments states that VP Burr presided over the trial of Justice Chase. JTRH (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, we have arrived at a unique situation, with the impeachment trial of a former president. If she wished to, Vice President Harris could preside over that trial. However she has chosen not to & so the duty falls to Senator Leahy as president pro tempore. I hope we'll be in agreement that this does not effect Harris' role as presiding officer of the US Senate (thus she continues as "January 20, 2021 – present". I'll leave it to others, to decide on whether or not to add Leahy to the article. PS: IMHO, Leahy should be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

According to a recent statement by Leahy, throughout history, it's customary for the PPT to preside over an impeachment trial not involving the president. Edited to add; Harris is President of the Senate, without interruption, as long as she's Vice President of the United States. JTRH (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Leahy absolutely should not be added to the list in the article. His presiding over the upcoming trial does not override the fact that Kamala Harris remains President of the Senate and could, according to the Constitution, preside if she chose to do so. Drdpw (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Political Party of Presiding Officer

I think that it would be useful and interesting to readers if the table with presiding officers included a column with the political party of each presiding officer during his service as such. What do you all think? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)