Guest Post from Professor Kurt Lash: (Former) President J.D. Vance

I am happy to pass along this fascinating guest post from Professor Kurt Lash:

Vice Presidents are generally considered a kind of president in waiting. In fact, a great many vice presidents have ascended to the presidency, including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Calvin Coolidge, Lyndon Johnson, Joe Biden

. . . and J.D. Vance.

You may have missed it, but, in fact, J.D. Vance was, by law, our 47th President.

If only briefly. If you watched the Inauguration Ceremonies, you might have noticed an odd moment of rush and confusion between J.D. Vance saying his oath of office and Donald Trump then saying his presidential oath. During those brief moments, J.D. Vance was commander in chief of the armed forces and chief executive of the United States.

Let me explain. J.D. Vance took his oath of office just as the clock was striking 12:00pm. (you can see this on the C-Span feed)According to the Twentieth Amendment, "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January." This occurred because the ceremony had gone overtime, likely due to a certain politicians deciding to give an elongated comments (for what reason, heaven only knows).

So, instead of Vance taking his oath before 12:00 and Trump taking his oath at twelve, Vance officially became Vice President at the stroke of 12:00pm-- the precise moment former President Joe Biden's term expired. There being no other person qualified to be president at that moment, J.D. Vance automatically became the President.

Again, according to the twentieth amendment:

"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified."

Although Donald Trump had been elected by a majority of the people, prior to his taking the oath of office, he was not qualified to be president. According to the Constitution: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, [the person chosen or elected president] shall take the following oath or affirmation—"I do solemnly swear . . ."

As of 12:01, Vance's family was still receiving congratulatory applause and handshakes, while slowly moving away from the podium. The master of ceremonies announced that Chief Justice Roberts who would administer the Presidential oath, and Roberts approached the podium. President-elect Trump also approached and did his family, including Melania Trump who carried the two bibles upon which Trump would place his hand which taking the oath.

Trump was about to qualify as President, but he had not yet taken his oath. Vice President Vance had taken the oath and was qualified to be Vice President and, in the absence of a qualified president, Vance became, however briefly, the most powerful person in the world.

Watch the video of the inauguration oaths again. Vance finishes his oath with his family around him and Vance's hand on a bible. Once the V.P. oath was completed, president-elect Trump advanced to the podium, as did his family and soon-to-be-first lady Melania Trump who held the bibles upon which Trump would place his hand.

Yet, for some reason, Chief Justice John Roberts did not wait for the family to gather or bibles to be put in place. Instead, the Chief Justice immediately began to administer the oath to Donald Trump, bibles be damned. Not under his watch would erstwhile President Vance be allowed to suddenly end the ceremony and declare martial law until the end of the Ohio State-Notre Dame football game.

Chief Justice Roberts knew the constitutional rules and knew the importance of the constitutional clock. So long as the Chief Justice had any say, the term of new 47th President would be brief. Donald Trump good naturedly allowed the Justice to rush the affair, and took the required oath of office. At that point, at the strike of 12:02pm, the presidency moved from Vice President to (now) qualified President Trump.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Despite President Trump's claim to contrary, we have already had our 47th President.

If only for a moment.

Comments

[James Alp]

So?

[Bubba Jones]

Josh needed a chance to speculate about what was in Roberts's head.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The post was actually by Prof. Kurt Lash.

[mggaviles]

The Twelfth Amendment says: "...then the Vice President-elect shall *act* as President until a President shall have qualified."

Wouldn't Vance have been *Acting* President in that scenario? Not actually President.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that would appear to be the case, but it was just too boring to acknowledge.

[Rossami]

Oh, come on. I was laughing through the whole article. Don't ruin a good joke with ugly facts.

But yeah, Vance was no more actual President than Bush was during Reagan's recovery after the Hinckley assassination attempt.

[_Nobody_]

Agreed on the "Acting" part.

However, there is an even finger legal hair to split. Trump, being one of only two people elected President to non-consecutive terms, had already taken the oath of office once. While we go through the pomp and circumstance of swearing him in again, I don't believe the Constitution specifically states he had to take the oath a second time.

[Drewski]

He would, if Blackman were right that Trump didn't hold office. He can't execute the duties prior to taking the oath but holds the office. See https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/1/239 where the Second Congress acknowledges that Washington held office prior to his oath.

[DixieTune]

Only law professors would waste time on this nonsense and find it interesting.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

By your comment, you must be a law professor too.

[Bubba Jones]

This is one of the better Blackman posts.

[apedad]

How is this different that other inaugurations?

(not arguing...just want to know why this one is unique)

[KenveeB]

Because usually the VP is sworn in just before noon, when the previous president is still in office. The new president is sworn in AT noon.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

But but but .... does that mean there are two VPs for a short spell?

This whole topic is just silly. Sure, Russia or China could time their nuclear missile launch to coincide with that brief interval between Presidents and confuse that poor sod carrying the football.

Blackman likes to play fantasy supreme court and come up with idiotic insider gossip, and Blackman haters apparently have even dumber ways to waste their time by telling everyone else with snide remarks, and Blackman hater haters have nothing better to do than write stupid comments like this.

And the world continues to revolve.

[KenveeB]

Swearing in a new one replaces the old. It's just a quirky little factoid that some people find amusing. If you're not one of them, it doesn't affect your day.

[David Nieporent]

Look, I like bashing Josh all the time, but is it too much to read the post before doing so? This isn't Josh's commentary. He's passing along Kurt Lash's commentary.

[Bubba Jones]

Now you've triggered my pet peeve.

When you use your soapbox to repost someone else's text, you're signing on as a co-sponsor.

Unless you are specifically critiquing it.

[epsilon given]

Nah, you can repost something for the pure giggles, too. "Hey, look at this, I found it amusing! I'll throw it out there for you to comment on, I don't have an opinion on this (beyond it being funny) because I haven't looked into the details to see if they hold water."

It can be hard to read between the lines to figure out the motivations for a given post, so we should just give everyone the benefit of the doubt when there's ambiguity, unless there is past or future context that clarifies things.

[Seamus]

Usually a short time after noon. The fact that the president never (or almost never) finishes taking the oath by the stroke of noon would mean that, under Professor Blackmun's theory, *every* (or almost every) vice president sworn in before noon on January 20 was president for a short time until the president took the oath.

[epsilon given]

What's worse, I seem to recall that there was a year where the Speaker of the House was "President" for a day, because Jan 20 was on a Sunday, and neither the President nor the Vice President were sworn in until Jan 21.

And this is besides all the times we had "Acting Presidents" while the actual President is unconscious while undergoing surgery.

This would mean Vance is the 60th? 70th? President at this point!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[moved]

[John Rohan]

I actually remember reading the same thing back in 1989, that Dan Quayle was briefly the President before Bush Sr was sworn in.

[Magister]

David Rice Atchison was supposedly (acting) president for a day because Zachary Taylor delayed taking the oath for a day (when inauguration day fell on a Sunday). A full day might be meaningful in the modern age, but unlikely to have mattered in 1849. Atchison commented decades later to a reporter:

I made no pretense to the office, but if I was entitled in it I had one boast to make, that not a woman or a child shed a tear on account of my removing any one from office during my incumbency of the place.

I suppose Vance could make the same boast, for those two minutes.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Atchison’s tombstone also states that he was “President of the United States for one day”, although for the reasons mentioned in the first comment I don’t think that’s quite right.

[James Alp]

Or, maybe Vance is still the president, since Trump is constitutionally ineligible under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[DixieTune]

This crap again? All 9 SCOTUS justices ruled against this idiotic interpretation of Section 3. That's very telling.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Twice! You must hold two law professor gigs.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for bringing up an excellent idea.

You want the SC to overturn Plyer vs Doe and Wong Kim Ark.

How about instead, we leave those alone and somebody refiles the Section 3 case. The SC takes the case and overturns Trump v. Anderson, the case you just linked.

Then (a) he's not president, and (b) he never was this term, so all his pardons and EOs are void.

All it takes is him pissing off 5 out of 9.

[DixieTune]

who said anything about overturning wong kim ark?

[ducksalad]

Oh, I see. You're buying into the BS that since Wong Kim Ark didn't specifically address whether his parent's legal status mattered, it's still an open question.

Two reasons it's BS:

1. It's wrong. The 14th Amendment hinges on whether the baby is under the jurisdiction, not the parents. Any argument that entering the country illegally takes one out of the jurisdiction is irrelevant because the baby did not enter the country illegally.
2. It's insincere. People who are against immigration in general like to pretend they're only against illegal immigration, while working toward laws to make more and more of it illegal. We all know you badly want Wong Kim Ark overturned. You just want to be able to say overturning Plyer would be enough. But it wouldn't because Plyer was about children who themselves had entered the country illegally. By 1982 even Texas didn't try to exclude children born here from going to school.

[M L]

Here's one article on the issue. SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTION THEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q5OZJCD3kxDzxflyeUXfUYOJV9DrPmpD/view

https://x.com/AmySwearer/status/1881857640835224049

(1) The Chinese Exclusion Acts at the time prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens. Ever. Wong Kim Ark's parents had no legal manner of obtaining citizenship, which created a class of permanent lawful residents who were relegated to perpetual alien status based on race alone - not just for them, but for generations of subsequent U.S.-born descendants who'd have absolutely no allegiance to any nation except the US, where they were born, lived, and died. This almost identically parallels the plight of the U.S.-born descendants of African slaves after Dred Scott, which was precisely the thing the CRA and 14th Amendment were concerned with undoing. (2) The Wong Kim Ark Court at every opportunity emphasizes the lawful and permanent domicile of his parents at the time of his birth, something that is utterly irrelevant if it truly understood the 14th Amendment to adopt common law jus soli, as advocates for universal birthright citizenship today contend. If that were the case, the Court's entire analysis would have ended with "he was born on U.S. and his parents were not diplomats."

[David Nieporent]

The Wong Kim Ark Court at every opportunity emphasizes the lawful and permanent domicile of his parents at the time of his birth,

It does not, of course. It indeed mentions that fact several times — as well as mentioning the fact several times that WKA was of Chinese descent —  but not once anywhere in the opinion does it state that either of these facts was material. Both are equally irrelevant.

[M L]

And another. https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship

"It turns out that he should have looked closer because that decision at no point addressed, either explicitly—the word “illegal” is not used in the opinion—or implicitly, the legal status of the children born in the United States of illegal aliens. Rather, that case dealt explicitly with the common situation where the plaintiff was the child of lawful permanent aliens in the United States who had long engaged in a lawful business and were denied the right to become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion statute..."

[DixieTune]

1. The baby is arguably under the jurisdiction of the country of citizenship of his parents.
2. I agree many people are insincere, but I'm not. I'll against any immigration of unassimilable, downtrodden people, whether legal or illegal. Korean engineers and Indian doctors, yes, Mayan peasants from El Salvador, no.

[windycityattorney]

Are you trying to make the Statute of Liberty mad? We get it. You're a racist. You don't have to try to so hard to prove it every day.

[DixieTune]

The poem in the Statue (not statute, you moron) of Liberty was not passed by Congress as a statement of policy. It was the ranting of a Jewish communist who thought that admitting every worthless peasant from the third world is part of tikkun olam.

[ducksalad]

Sure, anything is arguable if you are talking about reversing the precedent. As you know, Plyer quite explicitly rejected this exact argument, and made a very clear statement that "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment means the same as jurisdiction in any other context: subject to the law.

On the second part, thank you for the straightforward statement of your opinion.

[DixieTune]

By that ridiculous standard, EVERYONE is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States except for those with diplomatic immunity.

[ducksalad]

Yes. Every single child born in the US, except for the child of diplomats, is absolutely a US citizen. Every single person who sets foot on US soil, except for diplomats and their families, is subject to US law.

That's (a) the standard set by the Supreme Court, (b) the plain everyday meaning of the word jurisdiction, (c) the best overall estimate of the original public meaning for the state legislators who ratified it, which of course was not uniform, (d) what we've been doing for hundreds of years, and (e) all around excellent and proper and consistent and not the tiniest bit ridiculous.

[DixieTune]

Yeah it's an "excellent" standard if your goal is to turn as many low quality third worlders into voting U.S. citizens. If your goal is to maintain America's high quality genetic stock, it's a terrible standard.

[DixieTune]

Also, if your interpretation is upheld by SCOTUS, that's a reason not to admit anyone as temporary refugee or asylum seeker. At least not unless they're willing to be sterilized at the border.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I hope this is just internet anonymous posing, and you really aren't this big a piece of shit.

[Kazinski]

Well you are wrong on #1, because in the cases decided on children born to parents with diplomatic immunity, the courts have decided it is the parents status that matters.

"In 2019, Ms Muthana's father appealed against a federal court that barred her entry. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined the case without comment.

Ms Muthana, the daughter of a Yemeni diplomat, was born in the US. But under federal law, the children of diplomats born in the US are not automatically bestowed citizenship.

In his lawsuit, Ahmed Ali Muthana argued his family had given up diplomatic status before his daughter was born, making her a citizen. They maintained Ms Muthana was previously recognised as a citizen by the US State Department and given a US passport in 2004."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59974939

And on #2, when does sincerity matter when you are arguing what the text of the law says?

[David Nieporent]

This crap again? All 9 SCOTUS justices ruled against this idiotic interpretation of Section 3. That's very telling.

They did not, in fact, do that. The majority danced around that issue, and the concurrence rejected your claim.

[DixieTune]

No, they did not. They made very clear that Congress was the only one who could do this. Therefore, he can't be disqualified under Section 3, as Congress hasn't moved for it.

[Kazinski]

What the per curium did say:

"But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency."

"Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870."

"For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States."

And of course any act of Congress, other than impeachment, is subject to the veto power. The only existing act of Congress that would enforce section 3 is "18 U.S. Code § 2383" which requires a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are free however to trod Ilya and Baude's example and explain why you are right and the court is wrong, but of course the sound and fury would signify nothing.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Baude's argument is much more convincing than the court's. Hopefully a future SCOTUS will correct this obvious error. And while they're at it, they can overturn the idea that the President has any immunity from criminal prosecution.

[Currentsitguy]

Repeating nonsense doesn't actually make it true.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

OR FALSE

[A Woman of No Importance]

No Trump fan I, but I think that by re-electing him, the people of the United States directly exercised their power as sovereign to pardon him, or at least that's the practical effect. In the United States, the people are sovereign, even though they normally exercise their prerogatives through their elected officials. But this is a rare case in which the people directly exercised the pardon power.

Of course there's no case law on it, but intuitively that makes sense to me. And I say that as someone who thinks that he should be sitting in a cell instead of in the Oval Office.

[Martinned2]

The whole point of most of the constitution is to establish that there are various things that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, *cannot* do.

[A Woman of No Importance]

But in this case, there's no question Biden *could* have pardoned Trump had he chosen to do so. So, the people simply did directly what they could have done indirectly through Biden.

[David Nieporent]

But in this case, there's no question Biden *could* have pardoned Trump had he chosen to do so. So, the people simply did directly what they could have done indirectly through Biden.

Biden could indeed have pardoned Trump, but having done so would not have helped Trump in this regard. The 14th amendment expressly specifies that it is up to Congress to remove the disability of disqualification for insurrection, which requires a 2/3 vote of each house.

[Kazinski]

Its also up to Congress to say what is necessary for the disability to vest, and there is no disability for Congress to remove.

Trump, nor anyone else, was either charged or convicted of insurrection, no one has had Section 3 disability laid upon them.

And we haven't even gotten to the "officers stuff".

But I agree Trump was not pardoned by the people in the election, since he could still theoretically be charged when and if he leaves office.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They might have "practically" pardoned him but re-electing a person doesn't waive all their past crimes.

The people's representatives passed criminal laws. They apply to people in office, including if an election took place in between.

Murder, for instance, does not have a statute of limitations. If Trump murdered 10 people in 2022, a future administration's Justice Department will still be allowed to prosecute him for them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There is no mechanism for anyone to "pardon" Trump's alleged disqualification from holding the office under the 14th Amendment. The pardon power extends only to "offenses against the United States", which a technical disqualification from office is not.

The closest available analog would be the ability of Congress to remove that "disability" by a 2/3 majority vote of both Houses. (Of course, that was before the Supreme Court effectively deleted that part of Section 3 from the Constitution.)

[epsilon given]

Did they delete that part of Section 3 from the Constitution, or did they merely observe that President Trump didn't satisfy the definition of Insurrectionist required for the section to apply?

There' a huge difference between the two.

[Seamus]

Are you one of those clowns who argues that, when a Republican says "fight like hell," that's the equivalent of firing on Fort Sumter and that when they say to do it "peacefully and patriotically," that's the equivalent of yelling "No prisoners!"? (Democrats calling on their followers to fight are, of course, just using colorful but figurative language.)

[David Nieporent]

All words require context for interpretation. When the head of an investment bankers' association tells the annual meeting of its members in the ballroom of a hotel that they need to fight like hell against proposed Treasury regulations, it is obvious that he is talking about lobbying, lawsuits, and perhaps campaign contributions.

When a guy in a white hood tells a group of angry other people in white hoods meeting outside a rural jail at midnight that they need to fight like hell to ensure that the black rape defendants being held there are brought to justice for their crimes, it is obvious that he is not talking about lobbying, lawsuits, or campaign contributions, but is calling for a lynching.

And when a politician who has lost every possible challenge to his election defeat and has no legal avenue to avoid being ousted tells a mob of angry supporters that the election is being stolen right in front of them as they speak and they have to fight like hell to keep that from happening, it is obvious that he is not suggesting that they send sternly worded postcards to members of Congress. (Not just obvious to me, but to all the people who immediately proceeded to attack the Capitol in response!)

[Bob from Ohio]

"in response!"

The riot started before Trump finished speaking.

[windycityattorney]

And the President pardoned those traitorous rioters too. Why the very same Proud Boys who were told to stand back and standby. What a strange coincidence!

And we don't use the word "riot" no more Bob.

It's "day of love."

[epsilon given]

Did Trump pardon "rioters", or did he pardon a bunch of people entrapped to go into the Capitol and who had beeo extensively persecuted since then?

Because based on the video evidence surrounding Ray Erps alone, and reinforced by the FBI's lack of curiosity about the pipe bombs and gallows set up that day, among other things, there's very compelling evidence that this "riot" was staged by the FBI.

[windycityattorney]

Proud Boys and various Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

You figure it out if they were entrapped. I have a feeling the weeks of planning in advance of Jan 6 all outside of DC might make your comment pointless but what do I know?

[MaddogEngineer]

Brandenburg v Ohio ...obviously!

Oh wait, that's right, I forgot...section 3 of the 14th amendment overrides all due process protections and precedents! My bad!

[Bored Lawyer]

The article assumes that the oath of office is a prerequisite to acceding to the office. I suppose the text of Constitution supports that, although I don't think anyone has really analyzed the question:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Currentsitguy]

Serious legal hair splitting here but I don't think it is a prerequisite to acceding to the office so much as it is a bar for exercising executive authority.

[Bob from Ohio]

Agreed, the text ["Execution of his Office"] supports this. "Execution" must mean something.

[TheAmazingEmu]

I tend to agree. Combined with the 20th Amendment only saying the Vice President shall act as President means that J.D. Vance was never President, but theoretically briefly held the powers of President.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>Yet, for some reason, Chief Justice John Roberts did not wait for the family to gather or bibles to be put in place.

"some reason"? We can guess a few reasons...

[Brian Irving]

The Constitution's plain language says the President's term begins at noon on January 20. Taking the oath is not a prerequisite. I think there is court precedent here.

[Seamus]

Exactly. He becomes president at noon, but he can't take any official action until he takes the oath.

[David Nieporent]

The Constitution's plain language says the President's term begins at noon on January 20.

The term begins at noon; that doesn't mean the president-elect is automatically qualified to serve as president. It just means that the outgoing president is no longer president.

[RedheadedPharoh]

There's a saying that goes "'Technically correct' is the best kind of 'correct'".

After reading through some of the comments, it's become quite clear that Josh is neither.

[Longtobefree]

And yet, somehow, that known fascists did not start even one war!
I am beginning to think that the federally funded media is not entirely truthful.
Maybe next week, now that the federal funding has ceased?

[ReaderY]

Every now and then, Professor Blackman posts something interesting in the way of legal trivia. Perhaps only lawyers would find this entertaining. But even lawyers need entertainment sometimes.

Of course, this one was a guest post.

[ReaderY]

There was some comment about President Trump not bothering to put his hand on the Bibles his wife brought him. This at least provides a plausible alternative explanation why.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Roberts swore in presidents since 2009. This would be more "fascinating" if it was put in context. Was Biden president or acting president back in January 2009? How about Mike Pence in 2017?

Also, watching the video, I don't see much rushing. Melania Trump is there with a bible. Roberts might have started a tick early. If we want to assume, maybe he just wanted to get it over with.

Trump's term started at noon. He could not 'execute' any powers until sworn in. Trump was "qualified" (if we waive 14A, sec. 3) at noon. He could not execute his duties until sworn in.

Still, per the 20A, he was "qualified" to be in office. Maybe, the relevant provision is the 25th Amendment, which speaks of being unable to discharge powers and duties.

There is a process there, however, to determine if that is present. It does not happen automatically. I don't think Vance was ever president, acting or otherwise.

Finally, why is the Vice President sworn in first anyway?

[epsilon given]

What's with it with all the people who seriously think the mere accusationsufficient to bar that person from office? Either prove it in a Court or Session of Congress or go home! Such people are not friends of the Constitution.

And if Pretendent Biden wasn't incapacitated enough to be removed via 25th Amendment, I fail to see how President Trump can be subjected to it.

[cssteve]

I don't think this is correct.

The constitution says "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

President Trump had taken that oath, on January 20th, 2017. That might be a long time before, but it is before, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why that oath would stop being valid.

[David Nieporent]

there doesn't seem to be any reason why that oath would stop being valid

I guess that poses a philosophical or religious question: if one takes an oath, and then flagrantly violates that oath, does the oath continue to be valid?

EDIT: Pondering for a moment, I suppose it does. A witness on the witness stand who flagrantly perjures himself in violation of his oath does not void the oath; it's still binding on him for subsequent testimony.

That having been said, that analogy also illuminates why your position is wrong in a different way: when a witness takes an oath, it's not permanently binding on him; it ceases to be valid upon the conclusion of the proceedings. Similarly, Trump's oath ceased to be valid once his term was up.

[santamonica811]

David,
Let's say I give evidence in a criminal trial. I'm put under oath, of course.

Much later, during the sentencing stage, I again am brought back to give testimony. Am I put under oath again; or, am I merely reminded that I am still under oath? [This must come up often enough so that there is probably an actual "right" answer to this.]

[MaddogEngineer]

Acting president at best, not the 47th one.

It's also an interesting question whether he could even really be Acting, not having taken the presidential oath. Is the oath required for a VP acting as president? I don't think Cheney ever did when he was Acting President under Section 3 of the 25th Amendment. (Was Biden ever 25A3 acting too?) I assume he would have, if it's necessary, and the need for particular presidential action had arisen, or colonoscopy complications prolonged the disability.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a rumor -- possibly false -- that the oath of office is administered earlier that morning because of the possibility that neither would be sworn in by 12:00:00 and the then USSR would launch nukes.

IF this is the case, then Trump -- already sworn -- automatically became POTUS.

[Ann in L.A.]

In the same vein, he took the oath 8 years prior. Is there an expiration date on a sacred oath?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Trump not putting his hand on the Bible showed a degree of honesty and integrity which he has otherwise never exhibited.

[David Nieporent]

Or maybe fear.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Roberts didn't wait on his wife to bring them.

[ReaderY]

Agree Vice President Vance may have been Acting President for a minute or two, but was at no time President. President Trump became President at noon. He just couldn’t “execute” anything before taking the oath. The phrase “the execution of” matters and has to be given a meaning. If the phrase had been “Before he enter on his office,” Professor Lash’s theory would have much more textual support. The text distinguishes between the office itself and its execution. Any textually faithful interpretation has to account for that distinction.

[gVOR08]

This is so VC. A law prof wrote up a small funny story and, so far, 56 commenters went spinning of f into the ozone arguing about it.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes

[Roger S]

Besides the Zachary Taylor story, there is also the story of Roberts botching the oath for Obama in 2009. Arguably, the Obama presidency was delayed for a few hours until they got the oath correct.

[DixieTune]

Obama was constitutionally ineligible to be President anyway, as he was clearly born in Kenya.

[ReaderY]

At least to people too illiterate to read his Hawaii birth certificate.

[DixieTune]

Did you see the piece of shit forgery he submitted? It was clearly not created in Hawaii.

[ReaderY]

The one the Hawaii government stood by as genuine? The one that looks like every other Hawaii birth certificate?

I suppose you’ll say that since Hawaii is a piece of shit blue state, they’re all piece of shit forgeries.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He's just a troll and a poser. Don't bother.

[David Nieporent]

Clearly!

[Kazinski]

Did they forge the contemporaneous birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser too?

Then microfiche it and stash it in libraries across the country too?

I am impressed.

[Roger S]

I subscribe to the theory that Obama was born in Hawaii, but he was not qualified to be a citizen, under the applicable rules at the time. Therefore he was not a natural born citizen, as the Constitution requires. Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley are not natural born citizens either.

[David Nieporent]

Weird how our resident oozing ball of pus thinks that all non-white people aren't citizens.

[Roger S]

The 14A made American Black former slaves to be citizens. I am not questioning that. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the place and circumstances of birth.

[DixieTune]

Regarding birthright citizenship, the fact remains that if we are obligated to let anyone into America who claims "asylum," no matter how weak the case, and we are going to take years to remove them if ineligible, and if their children are going to have citizenship, that means that in the end, we have lost control over whom we invite into our citizenship. That's not what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Troll on, poser.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe what we should focus on is that in his time as President JD Vance did not increase any government spending, did not start any new wars, and did not create any political controversies. Short though it be it was likely one of the most successful Presidencies we have had in years.

[gVOR08]

But do you really think JD could have kept that up for more than two minutes?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Andrew Johnson was sworn in as Vice President before Lincoln was inaugurated for his second term. Johnson had some pre-swearing-in jitters, so he had a sip of the cup which refreshes. Then another. And another. Then he somehow felt emboldened to give a speech saying what he *really* thought about various topics. Lincoln, in the audience, looked like he wanted to sink into the floor. The agony was eventually over and Lincoln went and gave his Second Inaugural.

Was there an interval before Lincoln's swearing in during which drunk Johnson was Acting President? I'm too bored to look it up, but it might make a good law review article.

[Sims]

What does it mean for Vance's future eligibility? T up the stupid lawsuits over a pointless blunder.

[epsilon given]

Unless the "brief moment" was longer than two years, this does nothing to affect Vance's prospects for seeking Presidential office. The longest a President can serve as President Constitutionally is 10 years.

[Ann in L.A.]

But, is there an expiration date on a sacred oath? Trump already took the oath...8 years ago.

[Archibald Tuttle]

This little oddity could be the basis of a very difficult Final Jeopardy
question in the year 2125.

[SueBeeSmith]

This is what happens when you get "Diarrhea of the mouth ", very common symptom of this administration.

[AtR]

What constitutes "taking an oath", legally?