I believe that a President, a Judge, and a Juror may not act in these Offices prior to being sworn in.\n\nWhat would their position be if not sworn in?
136047
No.\nYou are correct in making your assessment.
177433
i was reading through the other answers and... Americans could probably get him impeached. i mean, isnt that what the whole separation of powers--legislative, judicial, executive--is about? not letting one branch get too powerful? there has to be a way hidden somewhere in the constitution... i'll get back to you on it.
515903
God did not put them there, man did- God allowed it.  \nPersonally, regardless of who is in office, Christians are to obey the word of God, respect the authority that is in the office of government and pray.  Who is in office is still no excuse for immorality- Each pperson makes their choices and each person will be accountable for those choices- right or wrong.
43864
They confirm presidential appointments to high level government offices - all of the judges in the Federal court system (federal "district" courts - trial courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court), as well as any department heads ("secretaries") and their immediate staff ("undersecretaries").  They also serve as the jury if a government official is impeached - impeaching a person is to put them on trial, not to remove them.  (The house of representatives acts as the "prosecutor" in an impeachment hearing.)  If an official is convicted at the impeachment hearing, the standard penalty is to be removed from office.  Any government official can be impeached.
651260
Impossibility !\n\nThis could be due to some Act of God or due to some circumstantial reasons. \n\nbut if any judge give these kind of order the it would be impossible for him to continue as a judge.\n\n-k-
431141
I agree with you completely.  Once the new representative is sworn in, they are your representative whether you voted for them or not.  Yesterday, some of my candidates won, some lost.  I did not vote for my governor, who it turns out will still be my governer, but she is my governor.  I am just going to hold her feet to the fire and make sure she represents me.
449840
They serve until their term is over. If they served until the war was over every President would start a war near the end of their term.
614963
unfortunately, yes.  as the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president can send them in to any place he wants, and technically they are supposed to follow his orders.  in the event that he doesnt leave office, impeachment obviously wouldnt work, and the only way to get rid of him would be to kill him, as Thomas Jefferson alluded to when he said that the people had the right and responsibility to overthrow a government that is corrupt and reestablish the old system.\n\nnow, to your question.  in debate on the house floor a few years ago (right before the invasion of iraq), representative mcdermott quoted an article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled, "Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the United States."  Bascially, during the Iran-Contra Affair, Ronald Reagan issued an executive order giving FEMA even broader powers than Congress gave it, and among these powers were the ability to prevent violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a US military invasion abroad through the use of the military, basically, declaring martial law.  all of reagans papers, including this order, were sealed by the bush administration.  therefore, we do not know the full story.  \n\ni hope that this answers your question.  ive got the whole speech, and id be happy to give it to you if you want it.
390072
Its a very good thing I am not President.\n\nReasons;\n\n  1/ I would declare Martial law.\n\n  2/ I would move troops to the trouble spots.\n\n   3/ Replace all the judges.\n\nAs to stepping down, not unless it could be proven that the \nsituation was my fault.
76957
Impeachment is reserved for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Incompetence doesn't qualify - if it did, half of the government would be gone.
408498
The power of appointment is vested in the Executive branch but this requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate (Legislative).  A simple majority is sufficient to approve the appointment.\n\nThe President can also appoint someone during a recess of Congress, but that appointment only lasts until the end of the current session of Congress.  A topical case is that of John Bolton, Ambassador to the United Nations.  He was appointed last year and his time runs out on January 3rd, when the new congress takes office.\n\nGoogle "US Constitution" and look at article 2, section 2.  The vacancy as Ambassador to the UN did not occur during a recess.  The President merely appointed Mr Bolton during the recess.  Does that make it valid?  I am not sure but I would like to see some other views on this.
77073
President Bush ceases to be President the day before the next president's inauguration. If you want to be technical the order goes something like this:\n\n0000 EST January 20th 2009: President Bush's term is complete. Being a two term president he is unable to seek another term\n1030 EST January 20th 2009: Vice President is sworn in by the Chief Justice\n1130 EST January 20th 2009: President is sworn in by the Chief Justice\n\nAnd in case you are wondering, not this doesn't mean that for 10½ hours the United States is leaderless as for those 10½ hours the Speaker of the House of Representatives is in charge (taking advice from the former President)
234395
1.  A.  Executive orders.  All others are positions which the Senate must vote on.  Personal opinion: All too often executive orders are used to sidestep Congress, and should be limited (the EPA was created by executive order).\n\n2.  A and C.  The purpose of a grand jury is to indict, in other words to say that there is enough evidence to warrant a jury trial (which sits a petit jury).  Both A and C apply here, as they are saying whether there is enough evidence for prosecution and whether that is enough for a jury trial.\n\n3.  C.  Both the Wagner Act and the Patriot Act are well after Jackson's time.  There were no declared wars during Jackson's term in office, but he did basically sidestep the Supreme Court when it ruled that the state of Georgia could not enforce its law on Cherokee lands.  Jackson basically pressured the Cherokee to sign removal treaties, as Jackson was a big advocate of "Indian Removal."\n\n4.  B.  The President pro Tempore usually runs the Senate (usually it is the longest serving member of the majority party, currently Ted Stevens of Alaska).  The Speaker of the House has no standing in the Senate, and the Majority Leader basically controls the agenda.  The Vice President is the President of the Senate, but can only vote in case of a tie, so usually is not in attendance.
291022
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
442867
At the federal level:\n\nAll executive branch members except for the President and Vice President.  If the vice presidency is vacant, the president may appoint a vice president under the 25th Amendment.\n\nAll judicial branch members (justices/judges).\n\nSenators and Representatives are traditionally elected, though state governors can fill Senate vacancies by appointment.  ALL Representatives are elected, without exception.
512801
I would like to see a law passed that eliminates the tie between voting and jury duty. I believe many low income Americans don't vote because jury duty would break them financially. This is unfortunate.
484780
Impeachment and conviction in the senate are a matter of actual criminal activity, and not just because someone has a difference of opinion in how things should have been handled.  Get a grip!\n\nSue