When Should a Sitting Member of Congress/Senator Running for President Resign?

really have no clue.

consideration.

1. If they resign how does it impact the # of Dems vs Republicans especially with Joe Lieberwhore....there.

2. If a Senator dies, resigns etc...it depends on who the Governer is, if it is a Dem then we are okay. If it is a Rethuglican it's a big problem. I am not sure all States replace Senators the same way.

If those are resolved in our favor then if the Senator is useless to us then he/she might as well resign.

Just my two cents..

The should resign if and when they feel like resigning, or when they take their new job, whichever comes first.

Healthcare: important.
Stupid bullshit criminal wars: important.
Global warming catastophe: really important.
Peak Oil: life blood of civilization, important.

When Should a Sitting Member of Congress/Senator Running for President Resign: not important at all.

... might disagree with you.

- Dave

As it is a fake issue raised by the candidates opponents when they have nothing of substance they actually want to discuss.

... to be applied to all, not about a particular candidate.

- Dave

A person cannot be a member of congress and a member of the executive branch at the same time.

"no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

That is the standard. It is remarkably clear.

... hence the outer limit of the poll: 11:59:59 a.m. ET on January 20, 2009.

- Dave

As I said, this diversionary non-issue is used every campaign, typically whenever a Democrat candidate happens to be in the Senate, hardly ever against Republican Senators or Governors, and is part of the Standard Canon of Bullshit for political operatives in search of a diversion. Outside of the Bullshit Media System nobody cares.

edit: appears to work for the vast majority of those who bothered to vote in your poll as well.

... I bore in mind JFK's approach. He waited until about a month before his swearing-in. I was curious to see if others thought that the standard had changed.

Article I guarantees representation in Congress to the citizens of each state. Absentee representation is a constitutional issue, too - not a diversion.

- Dave

and could not find it. In fact as we have seen recently with Senator Tim Johnson, there is no such Constitutional issue. Showing up is not part of the Constitutional requirements for office.

As a student of history you might be aware that if there are critical votes where presence matters, candidates make themselves present. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so.

... did indeed raise the issue, politely and quietly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=johnson+senator+hospital+constitution

Constitutional issues are raised by silences as much as by ambiguities and explicit provisions.

- Dave

mostly from rightwing professional noisemakers, however as there in fact was no constitutional issue regarding incapacitation of senators or some 'right to not have your senator absent', that was all it was. There is no constitutional issue. If you can find one, please do post it.

"Hume, Borger, Cavuto falsely reported Sen. Johnson would be replaced if "incapacitated"
Summary: Several media outlets have reported that if Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), who recently had brain surgery, were "incapacitated" or "unable to serve in any way," that South Dakota's Republican governor would be responsible for selecting his replacement. However, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for circumstances in which an "incapacitated" senator can be replaced.

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." The Constitution does not address the ability of a Senator to carry out his or her duties. In contrast, the 25th Amendment deals specifically with "Presidential Disability" and provides a mechanism for people other than the president to determine that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and appoint a replacement without the president's permission.

South Dakota state law echoes the 17th Amendment: "Pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Governor may fill by temporary appointment, until a special election is held pursuant to this chapter, vacancies in the office of senator in the Senate of the United States."

As USA Today reported on December 14, there exists no legal precedent for declaring a senator unable to serve, and senators have continued to serve in spite of infirmities:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140003

There is no constitutional issue. There is a lot of false noise generated during campaign cycles as a distraction.

... deteriorated to the point that it was clear he would not be able to resume his duties, I suspect a Question of Privilege would have been used by a Democratic Senator: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule02.php

Absenteeism is also addressed here: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.php

Part of that rule reads: "2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave."

These rules are given constitutional effect by Article I, Section 5: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5

"Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

- Dave

there time, energy, and focus will be on campaigning and not on their job.

The job of Senator or Representative is mostly running around campaigning and fund raising for campaigns and shmoozing in anticipation of fund raising for campaigns. The 'serious work' of being a Senator or Representative, not so much.

good point.

Rather than term limits and some of the more arcane "campaign finance" limits, I've often though that we'd be better off if we were to prohibit any elected or appointed full time official from engaging in any fund-raising activities of any kind while occupying an office of public trust. If only as a "conflict of interest." I'd include ALL kinds of political fund-raising in that prohibition. I'd prohibit a sitting President from engaging in fund-raising, for example. This would also include fund-raising for one's own campaign, either for reelection to the current office or election to another office. Thus, incumbents would be required to authorize a campaign on their behalf - and all their personal appearances would have to be non-monetary (i.e. not associated with passing the collection plate).

The power of the incumbency is too great a temptation for quid pro quos. We've seen politicians campaign for other offices, like the Presidency, with neither an expectation NOR an intention to win - both to accumulate funds which can later be used to exert influence over other politicians - by transferring those funds to the campaigns of others - ot to gain a "national stature" which would enable them to exert similar influence over other politicians. This 'game' is part of what makes them an inbred species ... an interest group in and of themselves. It's part and parcel of the corruption of politics.

Kerry neither. Dole did before he was nominated, but he was an exception.