Why would the President not just fire the Attorney General?









up vote
24
down vote

favorite
1












According to several newspapers, e.g. this article, or even the (now former) Attorney General's resignation letter, President Trump asked Jeff Sessions to resign. Similar things are also shown in TV shows from time to time.



If I remember correctly, the President can fire any cabinet member. So why would he request Sessions to resign instead of just firing him?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    24
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    According to several newspapers, e.g. this article, or even the (now former) Attorney General's resignation letter, President Trump asked Jeff Sessions to resign. Similar things are also shown in TV shows from time to time.



    If I remember correctly, the President can fire any cabinet member. So why would he request Sessions to resign instead of just firing him?










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      24
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      24
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      According to several newspapers, e.g. this article, or even the (now former) Attorney General's resignation letter, President Trump asked Jeff Sessions to resign. Similar things are also shown in TV shows from time to time.



      If I remember correctly, the President can fire any cabinet member. So why would he request Sessions to resign instead of just firing him?










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      According to several newspapers, e.g. this article, or even the (now former) Attorney General's resignation letter, President Trump asked Jeff Sessions to resign. Similar things are also shown in TV shows from time to time.



      If I remember correctly, the President can fire any cabinet member. So why would he request Sessions to resign instead of just firing him?







      united-states






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked yesterday









      Philipp Imhof

      22315




      22315




      New contributor




      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Philipp Imhof is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          40
          down vote



          accepted










          In addition to the niceties listed by another answer, this allows Trump to appoint a temporary replacement according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998:




          The Vacancies Act’s requirements are triggered if an officer serving in an advice and
          consent position in the executive branch “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the
          functions and duties of the office.”




          The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview



          It's not clear that this would apply to a situation where he is fired. In the case where it doesn't, the deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, would assume the acting role, which is probably not what Trump had in mind.



          So it's pretty clear by getting his resignation he explicitly maintains the authority to pick his replacement. If he hadn't resigned, this almost certainly would have been challenged, as one government oversight writer says:




          [T]he moral hazard created by allowing the president wide discretion to make an unreviewable temporary appointment to act in place of a Senate-confirmed official he fired is one good reason why this omission might have been intentional on Congress’s part. On the other hand, for most positions there is no mechanism to fill a vacancy temporarily other than the VRA, and it would be odd if there were no mechanism whatsoever to fill vacancies that result from a termination pending confirmation of a replacement.




          If the Attorney General Is Fired, Who Acts as Attorney General?






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.













          • 1




            This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago







          • 2




            @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago







          • 1




            Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
            – Barmar
            8 hours ago






          • 2




            @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago






          • 5




            Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
            – Azor Ahai
            5 hours ago

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          It's pretty customary to let someone resign rather than fire in government (or any senior leadership role, really). Even if we suppose that the reason he was asked to resign was because of a very real improper action on Sessions part (i.e. Sessions acted in an inappropriate way for the role and Trump had some legitimate reason to fire him for cause), Sessions is still a valuable employee for a good many private sector cooperation and may even return to run for his own senate seat on the next cycle it's available. Being fired can hurt these prospects when he applies or may leave his next employer with no legitimate way to spin the candidate as a capable employee, because his last boss fired him. Resignation can be spun... yes, most people will read the phrase "was asked to resign today" is read as "he was fired", but on any job application, this is asked in a form of "What was the reason for leaving your last job." If the job seeker writes "I resigned" it implies that the problem was not his fault but his bosses numerous and often well know questionable management style quirks.



          Additionally, certain benefits come with resignation that do not come from firing someone. For example, in some employment situations, certain benefits are given in your severance package depending on the question of who initiated the employee leaving (see the Office Episode where one of the guys from the Merger was about to quit, only for Michael to do the "You can't quit, cause you're fired" line... and then realized he screwed the pooch.).



          Finally, remember what happened when Trump fired Comey, who had managed to piss of just about everyone in Washington in the past year or so. Comey immediately started to go rogue and drop claims against Trump that he was not doing when he was gainfully employed. If we revisit the possibility that sessions may have actually done something wrong, Trump could offer him to resign to gain a possible... um... insurance (blackmail being such an ugly word and all that...) that Sessions doesn't start talking about his former boss on all the news cameras he can get pointed at him. Trump won't talk about the reasons for his request, and Sessions won't talk about his lousy boss.



          And this isn't the only way to do this. Almost any time a major seperation happens in creative industries (the boy band breaks up, the director leaves the film project, or an actor walks off set) expect one of the two participants to cite vague "Creative Difference" as the cause of the seperation... it's best to read as they had a big fight over something (It could even be creative) and one of them was fired (though in music acts, it tends to be the band are too mad to perform... studios fire the directors or actors because of legit purposes but don't want the likely film to be called into doubt as being good by the movie watching public.).





          share


















          • 1




            Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
            – Philipp Imhof
            20 hours ago






          • 13




            Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
            – phoog
            19 hours ago






          • 7




            It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago






          • 5




            It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
            – SJuan76
            9 hours ago










          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "475"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          Philipp Imhof is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35240%2fwhy-would-the-president-not-just-fire-the-attorney-general%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          40
          down vote



          accepted










          In addition to the niceties listed by another answer, this allows Trump to appoint a temporary replacement according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998:




          The Vacancies Act’s requirements are triggered if an officer serving in an advice and
          consent position in the executive branch “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the
          functions and duties of the office.”




          The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview



          It's not clear that this would apply to a situation where he is fired. In the case where it doesn't, the deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, would assume the acting role, which is probably not what Trump had in mind.



          So it's pretty clear by getting his resignation he explicitly maintains the authority to pick his replacement. If he hadn't resigned, this almost certainly would have been challenged, as one government oversight writer says:




          [T]he moral hazard created by allowing the president wide discretion to make an unreviewable temporary appointment to act in place of a Senate-confirmed official he fired is one good reason why this omission might have been intentional on Congress’s part. On the other hand, for most positions there is no mechanism to fill a vacancy temporarily other than the VRA, and it would be odd if there were no mechanism whatsoever to fill vacancies that result from a termination pending confirmation of a replacement.




          If the Attorney General Is Fired, Who Acts as Attorney General?






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.













          • 1




            This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago







          • 2




            @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago







          • 1




            Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
            – Barmar
            8 hours ago






          • 2




            @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago






          • 5




            Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
            – Azor Ahai
            5 hours ago














          up vote
          40
          down vote



          accepted










          In addition to the niceties listed by another answer, this allows Trump to appoint a temporary replacement according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998:




          The Vacancies Act’s requirements are triggered if an officer serving in an advice and
          consent position in the executive branch “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the
          functions and duties of the office.”




          The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview



          It's not clear that this would apply to a situation where he is fired. In the case where it doesn't, the deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, would assume the acting role, which is probably not what Trump had in mind.



          So it's pretty clear by getting his resignation he explicitly maintains the authority to pick his replacement. If he hadn't resigned, this almost certainly would have been challenged, as one government oversight writer says:




          [T]he moral hazard created by allowing the president wide discretion to make an unreviewable temporary appointment to act in place of a Senate-confirmed official he fired is one good reason why this omission might have been intentional on Congress’s part. On the other hand, for most positions there is no mechanism to fill a vacancy temporarily other than the VRA, and it would be odd if there were no mechanism whatsoever to fill vacancies that result from a termination pending confirmation of a replacement.




          If the Attorney General Is Fired, Who Acts as Attorney General?






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.













          • 1




            This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago







          • 2




            @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago







          • 1




            Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
            – Barmar
            8 hours ago






          • 2




            @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago






          • 5




            Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
            – Azor Ahai
            5 hours ago












          up vote
          40
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          40
          down vote



          accepted






          In addition to the niceties listed by another answer, this allows Trump to appoint a temporary replacement according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998:




          The Vacancies Act’s requirements are triggered if an officer serving in an advice and
          consent position in the executive branch “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the
          functions and duties of the office.”




          The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview



          It's not clear that this would apply to a situation where he is fired. In the case where it doesn't, the deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, would assume the acting role, which is probably not what Trump had in mind.



          So it's pretty clear by getting his resignation he explicitly maintains the authority to pick his replacement. If he hadn't resigned, this almost certainly would have been challenged, as one government oversight writer says:




          [T]he moral hazard created by allowing the president wide discretion to make an unreviewable temporary appointment to act in place of a Senate-confirmed official he fired is one good reason why this omission might have been intentional on Congress’s part. On the other hand, for most positions there is no mechanism to fill a vacancy temporarily other than the VRA, and it would be odd if there were no mechanism whatsoever to fill vacancies that result from a termination pending confirmation of a replacement.




          If the Attorney General Is Fired, Who Acts as Attorney General?






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          In addition to the niceties listed by another answer, this allows Trump to appoint a temporary replacement according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998:




          The Vacancies Act’s requirements are triggered if an officer serving in an advice and
          consent position in the executive branch “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the
          functions and duties of the office.”




          The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview



          It's not clear that this would apply to a situation where he is fired. In the case where it doesn't, the deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, would assume the acting role, which is probably not what Trump had in mind.



          So it's pretty clear by getting his resignation he explicitly maintains the authority to pick his replacement. If he hadn't resigned, this almost certainly would have been challenged, as one government oversight writer says:




          [T]he moral hazard created by allowing the president wide discretion to make an unreviewable temporary appointment to act in place of a Senate-confirmed official he fired is one good reason why this omission might have been intentional on Congress’s part. On the other hand, for most positions there is no mechanism to fill a vacancy temporarily other than the VRA, and it would be odd if there were no mechanism whatsoever to fill vacancies that result from a termination pending confirmation of a replacement.




          If the Attorney General Is Fired, Who Acts as Attorney General?







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered yesterday









          TemporalWolf

          38436




          38436




          New contributor




          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          TemporalWolf is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.







          • 1




            This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago







          • 2




            @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago







          • 1




            Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
            – Barmar
            8 hours ago






          • 2




            @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago






          • 5




            Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
            – Azor Ahai
            5 hours ago












          • 1




            This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
            – De Novo
            20 hours ago







          • 2




            @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago







          • 1




            Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
            – Barmar
            8 hours ago






          • 2




            @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
            – David Schwartz
            7 hours ago






          • 5




            Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
            – Azor Ahai
            5 hours ago







          1




          1




          This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
          – De Novo
          20 hours ago





          This answer could be improved by mentioning that whether the Department of Justice’s specific succession statute can be supplanted by a presidential appointment under the FVRA is an open question, as discussed on lawfare. Certainly the resignation makes it muddier, but it is not at all clear cut that the FVRA can be used to appoint an acting attorney general (general statutes do not typically supercede specific statutes).
          – De Novo
          20 hours ago





          2




          2




          @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
          – Zach Lipton
          16 hours ago





          @phoog It's not really spelled out in the text of the statute (see the last paragraph). People generally seem to think there's a decent argument that "dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office" doesn't include being fired. After all, a fired person is able to perform their duties; they've just been told not to. If Sessions had been fired, the applicability of the FVRA to a dismissal would have been another basis on which Whitaker's appointment could be challenged.
          – Zach Lipton
          16 hours ago





          1




          1




          Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
          – Barmar
          8 hours ago




          Slate points out that a number of legal scholars argue that forcing someone to resign is generally treated as legally equivalent to firing them, so the FVRA might not apply.
          – Barmar
          8 hours ago




          2




          2




          @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
          – David Schwartz
          7 hours ago




          @ZachLipton That seems like a somewhat silly argument to me. Once you're fired, you no longer have the authority to act which makes you unable to perform the functions and duties of the office. Being fired, quite literally, revokes your legal ability to perform the duties. I think the better argument is that the omission of being fired from that list was intentional and the clause, though it literally and logically does include firing, was not meant to.
          – David Schwartz
          7 hours ago




          5




          5




          Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
          – Azor Ahai
          5 hours ago




          Isn't the point of the VRA that a president can't willfully fire someone and replace them without Senate advice and consent, whereas if they resign of their own will or are unable to perform their duties, the president can appoint someone to keep the gov't running? It seems pretty obvious isn't not supposed to apply to firings.
          – Azor Ahai
          5 hours ago










          up vote
          3
          down vote













          It's pretty customary to let someone resign rather than fire in government (or any senior leadership role, really). Even if we suppose that the reason he was asked to resign was because of a very real improper action on Sessions part (i.e. Sessions acted in an inappropriate way for the role and Trump had some legitimate reason to fire him for cause), Sessions is still a valuable employee for a good many private sector cooperation and may even return to run for his own senate seat on the next cycle it's available. Being fired can hurt these prospects when he applies or may leave his next employer with no legitimate way to spin the candidate as a capable employee, because his last boss fired him. Resignation can be spun... yes, most people will read the phrase "was asked to resign today" is read as "he was fired", but on any job application, this is asked in a form of "What was the reason for leaving your last job." If the job seeker writes "I resigned" it implies that the problem was not his fault but his bosses numerous and often well know questionable management style quirks.



          Additionally, certain benefits come with resignation that do not come from firing someone. For example, in some employment situations, certain benefits are given in your severance package depending on the question of who initiated the employee leaving (see the Office Episode where one of the guys from the Merger was about to quit, only for Michael to do the "You can't quit, cause you're fired" line... and then realized he screwed the pooch.).



          Finally, remember what happened when Trump fired Comey, who had managed to piss of just about everyone in Washington in the past year or so. Comey immediately started to go rogue and drop claims against Trump that he was not doing when he was gainfully employed. If we revisit the possibility that sessions may have actually done something wrong, Trump could offer him to resign to gain a possible... um... insurance (blackmail being such an ugly word and all that...) that Sessions doesn't start talking about his former boss on all the news cameras he can get pointed at him. Trump won't talk about the reasons for his request, and Sessions won't talk about his lousy boss.



          And this isn't the only way to do this. Almost any time a major seperation happens in creative industries (the boy band breaks up, the director leaves the film project, or an actor walks off set) expect one of the two participants to cite vague "Creative Difference" as the cause of the seperation... it's best to read as they had a big fight over something (It could even be creative) and one of them was fired (though in music acts, it tends to be the band are too mad to perform... studios fire the directors or actors because of legit purposes but don't want the likely film to be called into doubt as being good by the movie watching public.).





          share


















          • 1




            Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
            – Philipp Imhof
            20 hours ago






          • 13




            Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
            – phoog
            19 hours ago






          • 7




            It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago






          • 5




            It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
            – SJuan76
            9 hours ago














          up vote
          3
          down vote













          It's pretty customary to let someone resign rather than fire in government (or any senior leadership role, really). Even if we suppose that the reason he was asked to resign was because of a very real improper action on Sessions part (i.e. Sessions acted in an inappropriate way for the role and Trump had some legitimate reason to fire him for cause), Sessions is still a valuable employee for a good many private sector cooperation and may even return to run for his own senate seat on the next cycle it's available. Being fired can hurt these prospects when he applies or may leave his next employer with no legitimate way to spin the candidate as a capable employee, because his last boss fired him. Resignation can be spun... yes, most people will read the phrase "was asked to resign today" is read as "he was fired", but on any job application, this is asked in a form of "What was the reason for leaving your last job." If the job seeker writes "I resigned" it implies that the problem was not his fault but his bosses numerous and often well know questionable management style quirks.



          Additionally, certain benefits come with resignation that do not come from firing someone. For example, in some employment situations, certain benefits are given in your severance package depending on the question of who initiated the employee leaving (see the Office Episode where one of the guys from the Merger was about to quit, only for Michael to do the "You can't quit, cause you're fired" line... and then realized he screwed the pooch.).



          Finally, remember what happened when Trump fired Comey, who had managed to piss of just about everyone in Washington in the past year or so. Comey immediately started to go rogue and drop claims against Trump that he was not doing when he was gainfully employed. If we revisit the possibility that sessions may have actually done something wrong, Trump could offer him to resign to gain a possible... um... insurance (blackmail being such an ugly word and all that...) that Sessions doesn't start talking about his former boss on all the news cameras he can get pointed at him. Trump won't talk about the reasons for his request, and Sessions won't talk about his lousy boss.



          And this isn't the only way to do this. Almost any time a major seperation happens in creative industries (the boy band breaks up, the director leaves the film project, or an actor walks off set) expect one of the two participants to cite vague "Creative Difference" as the cause of the seperation... it's best to read as they had a big fight over something (It could even be creative) and one of them was fired (though in music acts, it tends to be the band are too mad to perform... studios fire the directors or actors because of legit purposes but don't want the likely film to be called into doubt as being good by the movie watching public.).





          share


















          • 1




            Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
            – Philipp Imhof
            20 hours ago






          • 13




            Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
            – phoog
            19 hours ago






          • 7




            It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago






          • 5




            It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
            – SJuan76
            9 hours ago












          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          It's pretty customary to let someone resign rather than fire in government (or any senior leadership role, really). Even if we suppose that the reason he was asked to resign was because of a very real improper action on Sessions part (i.e. Sessions acted in an inappropriate way for the role and Trump had some legitimate reason to fire him for cause), Sessions is still a valuable employee for a good many private sector cooperation and may even return to run for his own senate seat on the next cycle it's available. Being fired can hurt these prospects when he applies or may leave his next employer with no legitimate way to spin the candidate as a capable employee, because his last boss fired him. Resignation can be spun... yes, most people will read the phrase "was asked to resign today" is read as "he was fired", but on any job application, this is asked in a form of "What was the reason for leaving your last job." If the job seeker writes "I resigned" it implies that the problem was not his fault but his bosses numerous and often well know questionable management style quirks.



          Additionally, certain benefits come with resignation that do not come from firing someone. For example, in some employment situations, certain benefits are given in your severance package depending on the question of who initiated the employee leaving (see the Office Episode where one of the guys from the Merger was about to quit, only for Michael to do the "You can't quit, cause you're fired" line... and then realized he screwed the pooch.).



          Finally, remember what happened when Trump fired Comey, who had managed to piss of just about everyone in Washington in the past year or so. Comey immediately started to go rogue and drop claims against Trump that he was not doing when he was gainfully employed. If we revisit the possibility that sessions may have actually done something wrong, Trump could offer him to resign to gain a possible... um... insurance (blackmail being such an ugly word and all that...) that Sessions doesn't start talking about his former boss on all the news cameras he can get pointed at him. Trump won't talk about the reasons for his request, and Sessions won't talk about his lousy boss.



          And this isn't the only way to do this. Almost any time a major seperation happens in creative industries (the boy band breaks up, the director leaves the film project, or an actor walks off set) expect one of the two participants to cite vague "Creative Difference" as the cause of the seperation... it's best to read as they had a big fight over something (It could even be creative) and one of them was fired (though in music acts, it tends to be the band are too mad to perform... studios fire the directors or actors because of legit purposes but don't want the likely film to be called into doubt as being good by the movie watching public.).





          share














          It's pretty customary to let someone resign rather than fire in government (or any senior leadership role, really). Even if we suppose that the reason he was asked to resign was because of a very real improper action on Sessions part (i.e. Sessions acted in an inappropriate way for the role and Trump had some legitimate reason to fire him for cause), Sessions is still a valuable employee for a good many private sector cooperation and may even return to run for his own senate seat on the next cycle it's available. Being fired can hurt these prospects when he applies or may leave his next employer with no legitimate way to spin the candidate as a capable employee, because his last boss fired him. Resignation can be spun... yes, most people will read the phrase "was asked to resign today" is read as "he was fired", but on any job application, this is asked in a form of "What was the reason for leaving your last job." If the job seeker writes "I resigned" it implies that the problem was not his fault but his bosses numerous and often well know questionable management style quirks.



          Additionally, certain benefits come with resignation that do not come from firing someone. For example, in some employment situations, certain benefits are given in your severance package depending on the question of who initiated the employee leaving (see the Office Episode where one of the guys from the Merger was about to quit, only for Michael to do the "You can't quit, cause you're fired" line... and then realized he screwed the pooch.).



          Finally, remember what happened when Trump fired Comey, who had managed to piss of just about everyone in Washington in the past year or so. Comey immediately started to go rogue and drop claims against Trump that he was not doing when he was gainfully employed. If we revisit the possibility that sessions may have actually done something wrong, Trump could offer him to resign to gain a possible... um... insurance (blackmail being such an ugly word and all that...) that Sessions doesn't start talking about his former boss on all the news cameras he can get pointed at him. Trump won't talk about the reasons for his request, and Sessions won't talk about his lousy boss.



          And this isn't the only way to do this. Almost any time a major seperation happens in creative industries (the boy band breaks up, the director leaves the film project, or an actor walks off set) expect one of the two participants to cite vague "Creative Difference" as the cause of the seperation... it's best to read as they had a big fight over something (It could even be creative) and one of them was fired (though in music acts, it tends to be the band are too mad to perform... studios fire the directors or actors because of legit purposes but don't want the likely film to be called into doubt as being good by the movie watching public.).






          share













          share


          share








          edited yesterday









          Gramatik

          6,34831538




          6,34831538










          answered yesterday









          hszmv

          3,968417




          3,968417







          • 1




            Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
            – Philipp Imhof
            20 hours ago






          • 13




            Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
            – phoog
            19 hours ago






          • 7




            It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago






          • 5




            It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
            – SJuan76
            9 hours ago












          • 1




            Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
            – Philipp Imhof
            20 hours ago






          • 13




            Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
            – phoog
            19 hours ago






          • 7




            It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
            – Zach Lipton
            16 hours ago






          • 5




            It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
            – David Richerby
            11 hours ago






          • 2




            Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
            – SJuan76
            9 hours ago







          1




          1




          Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
          – Philipp Imhof
          20 hours ago




          Thanks for that answer. However, I think that in such cases (so much publicity) an ex employee cannot spin his resignation. Concretely, Mr. Sessions might be a valuable employee for people who do not like the President and/or his politics, even if he had been fired. You can always say you have been fired for political reasons and that it was unjustified.
          – Philipp Imhof
          20 hours ago




          13




          13




          Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
          – phoog
          19 hours ago




          Everybody knows why Sessions is no longer attorney general. The idea that his future employment prospects would be different depending on whether he was technically dismissed or asked to resign is not realistic.
          – phoog
          19 hours ago




          7




          7




          It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
          – Zach Lipton
          16 hours ago




          It's also unrealistic that Sessions would fill out a job application asking why he left his last job. If he does take private sector employment, it will involve people coming to him, and they'll know exactly who he is. He's not filling out any job applications.
          – Zach Lipton
          16 hours ago




          5




          5




          It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
          – David Richerby
          11 hours ago




          It's also pretty implausible that Trump cares even slightly about any potential benefit that Sessions might get from resigning rather than being fired.
          – David Richerby
          11 hours ago




          2




          2




          Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
          – SJuan76
          9 hours ago




          Also, the idea that Sessions will forget the last year and a half of public harassment just because he was not fired and that it will significally change how he thinks about Trump seems rather strange.
          – SJuan76
          9 hours ago










          Philipp Imhof is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          Philipp Imhof is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Philipp Imhof is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











          Philipp Imhof is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35240%2fwhy-would-the-president-not-just-fire-the-attorney-general%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest














































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          1st Magritte Awards