First of all, I don’t know much about the Korean constitution. However, this report new york times Looks like an exam fact pattern.
beginningthe acting president has refused to make appointments to the Constitutional Court. And the opposition government is seeking to impeach the acting president for failing to make these appointments.
South Korean opposition lawmakers plan to vote to impeach Prime Minister and acting president Han Deok-soo on Friday, the latest development in a political crisis that is creating a power vacuum in the country.
Han was only appointed as acting president earlier this month after the National Assembly impeached and suspended President Yun Seok-Yeol on December 14 for placing the country under military rule for the first time in 45 years.
Just two weeks after Han was sworn in as acting president, major opposition parties have also filed a motion to impeach him. The move came after Mr. Han on Thursday refused to appoint three judges to fill vacancies on the Constitutional Court, which will decide whether Mr. Yin is reinstated or removed from office.
This is like the Merrick Garland scenario in reverse. But instead of the Senate refusing to give Garland a hearing, the acting president is refusing to make the appointment.
Number 2does the acting president have one? duty How to fill a vacancy? At least in our system, the president has no obligation to make any appointments. He can keep his office open. I can’t speak for the Korean system.
thirddoes the acting president have one? force How to fill a vacancy?
Opposition parties have called on Mr. Han to approve Supreme Court judicial nominees, but Mr. Yoon’s ruling party maintains that only the elected president has the power to appoint judges. . . . .
In a televised address, Mr. Han said he would put the nomination of candidates on hold until an agreement is reached between rival parties, Mr. Yoon’s People’s Power Party and the opposition coalition, both made up of the Democratic Party and other small parties. He had the authority to do so as acting president.
Han, a career bureaucrat, said the acting president “should refrain from exercising the president’s own significant powers, including appointing constitutional institutions.”
After the death of President William Henry Harrison, the United States faced a related problem. Has Vice President John Tyler simply become acting president, able to exercise all the powers of the president? Or was he really president? In South Korea, the ruling party says only an elected president can appoint judges. I feel that some kind of “officer” issue is involved. Perhaps an analogy could be made as to whether a recessed appointee can exercise all the powers of an authorized officer.
4ththese appointments are particularly important because the nine-member Constitutional Court can decide whether to remove an impeached president from office. I think it would be a very dangerous decision to have the courts decide whether to remove the president from office. In fact, it is even worse that the acting president has the power to deny the court a quorum to remove the president from office.
The crux of the issue is what decision the court will make regarding Yoon’s impeachment. To remove Yoon from office, at least six of the court’s nine judges must vote in favor of impeachment. There are currently only six justices on the Supreme Court, but three others resigned earlier this year, meaning that just one dissenting opinion could overturn the impeachment in Yun’s trial, which is scheduled to begin on Friday.
During the Constitutional Convention, there was discussion about having the Supreme Court hear all impeachments. One of the arguments against this option was that there would be very few judges. By contrast, many more senators would vote. Our planners were wise to abandon this proposal. Tillman and I then explained that if the Chief Justice position is vacant, a senior associate judge can proceed with the Senate trial.
5ththis court’s quorum rules are highly problematic. It appears that the prerequisite for dismissal is that two-thirds of the entire court, not just those present, will vote in favor of the dismissal. However, due to three people retiring, there are now only six judges. As a result, all six judges present must vote to dismiss. Even if one judge refuses to participate, the president will not be removed from office. Also, what happens if another judge retires? It would be impossible to remove the president from office. In contrast, under our Constitution, a vote of “two-thirds of the members present” is required, rather than two-thirds of the entire body. Once again, another win for the Flamers.
6ththe opposition claims that the acting president’s failure to make the appointment is an act of sedition.
House Minority Leader Park Chan-dae of the Democratic Party told reporters that Han’s words were “not the words of the acting president, but the words of someone who acknowledged the rebellion.”
Opposition parties have accused Han of helping Yun declare martial law on December 3. Lawmakers accused Yoon of inciting martial law and inciting a riot by sending troops into the National Assembly to prevent its passage. To detain an adversary. The Constitutional Court has given up to six months to decide whether to reinstate Yoon or dismiss him.
Sound familiar? During the Section 3 debate, critics argued that President Trump’s failure to take specific actions to quell the Capitol riot was itself contributing to the insurrection, or, in the words of Bode and Paulsen. , accused of aiding and abetting rebellion. Seth Barrett Tillman and me answered The president’s exercise of discretion not to take certain actions is not in itself an insurrection. In South Korea, opposition parties claim that the failure to appoint judicial officers is a riot. We ask whether South Korean law provides a clearer definition of rebellion than American law.
7ththe political parties don’t even agree on how many votes it takes to impeach an acting president! If there’s one thing that needs to be made clear, it should be the criteria for voting. However, this is not the case in Korea.
Regarding Han, opposing political parties disagree on the number of votes needed for impeachment. The ruling party insists that since Mr. Han is acting president, he must meet the two-thirds criterion. Opposition parties argue that a majority vote would be enough to remove him from the constitutionally mandated position of prime minister. Democratic Party of Korea National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik is expected to make a decision before the vote.
“Mr. Han should be subject to a majority vote because South Korea’s acting president is not actually the president, but only works in place of the prime minister,” said Cha Jin-ah, a law professor at Seoul’s Korea University. Ta. ”
He also noted that this is the first time in the country’s history that an acting president faces impeachment.
Thankfully, our framers created clear standards for the number of votes required for impeachment and removal. (The question of how many votes are needed to disqualify is more ambiguous.) But an open question remains whether someone appointed during a recess can be impeached. Are such positions “officers of the United States”? Sorry, but I couldn’t resist the “officer stuff”. Most people once stopped caring about this problem Trump vs. Anderson has been decided. However, “officer-related” is important both in the United States and other countries.
