Interpreting the Venezuelan Constitution re Inauguration Requirements

Sandy Levinson

So what does it mean to say “The Constitution is very clear”? It seems quite clear to me that January 10 has the same status as January 20 in the Twentieth Amendment.  That is the day the old term ends and the new term begins.  If there’s no need to take the oath, then nothing rides on whether Chavez is in Caracas.  But if the oath is a condition precedent to acting as president, then he presumably has to take it on the 10^th.  But then there’s the escape clause.  What might that refer to?  Does the “supervening reason” mean (something like) the National Assembly refuses to meet as a gesture of opposition or that a terrorist attack has disabled too many members of the Assembly to generate a quorum, or that, as in Washington, DC, say, that a superstorm has made it impossible for Congress to gather together and meet?  One of the problems with a “fixed-day” calendar is that it doesn’t account for the possibility of natural disasters (or terrorist attacks).

There are, presumably, many reasons why one might have some qualms about Hugo Chavez, but is his desire to remain president without taking the oath on January 10 one of them?  Is this episode a demonstration of Chavez's "anti-constitutionalism" or, instead, of the stupidity of the Bolivarian Constitution?   Consider once more the US analogue.  Assume that for some reason Barack Obama were trapped in London on January 19 (whether because of a storm or a terrorist attack).  I assume that it would be perfectly proper for him to take his oath of office (assuming it's a constitutional necessity at all, remember the kerfluffle four years ago when the brilliant John Roberts muffed it) before any American official authorized to render oaths, including, say, the US Ambassador to the UK.  Or I assume that a judge could be flown from New York or Miami to London to administer the oath.  But no rational person would say that because he wasn't in Washington on Inauguration Day, that caused any problems.  (Recall, for what it's worth, that Calvin Coolidge took the oath to succeed Warren Harding before his father in Plymouth, Vermont.  His father had been a member of the Vermont legislature, I believe, at some point, but the Constitution says absolutely nothing about who is qualified to hear the oath.  Perhaps, as a matter of (constitutional fact) it could be heard by a UK national, so long as he/she attested that he/she heard the president say the ritual words required by the Constitution.

This, of course, is much like the question of whether the Speaker or President pro Tem is constitutionally eligible to succeed to the presidency.  Until the situation actually presents itself (when, as a practical matter, it is almost certainly too late), it is a question that interests only the purest of pure constitutional theorists.  But Venezuela presents us with the "real thing," and it will be interesting to see both what the Venezuelans decide and what the response of people both at home and abroad is to whatever is decided upon.

Posted 1:37 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]