Talk:Presidential Succession Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would occur if a president-elect died before taking office? Example....Let us say that Kerry won the election but died or was removed before Jan 8, 2005. Would the Vice President elect be put into office as President, would Bush remain in office or???

  • according to the 20th amendment of the US Constitution. (after the Electoral College has met), If President-Elect John Kerry had died, before January 20th, 2005 (Inauguration Day). Vice President-Elect John Edwards would become the President of the USA. Mightberight/wrong 17:45, 2 November 2005 (AST).

Contents

[edit] Post 9/11 suggestion to place Governors in the line of succession

Would this be constitutional? The Constitution authorizes Congress to determine what "Officer" shall act if both the President and Vice President have died, been removed, resigned, or have an "inability" [to act]. As far as I know, Officer as used in the Constitution has always been construed to mean an Officer of the U.S. Government. Since State Governors are not officers of the U.S. Government, I don't see how they could be put in the line of succession without a Constitutional amendment authorizing such.

It might be, but Congress could probably grant the State Governors the power until an emergency election was held. Also, it is unlikely that anyone would challenge the Constitutionality of such a law; someone might before the cataclym, but I doubt anyone would bother to in the actual event of such a disaster.12.17.189.77 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with 12.17.189.77. I think alphabetically is a dumb way to add governors and states admitted to union sounds dramtically sentimental. California (at current) should get the nod (though The Governator is kinda scary) followed by I think Texas (which is much scarrier). New York would be third and so-on. What are the alternative solutions? The judges? Seems worse than the governors. Back in the day, someone in Washington would have been a wise choice, though it means less now. However, going down the list of senators might be wise (followed by the members of the House). I'm not sure how the military chain of command works, but some 5-star general might make sense. Just my two cents. Dawhitfield 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that there hasn't been a 5 star general in 50 years, I'd say that's maybe not a great idea. JCO312 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only Acting President?

According to this Act, If the President & Vice President died/resigned were or removed from office? the USA wouldn't have a President & Vice President for part of the terms. That doesn't seem correct. GoodDay 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked external links, on Acting President of the United States. Currently 'ONLY' the Vice President can become President, if the President dies, resigns or is removed from office. The other officers in the succession line, can only become Acting President. Therefore (if President & VP have died/resigned/were removed from office), the Presidency & Vice Presidency would be vacant for part of the term. GoodDay 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If this is true (and I think it probably is... although it should be changed). Odds are, if the Speaker becomes president he will finish out the term without appointing a Vice President. It's not unprecedented since there have been times in this countries history where there was no Vice President. Here's a better question, if an acting president serves 3 years in office are they eligible to be elected for 2 more terms? This seems odder to me than the whole appointing the VP to be president thing.--Dr who1975 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, under the terms of the 22nd Amendment, they would be eligible for only one additional term. JasonCNJ 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." according to the 22nd Amendment. LBJ could have ran again. Jjmillerhistorian 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The 25th Amendment & the Presidential Succession Act contradict each other. The 25th's section 3 & 4 says the Vice President can assume the Presidential powers & duties as Acting President (not mentioning any other officials). Yet the Presidential Succession Act claims all officials in the line of succession can assume the Presidential powers & duties as 'Acting President'. Perhaps this should be mentioned. GoodDay 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's a contradiction. The Succession Act talks about stuff that isn't mentioned in the 25th Amendment. But that's not a contradiction. john k 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1947 Act

Wouldn't the 1947 Act have been passed by the Republican Congress elected in 1946? And wouldn't that mean that Joe Martin, not Truman's friend Sam Rayburn, would have been Speaker of the House at the time? Also, the article gives no sense as to why Truman desired a change in the law. john k 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1947 Act was signed into law by President Truman on 18 July 1947. It was passed by the 80th Congress, who had earlier elected as Speaker Representative Joe Martin, Republican of Massachusetts. However, President Truman proposed the legislation in a special message to Congress delivered on 19 June 1945, with his friend Sam Rayburn as Speaker. I have not looked at this article in a while, but I will add the "why" behind Truman's desire to change the law. JasonCNJ 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutionality

There should be a section to this article dealing the questioning of the Constitutionality of this Act. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 refers to an "officer" becoming Acting President when no Vice President can so become. Many Constitutional scholars believe, and have written, about how the Constitution does not consider the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to be "officers" regarding Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. There are also other provisions of this Act that have questioned Constitutionality. This issue should be in this article.--SMP0328. (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the challenge here is that most of what could be written here would be speculative, or original research. You mention that "Many Constitutional scholars believe, and have written..." If this is the case and you have access to these writings, you're probably in a good position to write this section, with good citable references.--TJRC (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just added a section dealing with the Constitutionality of the 1947 PSA. Any changes to this section, that aren't vandalism, are welcome. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Succession Act of 1947? or 1948?

Can someone dig out the actual enacted statute and confirm its date and title? Not the codification in the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. § 19); the actual Act as passed by Congress, usually found in Statutes At Large.

In The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, prepared by Congressional Research Service (a branch of the Library of Congress), in its discussion of the 20th Amendment, it is referred to as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1948". See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/ . The cite given for this is "Ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672, as amended, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 19."

Likewise, the Legal Information Institute copy of 3 U.S.C. § 19 provides this history: (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 677; ...) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-notes.html

On the other hand, the section "Constitutionality of 1947 Act" just added by SMP0328 cites two online sources, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19776,filter.all/pub_detail.asp and http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/pdfs/091603MillerTestimony.pdf, each of which refer to it as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947."

I see JasonCNJ's emphatic comment above that "The 1947 Act was signed into law by President Truman on July 18, 1947." Jason, if you're reading this, can you confirm that, and provide a cite?

I no longer have ready access to a law library, or other library with a copy of Statutes at Large, or I'd try to check this out myself. -- TJRC (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always known it as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947." [1]--SMP0328 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I just saw this message.
I found a few cites for you, if this information is still in question.
From "On this date in White House History"
A Politico.com look-back article from 18 July 2007 entitled "Truman signs Presidential Succession Act"
I submit these sources should be sufficient to establish the date of President Truman's signature on the law.
JasonCNJ (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

Just a general observation. Until the case of the Vice Presidency being vacant upon the resignation, death or removal from office of the President, occurs - We're left in the fog, as to whether the Speaker (or who's ever next in line at that moment of double vacancy) becomes President or just Acting President. We'll just have to wait & see, before we can complete this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: See anon's question at Acting President of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1947 Act muddied the waters. In that act (text in article) it refers to an "Acting President," but someone becomes Acting President for the remainder of the current Presidential term in the event of a double vacancy (both Pres. & VP dead, resigned, or removed). In effect, a successor via double vacancy is the new President even though he is technically only "Acting President." Of course, also see the Constitutionality of the 1947 Act section of the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's always the chance a House Speaker (or who ever is next in line) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which hasn't occurred yet). GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that, unlike Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, the 1947 Act specifically says "Acting President." Considering the issues regarding the act's Constitutionality, a Bush v. Gore type of situation is more likely than that which occurred in the creation of the Tyler Precedent. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm reading these exchanges too quickly or missing the point entirely. But I don't see it as being a very confusing question. The Constitution and the 1947 Act are clear that only two types of people can ever become a "President of the United States:" a duly elected President-elect after he takes the oath of office and a Vice President of the United States, upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President. The only person who can succeed to the Presidency is a Vice President. Every other officer - Speaker, President pro tempore, Secretary of State, whatever - only acts as President. In the event of a simultaneous double vacancy in the Office of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States, then the powers and duties of the Presidency fall to the Speaker of the House (if she qualifies under the Constitution and resigns her office to serve) as Acting President of the United States for the remainder of the then-current Presidential term (unless and until the Acting President avails herself of the Constitutional option to nominate a Vice President who, upon confirmation, shall succeed to the Presidency.)
I'll agree that the lack of implementation of the Act means these things haven't been tested, but the answer is clear based on a plain-text reading of the law. Whether the press/public would consider a long-term Acting President to really just be the President is a question none of us can answer. But we are allowed to state with authority that the law would not permit a Speaker, taking office after a double vacancy, to be anything other than Acting President. And I can't imagine how on Earth the Court gets involved in a discussion surrounding this.
JasonCNJ (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume in a double-vacancy scenario, the House Speaker (for example) is House Speaker/Acting President from the moment the double vacancy occurs, until the Speakership & congressional seat is resigned. For if not? How does a former House Speaker, assume Presidential powers & duties. The assumption of Presidential powers & duties, must be automatic. -- these things will be answered at time of implementation. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The 1947 Act requires that, prior to the assumption of the powers and duties of the Presidency, a duly elected and qualified Speaker of the House resign her seat in Congress and her position as Speaker to assume the powers and duties of the Presidency. No one can serve as House Speaker AND Acting President at the same time. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The resignations though, would not take effect until the person assumes the Presidential powers & duties; a former House Speaker can't assume Presidential powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, the resignations constitute acceptance of the office of Acting President. Did someone suggest a former Speaker of the House could assume the powers and duties of the Presidency in the event of a double vacancy? JasonCNJ (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I just wanted it to be clear, that there was no time-gap between the Speaker/congressman resignations & the assumption of Pres powers & duties. But, I still think we'll never 100% know how things will go, until it's necessary for the Act to be implemented. PS- CNN & other media's need to be educated - as they suggest full presidential succession. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also the problem of Constitutionality. It appears that the Constitutional Convention intended for an "officer" who was "Acting President" to continue in the other office. In the case of the Speaker and President pro tempore, this might violate Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 (the "Incompatibility Clause"). Read Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113 (1995) --SMP0328. (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The separation of powers clause, of course. So technically, until the House Speaker resigns (as Speaker & congressperson) to assume the Presidential powers & duties, the Secy of State is 'temporary Acting President'. PS- I know we're talking about matters of minutes here. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I've fixed up the description of the 'next-in-section' section. Currently, those in the succession below the VP, are only next-in-line to the Presidential powers & duties, not the Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made the part of the article discussing the Twenty fifth Amendment its own section. I also have clarified the introductory sentence of the Next-in-line section so it's clear that the officer becomes only Acting President, not President, after both the Presidency and Vice Presidency become vacant. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But, Carl Albert said he wouldn't serve 'til January 1977. Albert said he'd nominate a republican for Vice President or at least wouldn't cancel the vice presidential nomination of the previous President. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If Carl Albert had become Acting President, the only ways he could voluntarily not have served until January 1977 would have been suicide or resignation. It is not clear if the swearing in of a new Vice President would have caused that new VP to immediately become President. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Albert said he would resign. But when one thinks of it, if the Presidency is vacant (which would be the case here), the confirmation of a Vice President would cause automatic succession to the Presidency. All these confusions would be avoided, if the Speaker could succeed to the Presidency itself (with Speakership/congress seat resignations automatically kicking in). GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Having anybody, other than the Vice President, succeed to the Presidency would require a Constitutional amendment. Compare Section 1 of the Twenty fifth Amendment with the second half of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In full agreement, there's certainly a need for a Constitutional amendment (which could've been avoided had a section been added to the 25th Amendment, concerning officials below VP). GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There was such a section originally proposed in the Twenty fifth Amendment, but was soon taken out. That section would have provided for a strict Cabinet line of succession and the House of Representatives was clear in being against. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
True enough. Thanks for the discussion gentlemen. PS- it would be interesting (though tragic) to see this Act implemented. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)