Talk:United States presidential line of succession
|
|
| Contents |
Todays line of succession
I wonder what happens if for some reason President Bush was unable to continue to hold office. Vice President Cheney has publicly said that he does not want to be President. Would he resign or continue to hold office?
It would be interesting to learn what political deals were made to create the list in its order. Why Treasury ahead of Defense? Why Energy ahead of Education? Kingturtle 08:30 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
- It's by order in whinch the Departments were created.
- Treasury : created 1789.
- Defense: amalgamated in 1947. (combined Depts. of War, Navy, & Air Force)
- Energy: created 1977.
- Education: created 1979.
-- Someone else 08:41 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
oooooh! i always wondered. what a simple solution. Kingturtle 08:44 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
When did they decide that Homeland Security was going to come fifth in line (within the Cabinet) after Attorney General instead of last? This is the first I've seen of its placement in the line of succession. Katagelophobia
- The anonymous user who contributed that offered up this URL: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s148.html. It's also the first I've heard of it. I don't know if that bill was ever passed or signed into law. It does seem reasonable though, since Homeland Security is mostly made up of older, established agencies. -- Minesweeper 03:13 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Hmm... perhaps it gets the seniority of its oldest constituent agency, the Coast Guard, which was established in 1789? The Defense Department, after all, has the seniority of the old war department, and Health and Human Services has the seniority of the old Health, Education, and Welfare Department. As far as lengthy lists of possible people after the ones actually in the law, where are you getting that, J.J.? john 03:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Well, there's finally some news to clear this up: [1] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90783,00.html). The bill to move Homeland Security up the list has passed the Senate and is pending in the House. Until this becomes law, I'm moving Ridge back to the bottom of the list. -- Minesweeper 09:18 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be called United States Presidential line of succession or something like that? The US is not (by far) the only country with a "President". -- stewacide 20:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I agree and will move it. --Lorenzarius 09:52 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- There are a lot of articles now pointing at the redirect which are probably worth fixing as a result: What links to "Presidential line of succession" (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Presidential_line_of_succession) --Daniel Quinlan 10:24 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I'll do it now. --Lorenzarius 10:37 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I removed this from the article as it contradicts the end of the article: "In the extremely unlikely case that this entire list of people were killed or unable to serve, the presidency would likely be passed to the first deputy secretaries of each department. For example, if all 15 secretaries were killed, the list would still dictate that the Secretary of State was first in line. Since the Secretary of State would be dead, the Deputy Secretary of State would assume the office, and thus the presidency."
Could someone provide a reference to a law establishing this and add it to the text. If it is true. I can't find it on Google. Rmhermen 23:53, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
- That's complete poppycock. The Deputy Secretary of State does not become Secretary of State upon the Secretary's death. They become the Acting Secretary of State. Senate confirmation is required for anyone to become a cabinet secretary as per the US Constitution. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I think House of Representatives would "just" elect a new Speaker of the House if the entire list were exhausted. Someone should just check the succession law. Daniel Quinlan 01:47, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
should an officer other than the Vice President succeed in the event of a vacancy in both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, it is clear that such an officer would merely act as President without actually succeeding to the office itself..
- Please justify this. In the first place, where is this "clarified", and in the second place, what is the difference? RickK 02:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that passage was questionable too. "Acting", especially in light of the 25th amendment, primarily means the President is still around, but someone else is filling in for him. The phrase "act" originates from Article II, Section 1 (which was amended by the 25th amendment, but not entirely superceded).
- "In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."
I'll fix up the text. Daniel Quinlan 02:39, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
Done. My new text:
- This precedent was followed thereafter, and was clarified in section one of the 25th Amendment. The 25th amendment specifies that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." However, it does not specify whether officers other than the Vice President can become President rather than Acting President in the same set of circumstances.
Daniel Quinlan 02:54, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC) P.S. I didn't write the incorrect text originally!
- Thanks, Daniel. RickK 02:57, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- One more slight clarification. It is true that "US Code 3 USC 19 does further clarify that an officers other than the Vice President may only act as President." so I added that text. I chose not to explain subsection (d) of US Code 3 USC 19, it's a bit complicated and probably just as easy to read in the US Code itself. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
What does "statory" mean? Kingturtle 03:03, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- It means someone typed or spelled "statutory" incorrectly. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
Just in case you're curious (I was), here's the list of how often people with positions on the current succession list have later (at some point) gone on to be President. The ordering of 2 through 6 seems a bit off to me. 3 is downright scary since the tradition is for the longest serving member of the majority party to hold that position — usually someone very old. I'm not including this in the article, although adding just the counts (assuming I got them right) might be interesting.
- Vice President - 14 times (John Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, G.H.W. Bush)
- Speaker of the House of Representatives - 1 time (James Knox Polk)
- President pro tempore of the Senate - 1 time (John Tyler)
- Secretary of State - 6 times (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan)
- Secretary of the Treasury - never
- Secretary of Defense - 2 times (James Monroe and William Howard Taft as Secretary of War)
- Attorney General - never
- Secretary of the Interior - never
- Secretary of Agriculture - never
- Secretary of Commerce - 1 time (Herbert Hoover)
- Secretary of Labor - never
- Secretary of Health and Human Services - never
- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - never
- Secretary of Transportation - never
- Secretary of Energy - never
- Secretary of Education - never
- Secretary of Veterans Affairs - never
- Secretary of Homeland Security - never
Daniel Quinlan 08:27, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
- I added John Tyler, who served as President pro tempore during the 23rd Congress, during the Jackson administration. Katagelophobia
I reverted the edit from 68.18.3.231 because it contained (at least) the mistake that the succession order has already been changed to move the Homeland Security Secretary upwards (and even said it was quickly changed). The bill has not been signed into law, a fact that has been amply discussed on this page. There appeared to be some other good changes in the edit, so it might be worth going back to recover them, but I think any facts need to be double-checked. Daniel Quinlan 19:48, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
What I just cannot help but wonder: What if, by some horrible chance, all these 18 fellows (people, I'm not sexist) were to be shot? The most coordinated (and complex) assassination in history. Who, then, would take over, and is there a way to determine how many people would have to die for a (Constutitionally qualified) person to be come President? Not... that I've such plans. I'm not qualified for the job anyway.
--cuiusquemodi 04:16, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
The deputies would. If, for example the current cabinet was all killed, Armitage would become Secretary of State, Wolfowitz would become Secretary of Defense, etc etc. And then, as Secretaries they would in turn fill the succession list. And the new Secretary Armitage would become President, in this case.
The capitalization of this article title looks wierd. Shouldn't the article be United States presidential line of succession? --Lowellian 06:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, changing the capitalization would make the title consistent with such pages as U.S. presidential election, 2000. --Lowellian 22:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
And it would be consistent with the usage in the article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that someone else linked to in the page. --Lowellian 18:01, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
I removed the recent edit saying:
- Theorhetically, however, if every single member of the cabinet was dead, the succession line would still be valid. Each deparment of government has their own inidividual executive succession lists, indicating who becomes secretary when the sitting occupant dies or resigns. Thus, if all cabinet secretaries were killed simultaniously, so too would all their various deputies assume office immediately afterwards, once again "filling" the list of Presidential Succession.
This has been discussed previously on this talk page. Cabinet level Secretaries have to be approved by the Senate. An under-secretary would become Acting Secretary in the case of the Secretary's removal or death, but would not actually become Secretary and would not be in the line of succession. older ≠ wiser 19:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The Federalists did not want the Secretary of State to appear next on the list after the Vice President because Thomas Jefferson was the current Vice President and had emerged as an Anti-Federalist leader.
Is it just me or does this not make any sense? Was Jefferson VP or SoS when the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was passed? older ≠ wiser 19:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Line of Succession
Would anyone PLEASE TELL ME what happens if all members of the cabinet are unable to serve as president? Who becomes president say, in case of a nuclear attack and the line gets past Tom Ridge?
misterwally@comcast.net
CHAOS. There is no provision in the law for that. If that really happen one of the deputy secretaries would probally assume the presidency even though he/she did't hopefully not be challenged until Congress could reconve and choose a succesor. Somebody would have to take charge even if it's just a General with the nuclear codes.
Alphaboi867. Well, if you would read the article, it is made pretty clear that there are no official provisions as to what would happen in the case that you mention. There is some speculation, but no one really knows what would happen. older≠wiser 16:15, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure we all pray it never does. At least, I know I do.--cuiusquemodi 02:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Officers of the United States
I goofed. I corrected 66.254.238.236, writing that "Officers of the United States" referred only to members of the executive branch. If I had reread an external link (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1995Succession.pdf) that I myself added, I would have read this:
- "Officers of or under the United States" thus means certain members of the executive and judicial branches, but not legislators.
In my defense, several arguments note that there are separation of power issues with allowing legislators to become President and these would equally apply to judicial officers, and I appear to have confused the textual and separation of power arguments. But the fact of the matter is that I was flat out wrong on this correction. If 66.254.238.236 were not an anonymous user, I would apologize to them on their talk page.
Since the time that I "corrected" 66.254.238.236's change, Daniel Quinlan made a different change to the same sentence (change is noted in bold):
- The term "Officer" in the relevant clause of the Constitution is most plausibly interpreted to mean an "Officer of the United States", which is an office-holder in the Executive Branch appointed by the President.
The problem with this construction is that the President (and the Vice President, when not acting as President of the Senate) is an Officer of the United States, but obviously not appointed by the President. Moreover, there are also positions (such as National Security Advisor) which are appointed by the President and are not Officers of the United States. I hope this is sufficient to explain to Mr. Quinlan why I am reverting both his change as well as my goof.
— DLJessup 02:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That is a fine clarification, however, the article does not currently define the term "Officer of the United States" in a way that makes it specifically clear which positions are generally considered "officers". In addition, I think we need some form of legal precedent or credible legal reference here. My reading of the Constitution is that heads of departments are generally considered officers in addition to the President and Vice-President. I'm less clear on whether supreme court justices would be considered officers in terms of being eligible for succession, though, but I let you slide on removing that without a reference. Really, I'm just asking for some references on this detail. Daniel Quinlan 22:01, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
- (a) I goofed once again, this time on my discussion. As I considered your question about what positions are generally considered officers, I realized that my previous post was wrong: the National Security Advisor is an Officer of the United States. I had thought that Officers (aside from the President and Vice President) required Senate confirmation. But Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution reads:
- [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
- Since the office of NSA is established by statute and the President appoints him, the NSA is an Officer of the United States. I have therefore stricken that portion of my previous posting.
- (b) When you write "the article does not currently define ...", are you referring to the Wikipedia article or to the article in the external link I referenced? If the former, I didn't think it was particularly relevant: the only relevant fact was that legislators are not Officers, and the Constitution requires that somebody in the line of succession be an Officer. My writing was less than stellar; I probably should have written:
- The term "Officer" in the relevant clause of the Constitution is most plausibly interpreted to mean an "Officer of the United States", which must be an office-holder in the Executive Branch.
- The point is that you took my clause as a definition of Officer, when I meant simply that the set of Officers is a subset of the set of members of the Executive Branch.
- (c) Supreme Court justices would be considered Officers of the United States, and would thereby escape that definitional objection to being in the line of succession. However, the same separation of powers arguments that apply to the legislature also apply to the judiciary, so it would probably still be unconstitutional.
- (d) "Really, I'm just asking for some references on this detail." Which detail?
- — DLJessup 08:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Criminey
- The term "Officer" in the relevant clause of the Constitution is most plausibly interpreted to mean an "Officer of the United States", which must be a member of the Executive or Judicial Branch. The Speaker and the President pro tem are not officers in this sense.
- This appears to be original research. It is also not adequately referenced. Please tell me why I should not remove this. Daniel Quinlan 07:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's go through this:
(a) First of all, the bullet point you reference is not my claim. It is the claim of constitutional scholars such as Mr. Amar. My controlling statement here is:
- Several constitutional law experts, such as Akihil Reed Amar (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1995Succession.pdf), have raised questions as to the constitutionality of the provisions that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate succeed to the Presidency.
I then go on to present summaries of two of the arguments employed, of which the bullet point you reference is one.
(b) As for references, this objection appears in [2] (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1995Succession.pdf) and [3] (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_6s3.html), which links appear in close proximity to the objection.
(c) The U.S. Senate Committees on Rules and Administration and on the Judiciary held hearings on the Presidential Succession Act on September 16, 2003. The first two of the four witnesses, Mr. Amar (http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2003/091603_amar.htm) and John C. Fortier (http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2003/091603_fortier.htm), presented this objection in their testimony.
Is this sufficient? — DLJessup 14:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup template
EdwinHJ just added the {{cleanup}} template, with the edit summary that "CABINET OFFICERS NEED TO BE UPDATED FOR 2005". Let's go through the my issues with this action:
- As far as I can tell, the list of cabinet officers is actually up to date. This page has seen quite a lot of editing in the past couple of months with the whole Cabinet reshuffle.
- The cleanup template requires that the person using it add an entry to Wikipedia:Cleanup so that the community can effectively address the problem. I only know about the cleanup reason because this page happens to be on my watchlist; your average user would have no idea why the {{cleanup}} template has been applied here.
- Typing in all caps is generally considered to be poor etiquette, as it is the online equivalent of shouting.
For reasons 1 and 2 above, I am removing the {{cleanup}} template. — DLJessup 19:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After the 17?
I remember being taught during a History of the Presidency course in college, that should all the listed persons be unable to serve, the next in line would be the Governors of the States, in order of the states' ratification of the Constitution. Was I taught fact or my Professor’s wishful thinking?
- It was only your professor's wishful thinking. Not only does the statute (3 USC 19) peter out at the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, but a law putting governors in the line of succession would most likely be unconstitutional as governors are not officers of the United States — they are officers of their respective states. — DLJessup 05:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, but there has been some talk about expanding the list to the Governors in order of that state's creation (e.g. DE would be first as it became a state in 1790 and HI would be last, as it became a state in 1959. And if you include the territories, MP would be the last as it became a territory in 1978.). As you said, it would dodgy for the reasons you stated. - Hoshie/Crat 06:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is an old conspiracy theory that there is a secret list that includes hundreds of statesmen and officials, including all governors and senators. A secret list would not have any constitutional standing. you know, at every State of the Union speech, one cabinet member is selected at random to be elsewhere. i imagine if all 17 died, congress could select a new speaker of the house, and a new senate pro tempore. Kingturtle 06:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, my (admittedly amateur) reading of the law would be that if the list were exhausted, it would constitute a continuous vacancy in the office of President which would be filled by the first new officer in the line. The only two positions that could be created wihout presidential appointment would of course be Speaker of the House and President pro tem. So whichever house was able to convene and vote first could effectively elect a new president by filling one of those offices. This is actually a notable (if unlikely to be needed) advantage to having legislative officers in the line. I imagine the House might actually differ to the Senate on this, since it has less members to convene and generally has more experienced members who would presumably be more suitable to be President. Ddye 00:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)