Talk:United States presidential line of succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Todays line of succession

Where is the confusion of whether or not people in line to become president must be natural born citizens? the 12th Amendment clearly states: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So no one in line to succeed to the presidency can be non-eligible for the presidency. It is clearly written.

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?

-- I would be very surprised if the VP can turn the job down. I suspect he has to accept the job and then resign. The legislative successors, on the other hand, need only refuse to resign their legislative offices: the Constitution prohibits anyone from holding both a legislative and an executive office, and so a legislator who refuses to resign would be ineligible.

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)
The Senate wesite says that this bill is still in committee - since January. Rmhermen 03:37 31 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm the anonymous user who made the edit. I'm sorry about making the change before realizing that the bill I referred to hadn't even passed yet. Mxn 23:22 12 October 2003 (EDT)

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]. 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)

The reason Homeland Security is higher is because the Sec of Homeland Security is going to be much more in the loop than say Vetrans Affairs who would not be up to date on the same things. Not all Secretaries are involved in issues such as national security which would probably be a big issue if we ever got that far down on the list.

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" --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.

  1. 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)
  2. Speaker of the House of Representatives - 1 time (James Knox Polk)
  3. President pro tempore of the Senate - 1 time (John Tyler)
  4. Secretary of State - 6 times (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan)
  5. Secretary of the Treasury - never
  6. Secretary of Defense - 2 times (James Monroe and William Howard Taft as Secretary of War)
  7. Attorney General - never
  8. Secretary of the Interior - never
  9. Secretary of Agriculture - never
  10. Secretary of Commerce - 1 time (Herbert Hoover)
  11. Secretary of Labor - never
  12. Secretary of Health and Human Services - never
  13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - never
  14. Secretary of Transportation - never
  15. Secretary of Energy - never
  16. Secretary of Education - never
  17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs - never
  18. 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.

user:J.J.

The capitalization of this article title looks weird. 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)

[edit] 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 15:33, 10 October 2004 (UTC)

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)

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. 17:24, 22 October 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we all pray it never does. At least, I know I do.--cuiusquemodi 02:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A possible solution would be for the House of Representatives to elect a new Speaker. He/she would then run to the nearest available federal judge with a Bible in hand. Kewpid 05:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it takes time for the House to meet, and it would especially take time for them to elect what would be an Acting President. This, of course, in what is almost certainly an emergency situation in which time is scarce.
You're also assuming that there's still enough representatives alive to form a quorum; otherwise, you need to hold elections to reconstitute the House, and that will take months. The Senate actually is more likely to provide an Acting President, because governors can appoint senators to fill vacancies.
— DLJessup (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Only the cabinets members? There'd be no panic, as long as the Speaker of the House of Represenatives & the president pro-tempore of the Senate (as of Oct,2005 =Dennis Hastert & Senator Stevens) were alive & well. --142.176.115.81 20:32, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well when you think about it for that to happen there would have to be a big disaster, so a General would take over, because it would be the middle of war. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be the best to take over in that situation.--CommanderOne 07:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC) --CommanderOne 07:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Steps are in place to prevent situations like this from happening. For example, any time there is a joint session of congress (such as the state of the union) when most of the cabinet are present, one or more cabinet members are taken elsewhere should such a catastrophe take place.

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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] and [3], 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 and John C. Fortier, presented this objection in their testimony.

Is this sufficient? — DLJessup 14:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

  • You are quite right see my talk page for more. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Alberto Gonzales?

My facts may be wrong, but I thought Alberto Gonzales was born in Mexico, and is also thus ineligible to succeed to the presidency. -- BD2412 talk 18:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Never mind - his article says San Antonio. Don't know where I got the idea. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 18:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VP as Acting President

however, there is also much evidence to the contrary, the most compelling of which is Article I, section 2, of the Constitution itself, the relevant text of which reads:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

It seems to me that that SUPPORTS, rather than contradicts, the view that he'd be Acting President. If he were to become President, then there would no longer be any Vice President, making it a case of "the absence of the Vice President". Were the intention that he become President, surely it would say "... or when he become President of the United States", or, more likely, simply say nothing as that would be redundant with the already-stated case of his absence. Nik42 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutionality of Albert Case?

Albert questioned whether it was appropriate for him, a Democrat, to assume the nation's highest office when there was a public mandate for the Presidency to be held by the opposing party. Albert decided he had no right to a White House that the American people had entrusted to a Republican. He announced that should he need to assume the presidency, he would do so only in an acting capacity, and would resign immediately after Congress appointed a Republican Vice President.

The Succession Act would make him Acting President, yet the 25th Amendment states that the President nominates a Vice-President. So, wouldn't he be Constitutionally incapable of nominating a Vice President? Indeed, wouldn't it be Constitutionally impossible for anyone to nominate a Vice President? Nik42 06:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Each VP who has replaced a dead or resigned Presaident has been called the "President" not the "Acting President" so thee point is moot. Edison 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the consensus is that, whatever the technicalities, they probably would not matter much in such a case. If Acting President Albert had nominated a Republican VP, who would have objected? The Democrats? To do so would have looked like the Watergate hearings were just a power grab. The Republicans? Not bloody likely. Would the Supreme Court step in? Can you say, "Political Question?" I knew you could. 71.246.29.112 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You may search the Constitution until you are blue in the face, but I doubt you will find any reference to the merits of keeping the Presidency within a given political party. The framers of the Constitution were not big fans of political parties, and the Presaidency passing from one party to another would not have been frightening to them at all. Edison 04:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and thing the people above are largely missing the point. The issue as I understand it was that Albert felt it inappropriate. However I have no seen any evidence that anyone felt it would be unconstitutionally or whatever. Had it occured, he would have lawfully remained President until he resigned, died or was lawfully removed... Nil Einne 12:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commission on Presidential Succession

The term, "Commission" suggests a body appointed by the President or Congress to study the situation. As worthy of respect as this joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution is, we should take care not to mislead the reader. "Private, bipartisan think tank" is as NPOV and accurate a term as I could think of. 71.246.29.112 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic-Republican

Use of the sole word "Republican" to refer to the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson is misleading; the institutional continuity is from the Democratic-Republican Party to the modern Democratic Party, not the modern Republican Party. Using the full term "Democratic-Republican" is the only NPOV way to refer to this party. The ideology of the Democratic-Republican Party isn't the least bit comparable to either modern party. Using the name of a modern party as the name for the Democratic-Republicans, even though the term "Republican" was commonly used at the time for the Democratic-Republicans, is at best confusing, and at worst transparently POV.

[edit] Elaine and Carlos

The two ineligibles should be removed from the list and explained separately imho. That's how it is in the German version of this article (which is featured) Borisblue 01:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Haig and the attempt to assassinate Reagan

Cut from article:

This claim was quickly denounced by many, because according to the line of succession listed above, Haig was still two positions away from legally assuming "control." However, some have suggested that much of the controversy was the result of Haig's being in conflict with the White House Chief of Staff. It is possible that Haig only intended to express that he was personally overseeing executive matters at the White House pending the Vice President's return. On the other hand, audio tapes made that day in the White House by National Security Advisor Richard Allen and released in 2001 suggest that Haig was indeed under the erroneous impression that the Constitution placed him after the Vice President of the United States in the Line of Succession.

We need to clarify what Haig meant, or at least what he later said he meant. Also, it's no good quoting "some". This was a big deal at the time and is still a source of bitterness for Haig's political opponents, as well as a Democrat-Republican bone of contention.

pro-Haig side:

  • Haig only intended to express that he was personally overseeing executive matters at the White House pending the Vice President's return.
    • Or pending re-establishment of phone or radio contact with the VP (Pappy Bush).
  • We need a quote from Haig or a supporter on this.
  • Off the top of my head I recall something about "assuring our friends and our enemies that the ship of state has someone at the helm"
  • I also recall White House fears that this was part of a wider conspiracy to disrupt the goverment, and that Haig felt it important to assure foreign governments that we (America) had everything under control and that it would not be wise to make any provocative military moves (e.g., Soviets).

anti-Haig side:

  • We need to identify the "some" who claim Haig was under the erroneous impression that the Constitution placed him after the Vice President of the United States in the Line of Succession
    • A quote from a tape would be nice. Readers could evaluate his words for themselves.

I put a summary of the dispute immediately back in the article, but that is not sufficient. We need to flesh this out. I can think of at least 3 things that need looking up.

[edit] Other Wikipedia articles

There's a fair amount of overlap in the six Wikipedia articles dealing with the general topic of U.S. presidential succession:

I think there is the potential for merging some of these. --Mathew5000 09:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Situations

There ought to be a section in this article on interesting situations, which arise, I believe, because the laws governing succession to the Presidency are not comprehensive enough: In my lifetime alone, such situations have been intriguing: When JFK was assassinated, there was discussion about how, if President Johnson were either killed or incapacitated, the next two men in line were so old it was considered problematic: Speaker of the House John McCormack, and President pro Tempore of the Senate Carl Hayden. I don't recall if they were younger than President Reagan, but they were considered in poor health and somewhat frail. (2) More significantly, after Richard Nixon resigbned from office, we had a President who had never been elected to national office, because former VP Agnew had resigned after bribery scandal revelations (yes, I know, hasn't our nation been blessed with great statesmen?). Gerald Ford had been nominated to serve as VP by Pres. Nixon after Agnew's resignation, and was confirmed by the Senate, in accordance with law. Now Ford became President. We had no Vice President at all until the Senante confirmed Nelson Rockefeller, who was was nominated by Ford. During that time interval, if something had happened to Ford, presumably the House Speaker would have succeeded, as we had no Vice President. Let's not even begin to discuss Dan Quayle in the Oval Office...but 66.108.4.183 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

[edit] Governors

I have always been told in school and for that matter beleived, throughout many years, that the Governors of the states followed the presidential line of succession - ordered by when their respective state ratified the Consitution.

I did not really see this mentioned in the article, the closest describing some sort of rumor that did not really sound like this situation.

Has anyone else heard of this? Or is it wrong? --Firebird2k6

It's wrong. State governors are not in the line of the succession to the US presidency. --Mathew5000 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the Constitution provides that Congress may designate what "Officer" shall participate in the line of succession, which is interpreted to mean officer of the federal government. Most scholars would argue that it would be unconstitutional to have state governors in the line of succession. However, there is at least one proposal, by Mr. Miller Baker, to have state governors in the line of succession if the President has chosen to "federalize" them in their capacity as commander-in-chief of their state's National Guard [4].--Mathew5000 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been said time and again in the discussion page that if the list were exhausted then the House or Senate could elect a new Speaker or President pro tempore respectively and those persons would automatically be in the succession, but that scenario assumes that the House and Senate are still around (which they probably wouldn't be in the event of a nuclear attack). Still it is highly unlikely that all 17 (and possibly 18) persons on the list + designated survivors + the House and the Senate would be killed (that is after all why one person on the list and the designated survivors are always hidden away during important functions), but in the interest of discussion, should such a situation actually occur, then theoretically (if I remember what was said earlier on this page), the governors would have a role in presidential succession: an indirect one. If such a situation were to occur, then the Governors would have to appoint new Senators and the new Senate (which obviously would have to meet somewhere else) would then elect a President pro tempore who would then go on to become the next President of the United States. Now did I get that right or did I miss anything?

This situation, although not actually in the law would seem to be the best situation, since it allows for the reconstitution of an arm of the federal government - part of the legislature (which in turn would reconstitute another arm of the federal government - the executive). If Governors were allowed onto the succession list, might'n this cause problems? For example can you imagine if Arnold Schwarzenegger....wait, he's not a natural born citizen, okay forget that (which brings up another problem - how many governors would be disqualified from a governors' list for not being natural born citizens?). But essentially my point was that since each state is theoretically equal then there could be disagreement even over any official governors' list. Also, without a federal government (and if the federal government was not at least partially restituted in the form of the Senate for whatever), would the individual states then become (or have the option to become) fully sovereign? What if the governors (or at least some) decide not to appoint senators?72.27.92.7 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Mention Rice?

Why is there a whole paragraph devoted to Condoleeza Rice being the third African American woman in the presidential line of succession? This doesn't fit with the rest of the article or with the section it's in. If someone wants to create a section about women and minorities entering the line of succession, go ahead, but don't arbitrarily put one example in a spot it doensn't belong.Papercrab 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson sworn in on Air Force One?

Was it called "Air Force One" at the moment Johnson took the oath? My understanding is that the pilot didn't designate the flight as "Air Force One" until after Johnson took the oath. SnappingTurtle 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I forget, is it 314,546 angels that you can fit on the head of a pin, or 314,547? :-) Unschool 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
LBJ became President, immediately upon JFK's death. Therefore he was already President for a few hours before his swearing-in on Air Force One. GoodDay 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 elections

People need to understand that until our newly elected leaders actually take thier offices (most of them will do so at the start of next year), they are not automatically in the line of succession. If the President were to die tonight, right now, the list that is up there now would be the one which would be used. -Husnock 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the next step and semi-proected the article. There have already been at least four people changing the article to reflect the newly elected people before the elections were even over let alone anyone appointed. Also, Rumsfeld is still the SecDef until his offically retires and his replacement is appointed and confirmed by the Senate. -Husnock 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Rumsfeld, yes he has to resign first. However, Gates could become the Secretary as a recess appointment. But he would not be eligbile to be in the line of succession until he confirmed by the Senate. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pelosi

Just because the Democrats have said she is the new speaker, doesn't make it so. Please wait for the official results from the house and senate themselves pefore putting her in the order.StayinAnon 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This problem could be solved by removing the present officeholders entirely. -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think StayinAnon's explanation is sufficient for now. The present officeholders should definitely remain. Zz414 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should we retain the present officeholders? They are always changing resulting in a need to continually update a page that otherwise would be quite stable (or risk having out of date info). The articles on each office list the current office holder. -Will Beback · † · 07:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes people enjoy creating easy tasks that "need" doing to give themselves something to do that occupies their time and provides a sense of accomplishment. Whatever floats your boat. WAS 4.250 07:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Because if something happened today to the line of the Presidency, the present officeholders would take over. This page should reflect that, until something changes. It's not so hard to wait until January 3 or 4. Zz414 08:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This article must say that the Nth place in line belongs to office X. I don't see why we need to keep a constantly-updated list of 20 officehoders when their names are adequately recorded just one click away. As far as how hard it is to wait, just look over the edit history. -Will Beback · † · 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is the Secretary of Defense?

The article "Secretary of Defense" states that Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense as of December 6th, 2006
This article states that Robert Gates does not become Secretary of Defense on December 18th, 2006 when he is sworn in. Which one is correct? user:mnw2000 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Secretary of Defense has already been corrected to December 18. Gates doesn't take office until he's sworn in. -Will Beback · † · 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_presidential_line_of_succession_2b42.html"