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).
[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)
- 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)
[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 apponting 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 sevres 3 years in office are they eligable 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- No, under the terms of the 22nd Amendment, they would be eligible for only one additional term. JasonCNJ 16:30, 1 February 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 apponting 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 sevres 3 years in office are they eligable 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)
[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)
