Talk:Acting Vice President of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Acting Vice President ?

Is there any written proof, these president pro-tempores were listed as Acting Vice Presidents? GoodDay 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a written account or an actual title of "Acting Vice President". These are people who were next in line to the U.S. President when there was no Vice President due to vacancy by death, resignation, etc. I believe "Acting V.P." is more of a modern term, yet a couple of them believed they were President for a day, or "Acting President". There are inaccuracies with this page. For example George Poindexter was not next in line and Hugh Lawson White was. Someone read the history wrong. Jjmillerhistorian 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted. GoodDay 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone just made this up

Hello, all.

I read with some interest the details of this article. I have read a lot about Nixon/Watergate/Ford/Albert and done several papers for which research was required about that topic and I have never seen Speaker Albert described or referred to as "Acting Vice President."

There is absolutely NO mention of an "Acting Vice President" in the Constitution of the United States or in the U.S. Code.

Quite simply: someone has just made this up. Given its complete lack of sources for ANY of its claims and the recognition that no historical organization has ever recognized its claims to be true, the article all but admits that someone just made this up.

Wikipedia has requirements to source information for a reason. I do not believe this article should be on here since it cannot be sourced. (And for the additional reason that I think someone just made this up.) JasonCNJ 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't believe a Speaker of the House would actually be considered "Acting Vice President". I don't even know if that term existed for the President pro tempore of the Sentate. My main contributions to this article refers to the fact that these people were next in line to the Presidency during a Vice Presidential vacancy. This page could be renamed. As you notice with the Carl Albert photo I did not mention him as "Acting Vice President", but simply as next in line. He even stated if Nixon or Ford had died he would rather have a Republican take the Presidency as mandated by the people. So he probably would not have considered himself as "Acting veep". As for Crawford, I put the alleged title in parenthesis. The next in line to the Veep should be the pro tempore not the Speaker. As I said in the above statement, I think its more of a modern term to name the "next in line" who isn't the Vice President. I think the article should be renamed "Vice Presidential vacancies" or similar. The creator of this article has mentioned their status as Acting Veep in the separate personal articles. I would mention "next in line" not "acting vice president". I'm sure if there was a Vice Presidential vacancy today, the media would be all over it. They already make a big deal about Pelosi being 2nd in line. Jjmillerhistorian 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate this article for deletion, but the AFD instructions are too complicated for me. Maybe we should get an Administrator to put up the nomination. GoodDay 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for deletion. Please make your comments known on the appropriate page. JasonCNJ 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to understand this office

From the AFD discussion I believe people are getting hung up on the question of whether "Acting Vice President" was true in all Constitutional senses, such as deciding the tie vote. I think it's clear that the title was bestowed by the Senate and is specifically relevant to the role of the Pres. pro tem in Senate business and procedure, in addition to the Constitutionally-bestowed role of succeeding the President. In other words, the title refers to the President pro tem acting in the stead of the Vice President in his role as chair of the Senate. Obviously, this role remains important to the Senate even if the Speaker is now "next in line" to the Presidency.

The office does seem to have become markedly less prominent after the Succession Act of 1886. I haven't verified whether it has died out completely, yet; the only opportunity, short of something in the Senate rules (which no longer mention it, assuming they once did), was whether the Senate handled the matter when Reagan and Bush 43 had their surgeries and invoked the 25th Amendment to elevate their VPs to handling the duties of the P. Or, of course, should Cheney have that fifth heart attack (it's true, he's survived four). --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all "clear" that this title was ever bestowed by the Senate. In fact, a search of the Congressional Record and the full text of every bill that has ever passed Congress revels 2 hits for the phrase "Acting Vice President," both of which are records of speeches, one by Robert Byrd (138 Cong Rec S 10316), and the other by Eleanor Norton Holmes (147 Cong Rec E 834), wherein they mentioned the title. There is NO RECORD of any vote, bill, proposal, etc., bestowing the title on anyone. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the office of "Acting President," which 1) is real, and 2) is contained in the Constitution. Cheers, JCO312 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I've yet to see anyone show me where 'Acting Vice President' is mentioned in the US Constitution. As a verbal title, AVP is semi-accurate, the President pro tempore never had the power to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. GoodDay 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
These are not assertions I have made, and I consider the question one of curiosity. I have said that it is clearly not a constitutional office and I don't see the relevance of not being able to cast a tie-breaking vote (although apparently participants in the Johnson impeachment thought it important enough to debate). As one step toward getting a more affirmative answer to the question of how the title came about and how it was used and viewed, I have written Sen. Byrd, in his capacity as the "memory of the Senate", for at the least research assistance. As to the points raised by JCO312, neither does the Constitution refer to an office known as "Acting President" as such: 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. In fact, the first person to be "Acting President" famously struck out the "Acting" with his pen, and this has never been constitutionally challenged. Yet we have an article Acting President of the United States. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I imagine JCO312 was referring to Section 3 of the 25th Amendment which says, "...such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President." Or perhaps Section 4 which says "the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President" and "[if Congress, by two-thirds vote, determines the President still incapacited] the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President."
The article Acting President of the United States refers specifically to the office as a creature of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. JasonCNJ 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, nevertheless, my point remains. The 25th amendment was not in effect during the historical period when "Acting Vice-President" was apparently in wider use.--Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved page

I've moved this page from 'Acting Vice President' to 'Acting Vice President of the United States'. This title is more accurate, for this article. GoodDay 23:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name . . .
I mean, this is a fabricated article about a non-existent office—you can call it "Acting Barbecued Hot Dog Vendor of the United States" and it would be just as accurate. Unschool 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a CON job!

I can't believe that this article hasn't been deleted! The only source that makes reference to this supposed title states that IT uses material from Wikipedia! Someone is laughing at us right now because he has fabricated this whole thing and dressed it up real pretty like a real article. This needs to be deleted! Unschool 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So first we're told that, effectively, there could be no Acting VP after the 1886 succession act, but then we're told that Eastland had the job twice in the 1970s. This article is a pile of hooey. Unschool 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary Evidence

I believe that the above author is missing the point a bit, and that may be the real flaw of this article, as what I believe we are discussing is really a concept of political science concerning the vagaries of presidential succession prior to the 25th Amendment. Perhaps that would be a better starting point to begin the discussion of the subject. But I do have some interesting evidence I ran into yesterday that adds a little more fuel to the fire:

Though this doesn not confirm an official usage of the title "Acting Vice President", it is evidence of a government official mistakenly identifying a President of the Senate pro Tempore as simply, "Vice President." I had the opportunity to read through the "Special Order's" Log for the United States Military Academy at West Point for the year 1865 and came upon the following passge which caused me to run into this Wikipedia page and associated discussion:

Special Orders No. 136, dated October 6, 1865 state, "In honor of the arrival at this Post of Hon. Lafayette S. Foster Vice President of the United States, a salute of Seventeen (17) guns will be fired... at 4.10 P.M, the Academic & Military Staff will assemble at the quarters of the Superintendent, to pay their respects to the Vie President, at 4.30 P.M., the Corps of Cadets will be reviews by him on the general parade ground..."

Lafayette Sabine Foster was of course not Vice Presdient, but as Presdident pro Tempore of the Senate, he assumed the role of President of the Senate when Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency following Lincoln's assassination. Obviously the United States Military Academy was mistaken, but it is also quite suggestive there was some popular assumption that the President pro tempore became Vice President as he was next in line in the order of succession.

I believe (and yes this is personal conjecture not based on specific research, but I do have some professional training in history) that what we are dealing with is the popular presumption of the time. Since the Vice President did little but preside over the Senate and act as a functionary until F.D.R. allowed John Nance Garner to sit in cabinet meetings, it could be easily assumed that the President pro tempore was serving in the Vice President's capacity and was thus a de facto Vice President. I believe John Adams had some choice things to say about the office.

In conclusion, I think that i would be plain silly and misguided to delete this article as it raises issues of interest to historians and political scientists. Basically what needs to be done here is to frame the concept a bit differently. Perhaps placing the term in quotes, or something to that effect would be more acceptable. (e.g. "Acting" Vice President.) Pklarnet 03:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

What this article seems to be discussing is more the question of "who is next in line to the presidency?" than a specific office which most people seem to accept doesn't constitutionally exist. The article United States presidential line of succession is 'only' 26k long, while this article is 9.6k: merging the two would not make an unmanageably long article, and might help to end the disputes here while retaining the documentary research which has been undertaken on the subject, both in this article and during the deletion discussion. What do other editors think? Physchim62 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this article doesn't need to be merged anywhere, since it's a total fabrication. It needs to be deleted. Unschool 02:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not support merging the content of this article with US presidential line of succession. I do not find there to be "documentary research" that has been done, nevertheless anything worthy of inclusion into that article. That article is well-cited, detailed, and appropriately handles the subject matter. It doesn't need the clutter that this unverified piece would bring. JasonCNJ 02:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want it deleting, you're going to have to take it back to WP:AFD: I'm not going to speedy delete it, and I can't see any other admin doing so either. Physchim62 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Others who know more about the workings than I (which is just about everyone) agree with you, that this needs to go through WP:AFD to be deleted. I do not myself know how to do this; I'm much more of a lay editor than others, I guess. The one time that I did try to nominate an article for AFD, about six months ago, I screwed up the nomination and someone else had to take care of it. Fortunately that article did get deleted. This one needs to be as well, but someone else needs to do it.
In the meantime, it still stands to reason to remove the merge tag. There is no reason to merge fiction from one article into another perfectly good article. Unschool 04:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

This article says that James Eastland was the last person who could have been considered Acting VP, yet the table shows that there could have been no such office after the 19th century. I plan to delete the contradictory material if nothing is done about it over the next couple of weeks. Unschool 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article creator

I suppose, technically, it proves nothing, but I find it interesting that we're all debating this article and its creator has never even defended it. Indeed, the creator of this article, User:Soxfan728, has had exactly one edit on Wikipedia—the creation of this article.

Please, please, somebody nominate it for deletion. It will be one year old on the 30th of this month. Let's get rid of it. Unschool 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having previously nominated it, I do not feel it proper to do so again. Unschool, I would encourage you to explore the WP:AFD articles, follow the steps, and submit it for AfD. Be bold. JasonCNJ 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will do so, but don't have time now. Perhaps next weekend. In the meantime, I've trimmed more fiction from it. Unschool 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If anyone else wants it

Here's my attempt at an AfD summary:

The subject of this articel does not exist, no publication of any legitimacy (Scholarly, historical, governmental, etc) has ever addressed it or compiled the list on the page. The author is also an absentee, this articel being the sole contribution of any sort (Unless previous contributions have also been deleted).

68.39.174.238 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

There was a discussion on this article already, and it was decided that it should be kept. There are sources, which I have added, particularly in the lede. It is not appropriate to put up the "weasel words" tag, especially if you aren't going to identify the words at issue. I didn't like this article when it got put up either, but it's clear that at least on occasion, this term was used. JCO312 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that I'm writing this, but JCO312 has actually convinced me to keep this article in place. If you want to know why, please check the references that he has placed in the article, and feel free to peruse the comments that he and I have exchanged on my user page. I gotta tell you, I pride myself on being open-minded, but I never thought in a million years that I would ever accept this article. But I'm convinced. (I feel like E. G. Marshall at the end of 12 Angry Men.)
Nonetheless, JCO312 has also indicated that he feels that the table used in the article constitutes OR, and I agree. The list is not of people who actually were AVP, or even were even referred to as AVP, but rather, those who "could have been", whatever that means. Accordingly, I am going to delete the table, and then I will leave the article—which has been much improved by JCO312—alone, with no further talk of AfD. Cheers to one and all. Unschool 14:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I did make a few small changes in addition to deleting the table. But I think they should be unobjectionable. Unschool 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
An AfD discussion would not be unreasonable, as the last discussion was six months ago and ended without consensus. However, I'm not going to propose it, as I still feel that a merge would be better. I'm not sure about the table—a list of periods when there was no Vice-President would not be OR, nor would it be OR to include the names of the Presidents pro tempore of the Senate during those periods. However to style it as a "list of people who could have been referred to as AVPOTUS" strikes me as unencyclopedic speculation. Physchim62 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I would go so far as to say that the table lends to the article the impression that this is more official than it is. As to AfD, I've agreed not to list, though I am always open to other arguments. For the time being, JCO312 has convinced me that there is enough to justify this article's continued existence. I just don't want it to look like a bigger deal than the speck of trivia than it is. Unschool 19:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)