Are the circumstances of Obama's coming post-presidency unique?

[kaylasdad99]

@John_Mace

One could argue that putting him in the line of succession to the presidency violates the 22nd amendment. If he were to become SecState, he’d be 4th in line.

Ineligibility to assume the presidency is not a barrier to appointment to the position of Secretary of State. Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, both European-born naturalized citizens served in the position.

[Steve_MB]

@John_Mace

One could argue that putting him in the line of succession to the presidency violates the 22nd amendment.

One could argue that, but one would end up looking rather silly when presented with a list of cabinet heads who were theoretically in the line of succession but ineligible to assume the office.

[adaher]

@kaylasdad99

Ineligibility to assume the presidency is not a barrier to appointment to the position of Secretary of State. Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright, both European-born naturalized citizens served in the position.

Yep. And they would be skipped over in the line of succession. A former President creates no such problems, so long as he doesn’t get ideas of taking power “for the good of the country”, of course.

[RTFirefly]

@adaher

Yep. And they would be skipped over in the line of succession. A former President creates no such problems, so long as he doesn’t get ideas of taking power “for the good of the country”, of course.

Assertion =/= argument.

[adaher]

The argument is that the next President is whoever John Roberts decides to administer the oath to if there is any doubt.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@adaher

The argument is that the next President is whoever John Roberts decides to administer the oath to if there is any doubt.

Interestingly, even this is arguable. After Kennedy died, some pundits claimed that Johnson became President instantly while others insisted that he needed to take the oath of office. As with so much else of what we discuss, there is nothing written in the Constitution or statutory law that addresses this.

In this case, the question of who was President if the wrong person swore or affirmed the oath has no firm answer.

[adaher]

There has never been a dispute over who is next in the line of succession before. If an ex-President or foreigner is Secretary of State, then we have a dispute, unless the Chief Justice just goes ahead and creates a fait accompli by swearing in the Secretary of Treasury in front of the media. I suppose the ex-President could be a jerk and challenge the line of succession at a time of national crisis, but I can’t imagine the courts or the public would be on his side.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@adaher

There has never been a dispute over who is next in the line of succession before. If an ex-President or foreigner is Secretary of State, then we have a dispute, unless the Chief Justice just goes ahead and creates a fait accompli by swearing in the Secretary of Treasury in front of the media. I suppose the ex-President could be a jerk and challenge the line of succession at a time of national crisis, but I can’t imagine the courts or the public would be on his side.

Guiliani tried to change the rules and get a third term after 9/11. Many people were in fact for that. Just as they went along with Bloomberg’s successful third term outrage. A popular ex-President vs the nobody who was SecTreas? I wouldn’t bet against it.

But I’m not arguing what might happen popularly. Literally any scenario becomes fair game in weird enough hypotheticals, I’m saying that the law isn’t settled.