# Explain Two VPs (Or Not VPs) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 28, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478 "2013-10-28T19:59:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/1 "2013-10-28T19:59:47Z")
I don’t understand how Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) had no VP when completing the duration of Kennedy’s term (upon JFK’s assassination); however, Ford’s VP was Nelson Rockefeller??? Huh? And, Ford served one term, technically less! Shouldn’t Ford have had no VP either, serving to complete Nixon’s term upon Nixon’s resignation (akin to LBJ serving out JFK’s term)? What’s the SD on all this here? Bonus Question: How and why did Nelson Rockefeller (of all people) get picked to serve in this capacity? …Did the Senate trust LBJ more than Ford to fly VP-free? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/2 "2013-10-28T20:12:47Z")
The rules spelling out how a Vice President is replaced are in the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in 1967. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/3 "2013-10-28T20:59:21Z")
There was no provision at all for picking a replacement vice president until, as **Hamster King** noted, the 25th Amendment was ratified. About that time people started noticing a) that [Presidents died in office with surprising regularity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Tippecanoe); b) the stakes were a lot higher when the world could literally be destroyed in 30 minutes; not to mention that c) Lyndon Johnson had already had a serious heart attack and the Speaker of the House who would be next in line if Johnson died was 17 years older than LBJ. As for Nelson Rockefeller, why not? Although conservatives didn’t trust him, pretty much everyone else did, which was rare enough for a Republican after Watergate, he didn’t seem to have any more political aspirations, and Gerald Ford trusted him. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/4 "2013-10-28T21:07:06Z")
There was a line of succession before the 25th amendment, but there was some disagreement over the wording already in the constitution, so this was a more specific way of dealing with the situation. I don’t remember any controversy surrounding the amendment, though I was pretty young at the time. As far as I can recall, Ford selected Rockefeller because he was a pretty middle of the road non-controversial Republican who would easily be approved by Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/5 "2013-10-28T21:08:22Z")
Next in the line of succession after the VP is the Speaker of the House. I’m pretty sure that 1) the SotH while LBJ was finishing JFK’s term was a Democrat and B) that the SotH during Ford’s presidency was a Democrat also. So Ford had an interest in appointing a VP or the same party and LBJ not so much. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/6 "2013-10-28T21:15:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > There was a line of succession before the 25th amendment, but there was some disagreement over the wording already in the constitution, so this was a more specific way of dealing with the situation. I don’t remember any controversy surrounding the amendment, though I was pretty young at the time. There was a line of succession _for the presidency_, but as has been pointed out, there was no way to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency, except with an election. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/7 "2013-10-28T21:16:33Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > So Ford had an interest in appointing a VP or the same party and LBJ not so much. When LBJ was elected president in 1964 he chose Democratic Hubert Humphrey as his VP. Before that he didn’t get to appoint a new VP. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/8 "2013-10-28T21:17:47Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > There was a line of succession _for the presidency_, but as has been pointed out, there was no way to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency, except with an election. Yes, I guess I wasn’t quite clear, but see the previous post. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/9 "2013-10-29T01:15:13Z")
If there had been no 25th Amendment, when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, the next in line for President would have been Speaker of the House Carl Albert, a Democrat. And the next in line after Albert would have been Senate President Pro Tempore James Eastland, also a Democrat. So, if not for the 25th Amendment, Albert could have controlled impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, while also being the person who would replace Nixon. There was a similar mess during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/10 "2013-10-29T04:46:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > When LBJ was elected president in 1964 he chose Democratic Hubert Humphrey as his VP. Before that he didn’t get to appoint a new VP. I think this was the main catalyst. Eisenhower had a heart attack when he was President, now the next president dies without warning. Roosevelt’s 4 terms made politicians decide to put into law the two-term limit for presidents (a gentlemen’s agreement before then). Now there was the realization that the government could go a year or 4 without a vice president. Considering the country had almost come to nuclear war not too many months before, dragging some politician out of the congress and dumping “President” on him cold turkey - then he has to get up to speed on everything immediately - was probably considered not a good idea. Instead, they decided that the president (and congress) could pick the next VP so he could get the on-the-job training before any crisis hit. Johnson didn’t replace himself until the next election (1964) because he was not allowed to. By the time Nixon had to replace Spiro, (1973) and then Ford had to replace himself, the constitutional amendment to replace a VP had been enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/11 "2013-10-29T05:15:31Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > If there had been no 25th Amendment, when Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, the next in line for President would have been Speaker of the House Carl Albert, a Democrat. And the next in line after Albert would have been Senate President Pro Tempore James Eastland, also a Democrat. > > So, if not for the 25th Amendment, Albert could have controlled impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, while also being the person who would replace Nixon. There was a similar mess during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. If Albert had wanted to be President, he could have done it. As Speaker of the House, he also had control over the confirmation of Ford’s nomination to the Vice Presidency. Albert could have just delayed Ford’s confirmation and kept the vacancy open until Nixon was impeached or resigned and then stepped into the office. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/12 "2013-10-29T15:43:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If Albert had wanted to be President, he could have done it. As Speaker of the House, he also had control over the confirmation of Ford’s nomination to the Vice Presidency. Albert could have just delayed Ford’s confirmation and kept the vacancy open until Nixon was impeached or resigned and then stepped into the office. Exactly my point. Not that Carl Albert \*wanted \*to be President, but imagine someone with more ambition and fewer scruples in that position. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/13 "2013-10-29T15:48:04Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Exactly my point. Not that Carl Albert \*wanted \*to be President, but imagine someone with more ambition and fewer scruples in that position. At that time I don’t think he would have been successful. But looking at the current situation the 25th amendment may have prevented an even worse political free-for-all. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/14 "2013-10-29T16:08:29Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > I don’t understand how Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) had no VP when completing the duration of Kennedy’s term … > Shouldn’t Ford have had no VP either, … Most of the posts above concern the process of finding a new vice-president. What they don’t point out – and I think this may answer the OP’s main question – is that there is no requirement for the new president to fill the empty VP slot. Sure, it is smart and important, but he doesn’t have to if he doesn’t want to. And even if one argues that there is such a requirement, it isn’t automatic, and he can delay the procedure as long as he wants. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/15 "2013-10-29T16:17:30Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > Most of the posts above concern the process of finding a new vice-president. What they don’t point out – and I think this may answer the OP’s main question – is that there is no requirement for the new president to fill the empty VP slot. > [@Amendment 25](#): > > Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President _ **shall nominate** _ a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. The text is clear that the president is required to appoint a replacement. But you are right that no time frame is specified. A truculent Congress could easily find grounds for impeachment in the president’s failure to protect national security by appointing a VP, though. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/16 "2013-10-29T17:24:03Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > A truculent Congress could easily find grounds for impeachment in the president’s failure to protect national security by appointing a VP, though. Hmmm… 😕 We impeach the President, and forcibly remove him from office, on the grounds that if he should happen to be unable to exercise his duties there’s no one in line to cover for him. :eek: :smack: What the hell happens then? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/17 "2013-10-29T17:26:08Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > Hmmm… 😕 We impeach the President, and forcibly remove him from office, on the grounds that if he should happen to be unable to exercise his duties there’s no one in line to cover for him. :eek: > > :smack: What the hell happens then? The Speaker of the House, who probably voted for impeachment, becomes President. What could possibly go wrong? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/18 "2013-10-30T00:19:27Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > As for Nelson Rockefeller, why not? Although conservatives didn’t trust him, pretty much everyone else did, which was rare enough for a Republican after Watergate, he didn’t seem to have any more political aspirations, and Gerald Ford trusted him. Plus he had been a very credible (though unsuccessful) candidate for the Republican nomination, and so was better than some VP choices (like Agnew). He was also rich enough so that we didn’t worry about corruption. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/19 "2013-10-30T07:01:14Z")
IIRC, Carl Albert was concerned that if he became President, it would be a violation of the result of the privious election. Where the voters had given a mandate to the other party. Cannot imagine such thinking today. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2013, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478/20 "2013-10-30T07:07:55Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Exactly my point. Not that Carl Albert \*wanted \*to be President, but imagine someone with more ambition and fewer scruples in that position. NEWT!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek: [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-two-vps-or-not-vps/672478.md?page=2)