I can’t believe that the lamestream media refuses to acknowledge this kind of story!
I agree with your analysis. I never thought about the constitutionality at the time. I was of the opinion that he was just being a blowhard. But a few days later, it was brought to my attention that Mr. Haig was apparently the designated carrier of ‘the nuclear football’ at that point, and that was what he meant by his abrupt statement.
Wikipedia disagrees that Haig’s statement had any legal reality to it. He was just the highest-ranking guy at the White House; he was not acting president.
“Highest ranking person aware” doesn’t make sense - unless Bush was far out over the Atlantic, the plane was in radio contact. Besides, The Speaker of the House and Pro Tem of the senate were “aware of the situation.”
Haig had no presidential authority.
Although the analysis does imply that everyone seems to feel Amendment 25 applies even when it’s “unable to discharge duties” rather than specifically death or resignation.
Right, even without the ‘immediately’ this is true. At least a few years ago anyway, there used to be this quaint notion that the President was not an unlimited despot, but rather only had the powers authorized by duly enacted laws. Again, this may be a rather retro, old-fashioned opinion these days, but, for instance there’s no law authorizing the President to order the execution of some random person (or any person, except after a trial).
So when Scott Evil holds a gun to the President’s head and has the President order the killing of Scott’s annoying High School gym teacher, everyone (including military personnel) can legally say “Respectfully Mr. President I do not believe that is a legal order and I must decline to carry it out”.
And even for things that the executive branch can legally do, often the power is actually vested not in the President but in a Department Secretary or the equivalent (this is true of nearly all federal environmental regulation; I don’t know much about other areas). In normal times, if a President feels strongly about something, a cabinet member is going to follow along (or resign), but a gun to the head isn’t normal times.
Correct me if I’m wrong… but that seems circular.
Don’t the Cabinet/Secretaries derive their authority from the President? He appoints them (with Congress getting an “up or down” vote). He’s their boss. They don’t have “powers” seperate and independant from his.
Well, I’ll accept a correction from a lawyer, but here’s some quotes from the Clean Water Act as an example: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this Act called “Administrator”) shall administer this Act.” “The Administrator shall… prepare or develop comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters…” “The Administrator may, after opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant…”
Note that in other places in the Act, authority is given to the President: “The President shall by regulation determine for the purposes of this section those quantities of oil and any hazardous substances the discharge of which may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment of the United States”
Now, there may be something in the federal Administrative Procedures Act or other legislation that affects things, and I’m willing to be corrected, but at this point it appears to me that in some cases the EPA Administrator is granted authority by the Act, not the President, and I don’t think the President could legally claim the EPA Administrator’s power directly. I imagine in other legislation there’s also a mix between authority given to the President and to agency/department heads.
And again, even if the President can assume the authority granted to her appointees, the Executive Branch still has only the authority granted by legislation. For instance, as per the quoted section of the act above, there still needs to be the opportunity for public hearing, whether it’s the Administrator or someone else issuing the permit.
Though as I noted above, Leo earlier tried to talk Bartlet out of it, arguing that he and the rest of the top echelon of advisors could essentially hold the president’s hand through everything.
Right. Congress writes the laws, the President (and his cabinet) enforce them.
Consider Mr. Holder, U.S. Attorney General. Heads the Department of Justice (but this Department is still under the Executive Branch, not the Judicial), is appointed by, and can be fired at will by, the POTUS.
We see how he can influence or carry out national policy by choosing what laws to focus on (and how they are enforced), but they can’t create new law out of thin air. But anywho, it seems to me Mr. Holder marches to the President’s orders, not Congress.
Remember the Saturday Night Massacre and two Attorneys General (one real, one acting, very briefly) needing to resign in protest before Nixon could get to someone (Robert Bork) willing to fire Archibald Cox.
No. 
I was only 8 in 1973. I wasn’t quite as interested in politics back then.
And I wasn’t born yet.