While the “higher rank” rule seems apt, I am surprised that a cabinet Secretary position would rate higher than Senator.
Note that the “higher rank” rule leads to ludicrous things. E.g., Claude Pepper being called “Senator” after he lost re-election and later became a member of the US House.
It might be largely a matter of how the former official’s PR flaks want to spin it.
When former governor Ronald Reagan ran for president against former governor Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan’s campaign always referred to him as “Governor Reagan” or “the Governor”. I don’t recall that Carter’s campaign ever referred to him as Governor.
Why on Earth would Carter’s campaign, or anyone else, have referred to him as governor? Reagan’s highest rank had been governor, while Carter’s highest and current rank was president. It would have made zero sense for anyone to refer to Carter as governor.
Why on Earth would Carter’s campaign, or anyone else, have referred to him as governor? Reagan’s highest rank had been governor, while Carter’s highest and current rank was president. It would have made zero sense for anyone to refer to Carter as governor. (I doubt that anyone referred to Vice President Al Gore as “Senator Gore” when he was running in 2000, either.)
You could easily avoid this ludicrous result by modifying the “higher rank” rule: It is used only to determine which of several past offices the person is addressed with, but offices presently held trump past offices, so the bearer would be addressed with that one, even if it is inferior to a previously held office. It seems to me that this rule would have a basis in common usage. I’m pretty sure Taft, for instance, was not addressed as “Mr President” while he was Chief Justice; he would go by the customary address for a Chief Justice.
That, of course, still leaves the question open whether “Secretary” is a rank higher than “Senator”, or vice versa. My take on that, but I’m happy to be corrected, is that Secretary is the higher rank. There are fewer cabinet secretaries than there are senators; a cabinet secretary has typically (exceptions might exist, but normally it’s like this) more influence on shaping government policies than a single senator; and a cabinet secretary occupies a position in the presidential line of succession.
I’d also like to add that the order of precedence used e.g. for the purposes of diplomatic protocol place current vabinet secretaries above current senators. Former Secretaries of State are also listed, while former senators are not. By that logic, a past Secretary of State would certainly outrank a past senator in precedence.
But there are 15 cabinet Secretaries. All appointed and confirmed by the Senate. Some can have quite short terms. Most don’t last more than 4 years as opposed to 6 for a mere single term Senator.
A US Senator is a Federal position, not a state one.
As to Presidential succession, the pool is set up to lean heavily on members of the executive branch to succeed to the top executive position, which makes sense. Except for the part about the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate (!) pro tem taking precedence.
Because the word “him” quite obviously refers back to Reagan, not Carter?
When your first interpretation sounds stupid, it’s generally a good idea to go back and see if there is another one that doesn’t. At least it’s nice to know that people do this to others and not just me.