Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Deputy Secretary of State would have a claim in such a situation. At some point, he would have to be the acting Secretary of State, I suppose. In the absence of any other firm direction, it seems about as good a claim as any to act as President under such an extreme circumstance.
Why not add the governors to the line of succession? Discussed here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=332688&highlight=bayh
Spoilers, dude. You’ve just ruined Series 6 of 24.
Stranger
IIRC (can’t find cite right now), a shadow government has been in operation since 9/11, with at least one cabinet secretary sequestered at a secure location doing their ordinary job. The secretaries all rotate in the role. In fact, I believe there was a news article in the past month or so when it was Cheney’s turn to sit the cave for a week.
As I’ve mentioned in some of these threads, I believe using the governors, either in order of state size or the order they were admitted to the Union would be the best policy in such a situtaion.
No, I don’t think so. The constitution is pretty explicit about it being the cabinet secretaries in line of succession. While a Deputy SecState has Senate confirmation she/he has never actually been SecState and can’t become so without another confirmation hearing. Therefore the DSS cannot be in line of succession regardless of circumstance.
But someone would have to take charge, but whom would it be? Would the seniormost surviving member of the majority party become Speaker by default?
Actually, it isn’t. It is a Federal law that places cabinet secretaries in the line of succession, not the Constitution.
As it stands now, whenever there’s a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President nominates a replacement. If both Presidency and VP are missing, it goes to the Speaker, the Pres Pro Tem, and the Secretaries, as outlined in the links above. And, while there have been proposals to deal with “what happen if they all die” (e.g., in a nuclear or terrorist attack), no legally valid decisions have been made. Best that could be done under existing law is for the surviving House members (there are almost certain to be a few) to gather and elect two new Speakers, first one who would then succeed as President, and then the one that will actually preside over them after the other one becomes President. The first guy can then go on and nominate a new V.P. and Cabinet.
Alphaboi, no, nobody automatically succeeds. It’s the leader of the majority party, to be sure, but he’s elected to the position by his peers in the House (actually, by the majority party members of the House, with the minority having the right to nominate somebody too, who gets their votes and loses to the majority guy). It’s not an automatic succession, though. Granted if Smith, Jones, and Brown are Speaker, Majority Leader, and Majority Whip, they’re bound to succeed to the Speakership in that order if their party stays in the majority and they don’t get defeated, are forced to resign, or retire. But it takes a vote of the House to choose (or chuse) the Speaker.
I’m guessing our conquerers would be our new leaders. Any enemy that can decapitate the U.S. government that completely pretty much owns our asses, and the rest of us, too.
Not necessarily. A “suitcase nuke” at the right time could do it, unless the guy in the secure location survives the blast. That would not require any conquerers, just a terrorist attack.
I remember asking my 6th grade social studies teacher a similar question when Watergate was first starting to come out. He told me that the government had it all figured out “right down to me & you”
:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:
What did I expect from a guy who looked & talked EXACTLY like Mr. Peepers (I’m not kidding!)
Actually after the attack, the majority party may no longer be such. Anyway, speakers need to be elected, it has no direct link to seniority. By politics, it has always been a member of the majority party but need not be so.
The main objection I see is that this would formally make some states “more equal than others” in federal law. (Yes, that’s the de facto situation with federal spending, etc, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to formalize such a thing.)
Don’t feel bad. For years I, too, thought that buried somewhere in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 the formula was all spelled out.
But for the sake of the discussion, let’s assume the natural disaster/terrorist attacks/sudden caridac arrest manages to take out EVERYONE – the entire line of succession, and, for good measure, every Senator and Representative, leaving the government hitting the reset button.
I refer to the Consitution of the United States, specifically the 17th Amendment.
So, while the House of Represnetatives has to be repopulated through special elections, the governors of the 50 states (assuming in our hypothetical case that state governments have survived) each name new interim Senators. The newly reconstituted Senate gets together and names a new President pro temporae who would then become President.