# President of the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 14, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987 "2010-01-14T21:01:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/41 "2010-01-15T02:37:11Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Not the Constitution, but US Federal Law - [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/19.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/19.html) How is that defining the title? Are you suggesting that such a person is NOT the President? That the powers inherent in the Presidency will go wanting? That the Constitution itself allows for there to be no President for longer than it takes to enact the succession? Kinda skeptical but curious… ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/42 "2010-01-15T02:43:03Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Not the Constitution, but US Federal Law - [3 U.S. Code § 19 - Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/19.html) How is that defining the title? Are you suggesting that such a person is NOT the President? That the powers inherent in the Presidency will go wanting? That the Constitution itself allows for there to be no President for longer than it takes to enact the succession? Kinda skeptical but curious… ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/43 "2010-01-15T03:27:50Z")
There is at least one other conundrum in succession law that would come into play if the Presidency and Vice Presidency were simultaneously vacant and the Speaker succeeded. When the Presidential Succession Act was adopted, in 1947, it envisioned the legislative presiding officers as “permanent” successors under subsection (c) (“shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term”), and the cabinet officers as “contingent” successors under subsection (d) (“shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act …”). Either chamber of Congress could thus unseat a contingent successor by electing a Speaker or a President pro tem, who would immediately ascend to the Presidency on a “permanent” basis. But the 25th amendment, adopted in 1967, introduced a new wrinkle. The Succession Act says of the “permanent” successors that “if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies.” When that statute was written, in 1947, there was no way of filling a Vice Presidential vacancy; if a Vice President succeeded to the Presidency or left office in any other way, then the Vice Presidency was vacant for the term’s remainder. But since 1967, under the [25th amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxv.html), there is way of filling the vacancy. Presumably a Vice President who takes office under the 25th amendment has “qualified” as Vice President – in which case, if the Succession Act is read literally, he or she unseats the acting President who nominated him or her, since the acting President “shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies.” That result might unsettle at least some politicians. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/44 "2010-01-15T03:38:09Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Sure, but what if they were all on the same doomed flight together. Then what? Huh? President Ralph ---
**Author:** ![AWB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@AWB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AWB)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/45 "2010-01-15T03:57:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > And a cabinet member not in the line of succession is always deliberately excluded from ceremonies, like the State of the Union speech, to which all the others are expected to attend. That person is at a safe distance in case of a nuclear attack or an alien invasion or, well, anything. IIRC, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was excluded from the exclusion, because she was born Czech, and thus couldn’t serve as president. (She became a US citizen in 1957.) ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/46 "2010-01-15T04:58:38Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I was mainly objecting to the second part. I am not aware of any provision for a presidential election other than at the standard intervals of four years. Anyone succeeding to the office, whether “acting” or not, would serve out the remaining part of the original term. Sorry, I did mean that the person would “act as president” until the next scheduled election – it was not at all clear. However I’m still not 100% certain the person acting as President actually _is_ the president. For example, if the successor is _not_ the vice President, Speaker or President Pro Tempore, he must surrender his position to a person of higher succession status, if such a person appears after he has taken the oath. (19(d)(2) of the Sucession Act) ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/47 "2010-01-15T05:13:21Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > However I’m still not 100% certain the person acting as President actually _is_ the president. For example, if the successor is _not_ the vice President, Speaker or President Pro Tempore, he must surrender his position to a person of higher succession status, if such a person appears after he has taken the oath. (19(d)(2) of the Sucession Act) Why would that preclude him from being President during the time he was acting as such? ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/48 "2010-01-15T13:46:00Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > (I believe I read that there are three people on the Obama cabinet who don’t qualify for one reason or another.) Nope. All of the cabinet members were born in the US. Don’t tell the Birthers, but several have parents who were born elsewhere (Holder, Locke, Solis, LaHood, Shinseki) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/49 "2010-01-15T14:15:03Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > Nope. All of the cabinet members were born in the US. Don’t tell the Birthers, but several have parents who were born elsewhere (Holder, Locke, Solis, LaHood, Shinseki) Well, LaHood, at least is a Republican, so as far as the Birthers are concerned, he could probably have been born in Moscow, two doors down from the Kremlin, and still be all right. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/50 "2010-01-15T14:47:22Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Are you suggesting that such a person is NOT the President? That the powers inherent in the Presidency will go wanting? That the Constitution itself allows for there to be no President for longer than it takes to enact the succession? > > Kinda skeptical but curious… > **[Acting President of the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_President_of_the_United_States)** > > An acting president of the United States is a person who lawfully exercises the powers and duties of the president of the United States despite not holding the office in their own right. There is an established presidential line of succession in which officials of the United States federal government may be called upon to be acting president if the incumbent president becomes incapacitated, dies, resigns, or is removed from office (by impeachment by the House of Representatives and subsequent... Here’s far more about it than I care to know. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/51 "2010-01-15T16:07:48Z")
> [@brianmelendez](#): > > But the 25th amendment, adopted in 1967, introduced a new wrinkle. The Succession Act says of the “permanent” successors that “if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies.” When that statute was written, in 1947, there was no way of filling a Vice Presidential vacancy; if a Vice President succeeded to the Presidency or left office in any other way, then the Vice Presidency was vacant for the term’s remainder. But since 1967, under the [25th amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxv.html), there is way of filling the vacancy. Presumably a Vice President who takes office under the 25th amendment has “qualified” as Vice President – in which case, if the Succession Act is read literally, he or she unseats the acting President who nominated him or her, since the acting President “shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies.” That result might unsettle at least some politicians. :rolleyes: > [@Hello\_Again](#): > > Sorry, I did mean that the person would “act as president” until the next scheduled election – it was not at all clear. > > However I’m still not 100% certain the person acting as President actually _is_ the president. For example, if the successor is _not_ the vice President, Speaker or President Pro Tempore, he must surrender his position to a person of higher succession status, if such a person appears after he has taken the oath. (19(d)(2) of the Sucession Act) Gerald Ford was nominated to the position of Vice-President in 1973 after Spiro Agnew resigned. When Nixon resigned in 1974, Ford became President. Not Acting President. President. Even after Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as the replacement Vice President, Ford remained President and Rockefeller did not ascend. That’s precedent, son, which beats interpretation. There is no higher office than the Precedency. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/52 "2010-01-15T16:41:45Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > When Nixon resigned in 1974, Ford became President. Not Acting President. President. Even after Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as the replacement Vice President, Ford remained President and Rockefeller did not ascend. The question is not about the situation you described here. Everyone agrees that a VP becomes the President. That has been well established. But if the Speaker of the House was elevated to the role, it appears he or she would be Acting President until a new VP could be chosen, who would then ascend to the Presidency, serving out the remainder of the originally elected term. At least that’s my non-Constitutional Lawyerly reading of the bill and the comments on it. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/53 "2010-01-15T16:42:43Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Gerald Ford was nominated to the position of Vice-President in 1973 after Spiro Agnew resigned. When Nixon resigned in 1974, Ford became President. Not Acting President. President. Even after Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as the replacement Vice President, Ford remained President and Rockefeller did not ascend. > > That’s precedent, son, which beats interpretation. There is no higher office than the Precedency. My post addressed a sucessor who is not the VP, pres. pro pemtore or speaker of the house. Which has never happened. D(2) states clearly they would have to surrender their position to a person of higher claim. If that person were actually president, there would be no higher claim. ---
**Author:** ![tallcoldone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9a140/32.png) [@tallcoldone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tallcoldone)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/54 "2010-01-15T17:11:05Z")
"Who becomes the leader of our nation if the President and Vice President were to die in the same day? " Paging Al Haig… ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987/55 "2010-01-15T17:14:45Z")
The response to that argument is that it [violates the Constitution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act). > [@](#): > > The Act is also controversial because it provides that if a cabinet officer becomes Acting President, he serves only until a new Speaker of the House or a new President Pro Tempore of the Senate is chosen, who would then replace him as Acting President. This is sometimes referred to as “bumping”[13] and appears to contradict the text of the Constitution, which says (in Article II, section 1, Clause 6): > > “ …and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. ” > > The Continuity of Government Commission argued that as well as going against the language of the Constitution, bumping violates the doctrine of separation of powers by undermining the independence of the executive from the Congress: > > “ The Constitution on its face seems to stipulate that once a person is deemed to be acting president by the Presidential Succession Act, he or she cannot be replaced by a different person. This interpretation makes some logical sense as the provision would presumably prevent the confusion that would arise if the presidency were transferred to several different individuals in a short period of time. It would also seemingly prevent Congress from exercising influence on the executive branch by threatening to replace a cabinet member acting as president with a newly elected Speaker of the House.[14] I also wonder how many people here have actually read Akhil Amar’s book on the Constitution, [America’s Constitution: A Biography](http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar/dp/0812972724/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar/dp/0812972724/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1), that many of the arguments you give are taken from. I found the book less than convincing. Besides, the opportunity to use a pun that great trumps all other considerations. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-of-the-us/524987.md?page=2)