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?
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?
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, 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:
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.)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I also wonder how many people here have actually read Akhil Amar’s book on the Constitution, America’s Constitution: A Biography, 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.
