This is a thing that I’ve seen constantly in fiction, a conspiracy to kill/incapacitate both the President and the Vice President in order to allow the third in line of succession to take over, almost always somebody from the opposing political party to the President.
These fictional works take it for granted that a line of succession in this case would go seamlessly which is always the reason for the plot, but realistically what would it happen if the Republican Presidency was taken out and a Democrat was Speaker of the House? Or vice versa? Would the opposing party just allow the opposing party to take the Presidency in time of national emergency? What road blocks could be put in place by the party in charge of the executive branch to prevent this from happening?
One thing to consider is the Vice-President becomes President while everyone after them in the line of succession become acting President. What exactly the difference is I don’t know.
OK, but the OP said both the president and vice president are taken out, so the VP becomes a moot matter..? The Speaker of the House would, presumably, immediately be sworn in as president.
The acting president IS president for all intents and purposes.
That said, there is only so much any president can do in a short amount of time (this assumes the president or VP will be able to resume their roles in some short amount of time…a few days say). Especially without the support of the congress (although Trump is certainly testing those limits).
But, they could certainly do things like pardon people and I think that would not be something that could be reversed.
Executive orders could be undone when the president resumes office. Or, congress could fight those and/or court cases would be brought and temporary restraining orders would be issued and nothing much would happen before the VP or president resumed their roles.
If the VP and president are completely out then that person is president till the term ends.
Though, in the case of the OP’s scenario, we can assume that at least one of the two bodies of Congress (the House) is of the opposition party to the elected President and Vice-President; that would tend to suggest that Congress, as a whole, would not be likely to attempt to undo the Speaker / acting President’s executive orders.
That was my point. No he doesn’t. He becomes acting President, not the President. What is the difference becoming President and acting as President? One is that someone higher on the list can bump you if they want.(Section 2).
The Constitution doesn’t quite say that the VP becomes President either. It says the VP takes on the powers and duties of the President.
Back in the 19th century, this was a big deal when William Henry Harrison died - some argued that Tyler was the President, while others that he was the acting President until a new election could be called. Tyler simply asserted that he was really the President, and people eventually accepted it, leading to the current accepted policy. If the situation came up with someone else in the line of succession, he or she would surely assert their complete legitimacy but others would disagree.
True, but there isn’t much that a Senate can do, on its own, to directly oppose a President and a House of the opposite party (with the notable exception of confirming political appointees), other than getting in the way.
Yeah…an “acting president” is just keeping the seat warm till a person higher on the ladder (VP or president) can resume their role. You become the actual president when no one can replace you till the term is up and another election happens.
That said, the acting president has all the powers of the presidency while they are keeping that seat warm.
Is there really any important distinction between “Acting President” and someone who is actually sworn in? I know there are administrative details like, they can’t use the title of President, they wouldn’t be numbered as “48th President” or whatever (unless they later won an election), and likewise their term wouldn’t count toward the term limit of a future Presidential term.
Apart from that, they’re President for all practical and legal purposes.
The OP is talking about a situation where nobody can do that, though.
Not correct unless it’s a sworn-in VP. Anyone else is the acting President for the duration. Which for practical purposes means they have all the powers and duties thereof, but don’t get officially titled as such (plus a couple of other technical differences)
Most of the government died and the head of Housing & Urban Development, way down the line, took over. I think there was an election a few episodes in too.
The OP blurs the case between the Prez & VP being killed or being temporarily incapacitated.
If they’re both dead, the speaker becomes by title the “acting president”. But by law they’re fully the president in all regards until the next regularly scheduled election. As they say in the law biz, it’s a distinction without a difference.
OTOH, if prez or VP are alive, but incapacitated, then everything gets murky. As discussed in this other recent thread:
And equally clearly, there are two different USAs and constitutions and laws in effect. The one that existed up until a couple months ago, and the one that exists now. For any political hypothetical question we need to specify whether we’re dealing with the pre- or post- Jan 2025 version of the USA. Those two eras’ governmental arrangements have little in common now beyond the window dressing and less all the time.
An “acting president” is someone holding the seat while waiting for the president to be able to resume their duties (e.g. while the president is undergoing surgery and in the hospital recovering).
This is not the case in a succession (e.g. the president dies or resigns or is impeached and removed from office). If succession occurs that new person is “president” in all ways. If Trump is #47 that successor would become president #48.
For example, Gerald Ford was the 38th president of the US after Nixon resigned.
Because Ford was Vice President. Per the 25th Amendment, the VP is the only office eligible for automatic succession to the office of Vice President if the President dies, resigns, or is removed from office. When Nixon resigned, Ford immediately became acting President, and the 25th Amendment required that he be formally sworn into the office of President. That happened, so he officially became the 38th President.
For everyone else in the line of succession, as acting president they will succeed to the powers and duties of POTUS, but not to the actual office of President. It would be like the case where a President was temporarily incapacitated, and the VP automatically became acting President, but wouldn’t formally hold the office, wouldn’t be called “Mr. President”, would presumably still be expected to fulfill the duties of their elected or appointed office. At least that’s my reading of things.
What does this really mean? Just that they are not (say) president #48? Is there anything else they lack compared to the full-blown president?
Let’s say Air Force One crashes and kills the POTUS and VP one week after taking office. (Now I’m on a watch list somewhere)
Are you saying that the Speaker of the House (#2 in the line of succession behind the VP who is also dead) would only be “acting president” for almost four years?
Does that mean that the Speaker turned acting president does not incur the two term limit restriction so could, in theory, serve for three terms legally as president since the first term was only “acting” president?
I do not know but seems weird to me. I’m pretty sure the Speaker becomes the actual president (#48 in this hypothetical).
Another goofy hypothetical: if the Prez and VP were both taken out…if the Speaker of the House only becomes acting President, does that mean he or she could theoretically take over the Presidential duties without resigning the Speakership?
Yes, that’s correct. The Constitution only says that the VP becomes President if the President leaves office. The situation in which both offices simultaneously become vacant is covered by statute law, currently the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and that statute does say that everyone below the VP would only be “acting” President, but this is a distinction without a difference AFAICT.
A somewhat more likely scenario: Let’s say the Democrats take control of Congress in the midterms, and Speaker Ocasio-Cortez becomes third in line to the Presidency. Subsequently, Trump chokes on a hamberder and Vance becomes President. He can’t appoint a new VP without the consent of both houses of Congress, which certainly will not be forthcoming. Until the next election, the Vice-Presidency would be vacant and the Democrats would be one unfortunate accident away from retaking the White House. In the short term, I would be overjoyed if this happened, but taking the longer view, it’s maybe not a great way to run a democracy.