# US Presidential Succession exhaustion **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 22, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623 "2004-10-22T17:05:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/21 "2004-10-22T20:10:51Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > General Haig!? I was **wondering** where you’d disappeared to! 😉 I _will_ be in control here. ---
**Author:** ![SilentButDeftly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/0ea827/32.png) [@SilentButDeftly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SilentButDeftly)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/22 "2004-10-22T20:23:40Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > This brings up a very interesting question. Assume the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President pro tempore of the Senate are all killed in a tragic mah jongg accident (it was terrible–tiles flying everywhere). By 3USC19(d)(1), the Secretary of State becomes acting President. > > Later that afternoon, the House meets and selects a new Speaker. Does that new Speaker invoke 3USC19(a)(1) and take over as President, or is it too late? Is the Secretary of State already locked in? For all intents and purposes, the old Secretary of State (assuming he/she meets all the other requirements for the Presidency) is now President. If the House elects a new Speaker that afternoon, that new Speaker would only assume the office of the Presidency if any of the situations outlined in Amendment 25 come to pass. (The President: Dies, is otherwise incapacitated, steps down temporarily, resigns, etc.) ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/23 "2004-10-22T20:38:48Z")
> [@Ponder Stibbons](#): > > That would be Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 5, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” It doesn’t say anything about exceptions being made for how the person got to be President (i.e., either by election or succession). Looks like you are right. [http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop\_succ.html](http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_succ.html) And beyond the VP, the order of succession is determined not by the Constitution, but by law. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/24 "2004-10-22T21:26:57Z")
> [@Hadrian0117](#): > > Actually the although the House member can only be replaced through a special election, apparntly they changed their defination of a quorom after 9/11. No, they can’t change the definition. The definition of “quorum” is in the Constitution itself, Article I, Section 5: > [@](#): > > Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/25 "2004-10-22T21:30:20Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > No, they can’t change the definition. The definition of “quorum” is in the Constitution itself, Article I, Section 5: If one member of the House survives, then he meets the definition of a “majority”. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/26 "2004-10-22T21:51:33Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > No, they can’t change the definition. The definition of “quorum” is in the Constitution itself, Article I, Section 5: Ah, but is that a majority of _seats_, or a majority of _members_? In other words, do vacant seats count in determining whether a majority is present? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/27 "2004-10-23T02:35:35Z")
> [@Hadrian0117](#): > > After the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President _pro tempore_ of the Senate come the cabinet secretaries according to when their Dept was created. That’s **18** people total! Who would become Acting President if some catastrophe takes them all out? I know the House or Senate could elect a new Speaker/President but who would be in charge in the meantime? What if Congress couldn’t get a quroum? **paperbackwriter** ’s answer is correct (with the one exception below). But you may be interested in the thread [Presidential succession: The B List](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=175277), which asks: > [@](#): > > I recall reading that the Reagan administration had developed an extended list of presidential successors, in case a decapitation strike affected the President and all the constitutional and statutory presidential successors; I don’t recall seeing an actual list, but I do remember an article in The New Republic speculating that it included then-UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick. > > … > > These plans were momentarily prominent last year when The Washington Post ran a series on the “shadow government” that the Bush administration had beefed up after the September 11 terrorist attacks. And I still see occasional references that imply, but never spell out, a list of nonstatutory presidential successors. > > I could not find the actual text of PDD 67 online, or any other statute or regulation or executive order or directive that relates to presidential succession beyond the statutory successors, let alone an actual list of potential successors. Obviously there are good reasons why, if an enemy had successfully targeted the government’s 18 top leaders, we would not advertise who was Number 19. But in the chaos that would follow a successful decapitation strike, we would surely want clear lawful authority establishing who was in charge, lest the government dissolve into a muddle of military commanders and second-tier civilian leaders competing for primacy. At the very least there ought to be some mechanism for promptly calling Congress into session for the purpose of electing a new Speaker who would become a statutory successor under the Presidential Succession Act. Has anyone else seen or heard about a list of extra-statutory successors, or any documentary authority for such a list? > [@paperbackwriter](#): > > Two notes: > > 1. The list in (d)(1) has been slightly modified. The Sec of DHS was, I believe, added to the succession. The last full publication of the USC, from which the above was taken, was in 2000, and I don’t feel like looking for the supplements. Oddly, the Presidential Succession Act (codified at [3 U.S.C. § 19](http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/03C1.txt)) still does not include the Secretary of Homeland Security. The act establishing a new executive department customarily adds the department head to the line of succession at the end, so that (as **Hadrian0117** notes) the line extends through “the cabinet secretaries according to when their Dept was created.” But the act establishing the Department of Homeland Security omitted such a provision – through oversight, I am told by a friend who worked in the Attorney General’s office at the time, but who knows. There was some draft legislation in 2002 or 2003 that would have added the Secretary of Homeland Security to the line of succession, but not at the end – following the Secretary of Defense, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/28 "2004-10-23T02:42:49Z")
[Here we go:](http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2004_h/040127-simpson.htm) From remarks by Alan Simpson to the Senate Judiciary Committee: > [@](#): > > In practice, parliamentary rulings in the House and Senate, beginning during the Civil War, have defined the quorum more liberally than a majority of the members of each house. The quorum requirement in the House is now defined by precedent as a majority of the members who are “chosen, sworn and living.” The most significant aspect of the current interpretation for the purposes of continuity of government is the provision that only a majority of the living members needs to be present for a vote rather than a majority of the whole number of seats. So that even if a majority of the members of Congress were to be killed, a functioning quorum could still exist to do business. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/29 "2004-10-23T02:45:06Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > If I recall correctly, at one point succession law (it’s been changed a number of times over the years) included members of Congress according to seniority. I don’t know if it was Senate first then House, House first then Senate, or just the most senior member still standing. The Presidential Succession Act, originally enacted in 1792, has been amended three times. The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 listed the President pro tempore of the Senate, then the Speaker of the House, followed by a new midterm Presidential election. The Presidential Succession Act of 1886 eliminated the legislative successors, partly out of concern that they were not “officers” eligible for succession, in favor of the heads of the executive departments, in order of their establishment. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, shepherded by President Harry S. Truman, inserted the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate back into the line of succession, ahead of the executive-branch department heads. The 1947 Act is still the law today, although it has been amended whenever an executive department has been established (with the noteworthy exception of the Department of Homeland Security) or de-established (in the case of the Post Office Department). There was never a time when the line of succession included “members of Congress according to seniority,” unless you count the fact that the President pro tem is customarily the most senior member of the Senate majority. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/30 "2004-10-23T02:53:18Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > U.S. House of Representatives, [Rule I: The Speaker](http://www.house.gov/rules/RI.htm): > Quote: > (3) (a) In the case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker, the next Member on the list described in subdivision (b) shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore. Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end. > > (b) As soon as practicable after his election and whenever he deems appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore under subdivision (a). > > (c) For purposes of subdivision (a), a vacancy in the office of Speaker may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the office. This provision relates only to the Speakership pro tempore. The Speaker pro tempore _acts_ as speaker in the Speaker’s absence or when the Speakership is vacant, particularly for the purpose of presiding over the House of Representatives, but does not _become_ the Speaker. When the House is sitting and the Speakership is not vacant, but the Speaker is merely absent, several representatives may serve as Speaker pro tempore in short order: the Speaker’s chair is taken by the highest-listed representative under House Rule I(b) who is present in the chamber, who must yield the chair whenever a higher-listed representative appears. A Speaker pro tempore cannot become a Presidential successor unless the House actually elects him or her as the Speaker. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/31 "2004-10-23T03:05:38Z")
> [@jnglmassiv](#): > > Hmm. I’d have bet the farm that the Cheif Justice of the SCOTUS was on the list but I’d have been mistaken. > > Can an individual in the line of succession decline to take the Oath or are they automatically President (if those before him/her are unable) and then would have to officially resign? > [@Walloon](#): > > A person in the line of succession would automatically become president, provided that he or she was qualified to be president (native born, at least 35 years old, etc.). However, the Constitution requires the new president to take the oath of office before he can execute the office, i.e., do anything worth mentioning. The succession is _not_ automatic, and a statutory successor can decline the succession. The [Presidential Succession Act](http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-.html) provides that a statutory successor assumes the Presidency only after resigning the office by virtue of which he or she succeeds: > [@](#): > > (a)(1) … the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, _upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress_, act as President > [@](#): > > (b) … the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, _upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator_, act as President > [@](#): > > (d)(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President. A statutory successor can decline the succession by not resigning the office by virtue of which he or she could succeed. A brief stint as President may not be very appealing to a powerful Speaker or a very senior senator faced with the choice of abandoning a long and successful Congressional career in exchange for a few hours in the White House. The line of succession has never included the Chief Justice, or any other judicial officer. Several proposals for such an extension have been floated over the years, but none has been enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623/32 "2004-10-23T04:52:37Z")
> [@brianmelendez](#): > > The succession is _not_ automatic, and a statutory successor can decline the succession. That’s why I wrote, “provided that he or she was qualified to be president (native born, at least 35 years old, etc.).” Among the qualifications for the presidency is not holding simultaneously another federal office. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-presidential-succession-exhaustion/270623.md?page=1)