(US) Presidential succession question: What if the next in line isn't interested?

[Otto]

@Tom Tildrum

It occurs to me that the there have been times when a Vice President has (with consent), assumed Presidential powers – typically when the Preisdent has undergone a medical procedure involving anesthetic. I can’t imagine that an oath of office was administered to the VP on those occasions. That does seem to suggest that the oath is at least regarded in practice as symbolic.

But in these cases the Constitution specifies that the VP is acting as President, not the actual president.

[BJMoose]

@Little Nemo

When Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson felt it was important to take the oath of office as quickly as possible so that he was officially President in case the assassination was part of a wider attack against the government. So he seemed to feel there was a difference between being next-in-line for the Presidency and actually being President.

My belief is that nothing is official until somebody takes the Oath of Office. Up until then somebody might be acting in the capacity of President but it’s a temporary condition. Once they take the Oath, it’s official and they are the President.

And to answer the OP, I see no reason a person can’t decline the office.

Keep in mind that this was pre-Twenty-Fifth Amendment, when matters were less clear. There was a debate in some circles whether the Constitution intended for the veep to become President or acting President. John Tyler’s precedent (objected to by the usual suspects of his day) nominally settled the question for the former, but it was still open to debate.

In any case, the VPs who had previously succeded to the presidency all insisted in taking the oath ASAP. Given the circumstances and LBJ’s own insecurity in the situation, taking the oath was important for symbolic reasons, if nothing else (after taking the oath, no one could argue that he technically was not President).

It wasn’t until the Nuclear Age that we had to worry about the Vice President having full presidential authority the moment the President died.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Otto

But in these cases the Constitution specifies that the VP is acting as President, not the actual president.

In practical terms, does this make any difference? The full extent of presidential power still passes to the VP, right?