Actually, that’s not quite the way it works. The President may create temporary offices at whim. It takes Congress to make the office permanent (lasting beyond the end of the Congressional session) and, more importantly, to provide the appropriations to pay the salary of the office.
Article II. Section 1. “. . . the Congress may by Law, provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President . . .”
Seems pretty clear to me. What’s considered doubtful about that?
Since it’s a constituional crisis, would the Supreme’s step in with a legal ruling? Maybe decide one of their own oughtta be running things…
The Supreme Court would likely not dictate who would succeed to the presidency. This is a political matter and not subject to their jurisdiction.
And no, please don’t bring up the 2000 Florida election.
I must be tired. I managed to miss that, and I swear I looked through Article II. (I wonder where I got that from. I know I read something about that somewhere.)
The most interesting question I can think of in this situation is what happens when it is unclear whether the President is dead or not. Who gets to decide that the President is dead and that the Vice President has succeeded him? (I suspect that it’s Congress.)
Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 4:
- Rick
A few questions:
I see that National Security Advisor is not in the line of succession. So no Condi Rice or Henry Kissinger as President? I just ask because it seems like a relatively important position, but I am unsure if it is in the Cabinet proper.
This question is also compounded by a story I once heard about the Reagan assasination attempt or another time when succession was in question. Basically, while the President was incapacitated, someone took charge of a Cabinet meeting who was not supposed to – basically he stood up and said something to the effect of “I’m in charge now.” It was either the National Security Advisor or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, IIRC (which I don’t obviously). Does this story sound familiar to anyone?
Let me just say that I realize Henry Kissinger does not satisfy the requirement of being born in the USA.
The classic story, edwino, involves Gen. Alexander Haig, at the time serving as Secretary of State. During the chaotic time immediately following the attempt on Reagan’s life, Haig announced that, due to the Constitutional line of succession, until the Vice-President arrived, “I am in charge, here at the White House.”
Haig seemingly forgot about the Speaker and President Pro-tem of the Senate.
- Rick
SINCE NO ONE HAS PUSHED THIS THREAD TO ITS ILLOGICAL EXTREME…
It’s twelve years from now and a terrorist cell in a coordinated nuclear attack has just obliterated five American cities: Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles. The entire line of succession–including all cabinet secretaries–is dead.
So who serves as president? Could legitimate presidential elections be held in a post-attack scenario in which survivors are scrambling out of these major cities? Who coordinates and certifies the presidential and Congressional elections? Would the nation’s governors have some type of collective executive power?
If there’s a quorum of U.S. representatives left, no problem - they merely elect one of their own Speaker, and he becomes President.
If not, then the governors of the states may appoint interim congressional representatives, as they do in any vacant Congressional seat, and the new Congressmen proceed as above.
- Rick
Yes, I realize that, but he is only Acting President. Who decides when he becomes President? Who has the authority to declare the President dead? Note that while he is merely Acting as President, he cannot appoint a new Acting Vice-President. What happens if, while he is Acting as President, he becomes disabled but doesn’t die? Who decides that the Acting President is also disabled? The Twenty-Fifth Amendment doesn’t answer this question: there is no Vice President available to remove the Acting President.
Aside from the previously mentioned approach of rounding up (or generating) a quorum of Representatives, it is also possible for the States simply to declare the Union dissolved and (optionally) to form a new Union under a new Constitution. Remember that the States are sovereignties in their own right, although sovereignties subordinated to the greater sovereignty of the United States. If the United States is incapable of exercising its sovereign rule over the nation, it is not unreasonable for the States to return to their original role as fully independent sovereignties.
I was going to post about this, then seeing that Rick posted, I’ll add to it merely by saying who those individuals were who were ahead of Sec. of State Alexander Haig in the “in charge” line of succession. On March 30, 1981, the speaker of the House of Representatives was Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA). The President Pro Tempore of the Senate was J. Strom Thurmond (R-SC).
Even though he is not in the government currently, and he has some kind of Cable Access show, Al Haig would still be in charge. 
BTW, I never heard the “here at the White House” part. That’s interesting. It changes the dynamic of it a bit. Versus “I am in charge”, which sounds so much like a power move.
This only works for the Senate. According to Amendment XVII, in the case of vacancies in the Senate the state executive may be empowered by the state legistature to make temporary appointments “until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
House vacancies, however, can only be filled by election, not by appointment. I saw a discussion of this issue a few days ago in the Miami Herald. In light of recent events, some people have proposed a constitutional amendment to allow appointment of Representatives in case the number of vacancies rises above a certain threshold.
Regarding tsunamisurfer’s scenario, assuming the President, Vice President, entire Cabinet, entire Senate and House, and Supreme Court were offed simultaneously, the entire federal government could be reconstituted rapidly by a combination of appointment and succession, except for the House of Representatives and the Vice Presidency. The Senate can be reconstituted by appointment by the state governors. The Senate can then elect a President of the Senate pro tem, who would then succeed to the national Presidency. The new President can then refill the Cabinet and Supreme Court by appointment, subject to approval by the Senate. However, the House can only be reconstituted by election (although no doubt this could be expedited by the state governments), so no new laws could be passed until this took place. And unlike all other positions, an appointed Vice President has to be approved by both Houses, not the Senate alone.
What do you do for the states who have managed to lose their governor (and lieutenant governor, for those states where the lieutenant governor succeeds the governor in case of death or incapacity)? Remember that most state legislatures don’t even meet year-round.
D’oh!
I read that sentence…I really, really read it…I promise! I must’ve blacked out for the fraction of a second when my eyes were passing over the part about Ridge…
Well, then we’d really be in trouble. 
In a catastrophe so far-reaching as to wipe out the entire federal government, and the governors (and lieutenant governors) of 50+ states, I would expect we would see some sort of de facto government by surviving political and military leaders, at least temporarily, rather than anyone worrying about constitutional niceties. And until the Supreme Court is reconstituted, there would be no one to declare anything unconstitutional.
I’d wager two points:
First, the state legislatures are not needed to put in motion the election of the new Representatives. See Article I, § 2 of the federal Constitution:
So you need a functioning state executive officer, authorised under state law to issue the writs of election, whom I’m assuming would normally be the governor.
Second, I’m assuming that all of the states have provisions in their state constitutions and laws to provide for the succession to the governorships, just like the federal Constitution and laws provide for the succession to the Presidency. If so, even if the Governor and Lt. Gov. of a state get killed, the state’s constitution and laws would ensure that there is someone who can exercise the governor’s powers, including the power to issue writs of election for the House of Representatives, and appoint replacement Senators.
Let’s take the State of New York as an example, since it was the target of the original attack. Suppose that Gov. Pataki and the Lt. Gov. had been wiped out, along with the entire New York Congressional delegation. The New York State Constitution provides for the exercise of the Governor’s powers in such a case, similar to the federal Constitution:
[Note: it’s not quite the same as the federal system, since the governorship itself does not devolve, just the exercise of the governor’s powers until there’s been a new election, but it’s close enuff fer gov’t work.]
So, even if the entire Congressional delegation from New York, and the Governor, and the Lt. Governor, were all wiped out, under state law there is a chain of succession. There would be someone who would have the authority under state law to exercise the powers under the federal Constitution to issue writs of election for the Representatives and appoint replacement Senators.
You’d have to imagine a pretty significant disaster before all of the states would be in a position where they couldn’t replenish their congressional delegations. And if that were the situation, I imagine we would all have other things on our minds than constitutional niceties.