Just to muddy the water ;):
If the VP becomes acting President (e.g. when Reagan was in surgery Bush was acting President) does his plane become Air Force One?
It becomes Air Force 1.5 
I think part of the issue might be that Beau Biden doesn’t want to be an appointee and then run as an incumbent, for the sake of appearance. He doesn’t want to be a Lisa Murkowski.
I’m aware of all of this. There are several means by which a Vice President’s term of office can end: death, resignation, impeachment, being replaced by a new Vice President being sworn in, or being sworn in as President. And the 20th Amendment apparently created a new one: the Vice President’s term of office automatically ends on Inauguration Day. But in the scenario I described, none of these would have happened. So why would his term end? Was there any law that specified the automatic end date of a Vice Presidential term prior to 1933?
yes - the Constitution, Article II, s. 1:
So that’s where the four year term comes from.
The 20th Amendment didn’t set the four year term - it merely set a new date for the four year terms of the POTUS and the Veep to end:
The Amendment simply says when “the terms” shall end - it doesn’t say that their terms are for four years. The four year term continues to be governed by Article II, s 1. The purpose of the Amendment was to reduce the lengthy “lame duck” period. The terms used to end in March, because Washington was first sworn in in March.
I believe the policy is that during times when the President is incapable of functioning as President (like in surgery), the VP (Acting President) is kept out of risky situations (like flying around in planes).
I seem to recall reading that Johnson was in a waiting room at Parkland Hospital with other officials, when the military officer carrying the briefcase of nuclear codes exited the Emergency Room where Kennedy was and walked into that waiting room. And at that moment, prior to being informed by the doctors, they knew that JFK had died.
Whether LBJ was legally President at that time or not, clearly the military saw him as the new Commander-in-Chief, and were willing to obey his orders.
Does US law recognise the distinction between mandatory and directory statutory requirements?
In Anglo-Canadian law, the courts have held that even when a statute directs that some formal step be taken , such as swearing an oath of office, a failure to meet that requirement does not mean the officer’s actions are void. It’s simply an irregularity. The courts focus on the substance , not formalities: was the person lawfully the office-holder? If so, a failure to swear an oath of office doesn’t invalidate his or her actions.
As Cliffy points out, the death of the President may trigger a crisis. Do you really want the Constitution’s oath requirement to mean that in a crisis, there is no President capable of giving orders to the military and the civil service, until the formality of an oath has been fulfilled?
Depending on the circumstances in which the President is incapacitated, flying around in an airplane might be the safest place for the Vice President to be. After the 9-11 attacks, when Bush was hustled off to a safe “undisclosed location”, for most of the time, that location was Air Force One itself.
Obviously, this wouldn’t be the case for a scheduled downtime like a surgery, but if a 9-11 style attack were to leave the President injured and comatose, they probably would take to the air, and likely with the President and VP in different aircraft (to prevent decapitation if one were shot down).
The 20th Amendment did what you say it did in your first sentence. However, the appointment of VPs to midterm vacancies had to wait until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Before then, it was generally thought that the new President took office instantly upon the death or resignation of his predecessor; the 25th Amendment just made it clear. But Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 8 still provides, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation…” So you might be President, but you can’t do anything presidential until sworn in.
IIRC, the constitution is subject to Obama’s convenience.
could be wrong, though.
Yes, you are. On Jan. 20, he’ll swear the same oath to preserve, protect and defend it as all of his predecessors.
Please refrain from political jabs in the General Questions forum.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
But what about like a nuclear strike.
Suppose the president was killed in a nuclear blast. Obviously the VP would become president. But if he became president couldn’t exercise the powers of president till he was sworn in, how could he respond to the blast?
Swearing-in takes just moments. But you’re right, it just might be the least of his or her worries at the time.
I suspect the military wouldn’t really care, but it really doesn’t take that long to say that oath. Another poster has already pointed out that the extra ceremony of the Chief Justice et al. is not necessary.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Gotcha.
Sorry, all.
Except that the precedent of Calvin Coolidge says that only certain people can administer the oath of office to the Veep. Cal was staying with his dad when he heard that Harding had died. His dad was a notary public, and swore Cal in. Doubts were raised whether a state official could swear in a federal official, so Cal had a do-over, in front of a federal judge.
So if the pool of people who can swear in a President is limited, what happens during a crisis, and the Veep has been hustled to his “secure location”, and is told the Prez bought it, but there’s no-one in the location who has authority to swear him in? Does he say, “Well, you better contact the Speaker, since he’s acting President?” or does he say that he’s the President by succession and the operation of law, and will take the oath as soon as there’s someone able to administer it, but in the meantime, he’s prepared to govern?
Doubts were raised about Coolidge’s oath at the time, it’s true, but from what I’ve read the consensus today is that Coolidge’s father - a justice of the peace in Vermont as well as a notary public, IIRC - had the authority to administer oaths to any official, be he federal, state or local.
The likelihood of a new President being isolated somewhere with no one authorized to administer oaths - the Secretary of State, for instance - is very, very slight. Commissioned officers of the military are authorized to administer oaths, aren’t they? They do when new soldiers, airmen, sailors or Marines are inducted into their respective services, so why not the new CINC? In a crisis such as you describe, there’s bound to be a commissioned officer (or many) around. I suppose it could even be done by phone.
Let’s hope we never have to find out.
Hadn’t thought of the military angle - I believe officers in the Canadian Armed Forces are authorized to administer an oath, so should have realized that US officers would be able to as well. That certainly reduces the concern. Agree that I hope the issue never actually arises.
by the way, do you know if the mandatory/directory distinction I mentioned upthread is recognised in the US? I had to research it once, and all the references I found were either Canadian or British cases.