All of the president’s powers are phrased that way. There’s no point in ever having an acting president if they can do, quite literally, nothing.
Because an Acting President can execute the powers of the office without ever being an actual President.
Exactly. Article II, s. 1, clause 6, provides that if both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency are vacant, the officer designated by Congress can exercise the powers of the Presidency, without themselves becoming President:
Once you have a general clause like that in Article II, you don’t have to have a statement for each reference to a specific power of the Presidency, “Oh, and remember, the officer acting as President can exercise this power too.” The officer acting as President can exercise all the powers of the Presidency, such as vetoing bills, appointing officers, acting as commander-in-chief, and so on. Why would the powers under the 25th be something that the officer acting as President would be barred from using?
In the case of both the President and VP dying, then the disability cannot be removed and the Officer stays until the election of a new President. The selection of a new VP therefore would not make the VP automatically President.
That was why the PSA and the 25th Amendment tried to clarify the matter, although they seem to have mostly muddied the waters.
The issue always goes back to the meaning of “Acting President” in the PSA, for which there is no definition.
Mr Reagan was the exemplar. 
For a simple solution to the succession conundrum, petition Mr Kim to nuke DC when the principal players are in town. A whisk broom clears many cobwebs, or a hot drill drains the swamp, or whatever. Have pollsters charted opinions on just vaporizing the place?
In most states if 2 people die within 5 days of each other they are legally considered to have died at the same time. That may not matter but it could.
It varies by state, but AFAIK that’s only relevant to estate law. I can’t see how state inheritance laws would apply to federal Presidential succession.
If Trump dies and Pence goes into a coma, then Pelosi would become “Acting President”, since nobody above her in the succession is able to act as President. But if Pence then recovers from the coma, the disability has been removed, and he takes over as President.
If Trump and Pence both die, then the situation is the same as it was for Harrison’s VP: Pelosi now is the President, just like Tyler was, and remains so until a new President is elected (or until she resigns, or is impeached and removed, or ousted by the 25th amendment, or dies herself). Her nominating someone else as VP wouldn’t change anything, because it wouldn’t remove a disability: Pence is still dead, and the new person never had a disability.
Presumably, immediately after Pelosi resigned from the Speakership, the House would elect a new Speaker. If President Pelosi were unwilling or unable to appoint a VP (such as by one or the other house of Congress refusing to confirm anyone), and Pelosi’s presidency were to come to an early end, then that new Speaker would succeed.
Man, that knocks out a boatload of Ellery Queen stories.
You are quoting the Constitution as it existed prior to the 25th Amendment which provides for an appointment of a VP and its language that a VP becomes President.
A disability of a VP is removed by the appointment of a new one, no? The Vice President of the United States is an office. It is not Mike Pence. It is whoever the current officeholder happens to be. Why would #3 in line take precedence over #2 in line?
No, Pelosi is not “now the President, just like Tyler was…” The 25th Amendment states that the VP “becomes” president. The original Constitution and the 1947 PSA state that the downline officers only “act” as president.
It would be an odd construction of the 25th Amendment, enacted to ensure that a VP was in office at all times, even with an elected President not to apply when it is needed most: when there is no President or VP.
Right? Think of it. Trump dies, Pence becomes President. Under the 25th, we want him to appoint a VP to ensure continuity of government.
But if both Trump and Pence die, we don’t want anyone appointed? Or we want the 3rd in line, the Acting President, to remain? It goes against the text, intent, and spirit of both the 25th Amendment and the 1947 PSA.
What possible relevance could the 25th amendment have to Tyler’s succession from Harrison’s death?
The original Constitution, as was in force at the time of William Henry Harrison’s death, said that the Vice President would act as President in the event of the President’s death. Tyler is universally accepted to have been the President, completely and without reservation. This is precedent that the phrasing “act as President” means that the person in question becomes President.
Yes, of course I was because I was responding to Northern Piper who quoted that section.
I must have been aware that that clause had been superseded because I went on to say:
How is that confusing?
Stated above: The VP has never been considered an “Acting President” although prior to Tyler some argued that he should be considered one. However it is indisputable now, due both to the Tyler precedent and the 25th Amendment, that the Vice President becomes the full president whereas the Speaker and any downline officers only “act” as president.
Because you argued that as the Prez and VP were dead then their disability could not be removed and cited the original Constitution. The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for appointing a new VP, thereby removing any disability, and making what you cited no longer a complete statement of the current law.
Sorry for the triple post:
When Bush underwent his colonoscopy and handed power over to Cheney for several hours, do you contend that he became President of the United States?
If not, why should Pelosi be considered the President of the United States instead of Acting President under the circumstances discussed in this thread?
Death is different from disability.
Right, in the same way that President is different from Acting President. Also in the same way that the office of Vice President of the United States is not “Mike Pence.”
Even before Tyler, there was understood to be a difference: If a vice president succeeded, they were expected to serve out the whole term. If someone else succeeded, that was seen as a temporary situation that needed a faster resolution, so there would have been an early presidential election, for a brand new four year term. The early election provisions were done away with in 1886, when someone realized that having presidential terms out of sync with congressional terms would be inconvenient, but the idea briefly came back in 1974 when there was a slim possibility that Carl Albert would have to act as president.
Gotta ask for a cite. I think you may be misremembering Lincoln’s Blind Memorandum: https://www.friendsofthelincolncollection.org/lincoln-lore/lincolns-strangest-document-the-blind-memorandum-of-august-23-1864-by-allen-c-guelzo/