Posted on 10/17/2006 1:11:16 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
The Washington Post, yesterday, posted a story raising questions about a House rules change that clearly delineates a line of succession should the Speaker of the House be unable to take his place as the third in line to succeed the president in a state of emergency or vacancy.
In keeping the the liberal mantra that the Republican leadership is the most "secretive" ever, the Post seemed worried that the House rules change is somehow a danger to American democracy because the persons chosen by Speaker Hastert to succeed him has not been made public knowledge.
The Post's story over this rules change is filled with foreboding, doubt and dread over a possibility that is remote at best as well as a list that is simply perfunctory.
In a little-noticed action taken nearly four years ago, the House amended its rules dealing with the "continuity of Congress" in emergencies and the succession of speakers. The rule, cited recently in Roll Call, directs the speaker to "deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore... in the case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker."But, this "little-noticed action" is merely a way to confirm who should follow Hastert (the Speaker of the House) in case he is incapacitated or otherwise unable to fill the position after the president and the vice-president should be found equally incapable to fill their own roles.
Still the Post worries:
But the rules revision made in January 2003, in response to worries about terrorist strikes that could wipe out large numbers of elected officials, appears to bestow upon a newly named replacement all the powers enjoyed by a full-time speaker elected by his peers.One thing is certain: The identity of the speaker-in-waiting is a closely held secret.
What is the big deal?
Further, why is it that the Post finds it so odd that, in this day of world-wide terrorism, the Speaker is not too fired up about making his list -- a list that could make targets of those contained upon it -- public? Is that such a shock to democracy? Especially since such an occurrence would be quite remote anyway, the whole list idea being only a contingency, a just-in-case, plan?
Then we get to the typical legalese that lawyers love to wrangle with.
Perhaps the biggest question, some lawyers say, is whether a House speaker -- full time or pro tempore -- can assume and keep the presidency under any circumstance. A statute, not the Constitution, lists the speaker's place in the line succession.It should be noted that lawyers didn't even apply the Constitution without a fight in the case of lines of succession in our past! They about took vice-president John Tyler to the Supreme Court when he grabbed the reigns of power from the deceased William Henry Harrison in 1841. Even though it seems that the Constitution placed the VP as second in line, many legal-eagles then in Congress wanted to cut Tyler out of his position as second in line for the presidency over a parsing of the Constitution claiming that it didn't explicitly state that the VP should automatically take over should a president fall.A case can be made that no one in Congress qualifies as an "officer" eligible to assume the presidency under Article II of the Constitution, said Neil Kinkopf, a professor of law at Georgia State University. The question may never be settled, he said, because the Supreme Court would take it up only if a speaker became president and someone challenged the action in court.
So, along with its claims of "secret" government lists and unclear Constitutional direction, the Post gives us their "nightmare" scenario.
As for nightmarish constitutional what-ifs, Kinkopf said, "Imagine where the presidency falls not to the speaker, but to somebody on the speaker's secret list."Tyler settled that question by just plain DOING it! Still, the lawyers griped, just as they would if the Washington Post's "nightmare" scenario took place. We live in a lawyer's grips, after all. Of course, I'd suggest that we'd have far more "nightmares" to worry over than a secret list of names should we find that the three top men are unable to fill the role of leader of the country!
In fact, should all three of those men be down for the count, we might be relieved to find a successor was protected by a little secrecy.
So, other than fearmongering and pointless worrying, what exactly was the purpose of the Post's story?
It seems clear to me that the underlying notion was to paint Bush's administration as overly secretive and anti-democracy. What else could it be?
And don't forget, all those Haliburton dentention/re-education centers being built in the basements of Wal-mart stores....
This is all too arcane to be worried about unless someone knows or suspects someone on Hastert's list is unpalatable to the D.C. elite. Who might it be? Rumsfeld? Gingrich? DeLay? The ghost of Strom Thurmond?
Hmmm....the Constitution was a little vague on that one if I recall. After all, (ANd correct me if I'm wrong since I 'm not an American and my knowledge is not firsthand though I'm sure I read it somewhere) weren't the VPs for the first 25 years or so automatically the second highest polling candidate? In which case, you can see good reasons why the VP should not be 2cnd in line cos it gives them a reason to bump off the winner fom the rival party. Think VP Gore to a Bush presidency!
So wonder what exactly it is they think President Bush has held secret they have a need to know? Is the MSM pressing them hard for another round of leaks?
All you need to know is that Nancy Pelosi is third in line should the Democrats take control of congress.
If that doesn't scare Americans, they we are dumber then we appear to be.
What the action does is create a circumstance where it won't be clear who is the President. Not good. The mistake was perhaps in giving any Congressional officer the power to become President.
LOL - Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
Where is Al Haig when you need him? I thought the Sec of State came after Speaker of the House.
shhhhhh... we were told at the last meeting NOT to talk about those!
LLS
The Dem's worst nightmare: the obscure, never-exercised "Castro Solution" where the governor of Florida assumes the Presidency.
LOL!
ping
It doesn't even need to have anything to do with terrorism... it is prudent that such a list be kept quiet so that you don't have to deal with ruffled feathers of politicians who think (or at least, want their home voters to think) that they should be higher on the list.
All thought all of this was settled on Battlestar Galactica.
((And don't tell anyone that we decided in our meeting that Karl Rove is 2nd in line behind Hastert))
I just love attending meetings of the VRWC, heh heh.
They are being built because KKKarl Rove told Bushitler that music was "of the devil" and now, if you have bought a CD or listened to the radio during the last 6 years, Bushitler wants to imprison you until you accept Jesus, declaire your loyalty to both Christ and George Bushitler and renounce wicked secular music...
(I honest to God had a moonbat explain this to me in great, wild eyed detail. He also explained how George Bushitler was personally monitoring his phone calls...)
I didn't tell EVERYTHING! Just enough to make them scratch their empty, wooden heads and scramble for more tinfoil....(it's more fun that way!)
Besides, I used to work for Walmart, it's my job to know more than everybody else...(wink wink nudge nudge).
What a lot don't know now is the USPS is collecting names of all that subscribe to leftist, liberal materials, and submitting them to Rove for processing. I know, I work for the USPS.
BEWARE YOUR MAILMAN!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.