Posted on 06/07/2007 11:32:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Since September 11, 2001, the speaker of the House has been required for security purposes to take government planes for official business. The White House rightly called "silly" recent criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desire to have a plane that could fly to her San Francisco district nonstop, which would be larger than the plane her predecessor used. But this flap raises a more serious issue--that of presidential succession.
Pelosi takes a military plane because the speaker of the House is second in line to succeed the president, behind only the vice president. That's what drove the Department of Homeland Security to demand the extra level of security for then-Speaker Dennis Hastert. But should the speaker of the House even be in the line of succession?
Who succeeds a president (after the vice president) is set by law, not fixed in the Constitution. The process has been addressed seriously three times. In 1792, Congress put the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House, in that order, in the line, behind the vice president. It added no others. After the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, there was a lengthy period with no vice president and no congressional leaders--and therefore no one in line to succeed President Chester Arthur. An 1886 act took out the lawmakers and put in Cabinet officers, starting with the secretary of state.
The terrorism threat to Washington underscores a deeper problem--everyone in the line of succession resides in Washington.
In 1946, President Harry Truman, who had recently taken a dangerous trip to Potsdam with his secretary of state and was aware that with no vice president the line of succession was thin, pushed hard for a new order. The act was revised in 1947 to put the two top lawmakers back in and included after them members of the Cabinet in order of the creation of their offices.
We still have that process today.
When the Second Congress enacted the first presidential succession act, it was highly controversial. Congress was dominated by Federalists; they did not want Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, a leader of the rival Democratic-Republican Party, to be next behind the vice president. They turned to their own congressional leaders, a solution that was immediately challenged by James Madison, among others, as unconstitutional.
The Constitution says Congress can create a line of succession from among "Officers" of the United States, clearly meaning executive branch officials. But it also says that no one except the vice president shall serve simultaneously in the executive and legislative branches. The congressional majority brushed aside that argument. But it is a position accepted by most constitutional scholars.
Truman knew the constitutional arguments, but he believed strongly that more legitimacy came to a president who was not elected if that person had been previously elected to another office; thus, the top congressional leaders, national figures both, were restored to primacy (with the order reversed to mollify the more powerful House leaders of the time, Sam Rayburn and Joe Martin.) The constitutional issues, and any serious questions about the overall process, were pushed to the back burner and have remained there since.
But having congressional leaders in the presidential line of succession is wrong for more than constitutional reasons.
First, congressional leaders frequently are of the opposite party and viewpoint of a president; if a president and vice president were to die at the beginning of a term, the country would have four years of a president representing the opposite of what it voted for--a situation made even worse if the change in direction came as a result of a terrorist action. Southern pro-slavery insurgents actually plotted to kill everyone in the line of succession to Abraham Lincoln to change the policy and political direction of the Union.
Second, congressional leaders have a built-in conflict of interest. When Andrew Johnson was impeached by the House and tried in the Senate, he escaped removal from office by one vote--and among those who voted against him was the Senate president pro tempore, Benjamin Wade of Ohio, who would have succeeded Johnson had he been ousted.
The president pro tempore of the Senate, traditionally the most senior member of the majority party, poses another problem: He is usually the Senate's oldest member. For several years, Strom Thurmond, in his 90s and clearly not up to the job of president, was nonetheless third in line for the post.
The terrorism threat to Washington underscores a deeper problem--everyone in the line of succession resides in Washington.
A suitcase nuclear bomb downtown or an attack at a presidential inauguration could wipe out everyone in that line and leave a vacuum in leadership at the worst possible time.
A better option would be to include top Cabinet members, such as the secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense, and then allow a president to designate several others--all requiring Senate confirmation--including qualified people of breadth who reside outside the capital area.
It won't be easy for Speaker Pelosi and President Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd to agree to take themselves out of the succession queue. Doing so--while pushing for a meaningful update of presidential succession overall--would be a great act of statesmanship. It would even be worth keeping the military plane.
1) The US should be divided into 9 or more Federal Districts and the heads of the departments should be spread across these districts. Video conferencing can keep the districts in touch with their offices as well as in contact with the President and Congress
2) I’ve always thought the succession should be Pres, VP, then go to a States Congress of Governor's who would like the prime minister model, elect from themselves the person who would run the nation until the next presidential election. That person would NOT be eligible to run for the office of President during that election.
but hey, who listens to me?
Interesting bump!
I also think the line of succession should run through the Cabinet officers. I don’t see the big deal since they are confirmed by the Senate (an elected body). It makes no sense for it to run through the Legislative branch.
Federal districts already exist, this is nothing new. What is new is moving the heads of the departments out of Washington.
Which doesn't make them a good thing. The "federal district" idea is just another step from those who wish to dismantle federalism, and minimize or eliminate the states. They were, and are, a bad ideal
A better option would be to include top Cabinet members, such as the secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense, and then allow a president to designate several others—all requiring Senate confirmation—including qualified people of breadth who reside outside the capital area.
So this moron proposes non elected Officials should be in the Chain of Command/Chain of Succession?
W
Why not? Its not like Nancy Pelosi’s idiotic constituents deserve to pick a potential President. At least Cabinet members were approved of by the legitimate President.
Not sure if you are objecting to ALL non-elected officials, or just the idea of those not in the cabinet.
Realise that the VP can be replaced by appointment/confirmation, after which they can become president without being elected. President Gerald Ford took that route. So if he’s a moron, he’s joined by those who put the current law in place.
I wouldn’t mind a new way of doing this, but I think if the person put in as president was not the VP, there should be a special election scheduled within 90 days to vote for a successor to fill the remaining term. That would be a fun election.
Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a rule that passed succession under such circumstances to the latest remaining former President, to serve without replacing any personell other than personal aides. The Presidency is too complicated to throw just anybody into it, and a former president would know his way around. And without replacing people, he would be a caretaker, but would (by virtue of previous election) have some legitimacy if we needed to go to war.
Ford was specifically appointed for the Position as Vice President.. By the House Speaker who was the direct successor to the President and confirmed by the House for the Job..
That is a far cry from allowing the President to appoint a Member of his Cabinet. That is just too incestuous, the kind of thing Coups are made from..
But I am open to learn so thank you for making me think things out and look further even if in this case they support my current position.
W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford
On October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned. According to The New York Times, “Nixon sought advice from senior Congressional leaders about a replacement. The advice was unanimous. ‘We gave Nixon no choice but Ford,’ House Speaker Carl Albert recalled later”.[31]
The Fords and the Nixons in the White House Blue Room, following President Nixon’s nomination of then-Representative Ford to be Vice President, October 1973
The Fords and the Nixons in the White House Blue Room, following President Nixon’s nomination of then-Representative Ford to be Vice President, October 1973
Ford was nominated to take Agnew’s position on October 12, the first time the vice-presidential vacancy provision of the 25th Amendment had been implemented. The United States Senate voted 92 to 3 to confirm Ford on November 27, and on December 6, the House confirmed him 387 to 35.
How about if we were to extend the Civilian Chain of Command down to the State Governors. The House could appoint and ratify a couple of them say a Republi-Con and Demon-Crat
based upon majority and minority position, President & Vice President in waiting? They would still be an elected official and the Military could refer to them if everyone in Washington took a long nap..You would not have to brief them overmuch on classified stuff just keep a place where they can be taken to bring them up to speed and things back under civilian control.. Here’s one aspect I like about it.. They could only come to Washington when their parts of the Chain of Command were elsewhere.. That should convince the biggest shots they do and don’t want the job... Interesting problem huh.
I don’t like the Governors but I think they would be a better choice than anyone in a Cabinet Position.
I just don’t like the cabinet appointment idea at all.
W
You are just talking about the method Nixon chose to ensure he’d get a VP. Of course he was “appointed”, that was the whole point, he was appointed, not elected, and he became President.
The procedure is if the VP is removed from office for any reason, the President appoints a new VP, subject to a confirmation vote by the Senate.
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.