« Dick Morris Strikes Again
How To Get The Barney Gumble Vote »



The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

July 16th, 2008
By PATRICK EDABURN

Print Print

Slate has an article up today discussing the rumors of a ’secret’ executive order that would take effect if both the President and the Vice President were killed. They discuss a so called conspiracy by President Reagan in the 1980’s and speculate about a similar order being in force now.

Like most Slate articles it is heavy on paranoia and attacks on the evil Republicans while ignoring the issue of if anything happened during the Clinton years, though I doubt any such order ever existed. The Constitution is clear on giving Congress the power to pass a succession law and they have done so (most recently in 1947).

However, there is a real issue that does need to be addressed and it is one that is often ignored by the media and the Congress. This issue has to do with the fact that the current law is badly flawed and does not reflect the reality of the post 9/11 era

 Under the terms of the 1947 act if there is no President or Vice President the office next passes to the Speaker of the House, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and finally through the Cabinet in order of the date of creation of the Department.

Now to begin with I have to take some exception with including the members of Congress in the line. I understand that there was some logic in including elected officials rather than appointed ones, but the Speaker is only elected by the voters of one Congressional District out of 435.

Also I see the Cabinet members as perhaps better suited to serve as President since they are executive officers rather than legislative officials.  In addition they often reflect the views of the President more closely and since the voters selected him to lead, his or her views should prevail.

But I am realistic to the idea that if Congress is involved that they are going to put their stamp on things and can understand people wanting someone selected by voters serving.

But the next problem is not one I think we can continue to ignore. After the Speaker of the House the next person to serve is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This post is currently held by 90 year old Robert Byrd of West Virginia. If the Republicans were in charge the post would be occupied by 84 year old Ted Stevens of Alaska.

I have nothing against the elderly and know many senior citizens who have done some truly great things. But if we are dealing with a major crisis that resulted in the death of the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the House I am not sure we would want someone in their 80’s or 90’s to take over.

Obviously when this law was passed it was assumed that it would be very unlikely for even the Speaker to serve, but today that is no longer a reality. We need to have someone younger and ready to serve. I would personally prefer to remove any members of Congress from the line, but if we need to have a Senator I would prefer to see someone like the Majority Leader serve.

Or failing that we need to see the Senate change their rules and choose someone else for the post of President Pro Tempore. Currently it goes to the senior member of the majority party, but perhaps they could recognize that it a possible successor and choose someone more appropriate.

When Hubert Humphrey rejoined the Senate they created for him the post of President Pro Tempore Emeritus, an honorary position. They could revive this post for the senior member of the majority party and then select someone more appropriate for the PPT post.

I’m told that on occasion members of Congress surf by our little site. If someone happens to see this post, I’d love to see you do something about this problem.



This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm and is filed under Bush Administration, GWOT, At TMV, War On Terror, 2008 Elections, Congress, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Patrick, while I agree with your view that "Like most Slate articles it is heavy on paranoia and attacks on the evil Republicans" the underlying issue is fascinating.

    I did not know, for example, how often the line of succession has been changed in the history of the republic. Once, for example, the line was retained in the executive.

    You make a good point with regard to the need to revisit this law in the 9-11 climate...when taking out two just individuals could throw the government into chaos.

    Ironically, while Slate is obsessed with anti-GOP paranoia...I think the idea of a Speaker becoming president - with his/her years of control of a major part of the Legislative branch - combined with total control of the Executive branch is a far greater threat to the republic than Condi becoming president.

    Separation of powers is "separation" for a very good reason. Like the Roman republic, the Founders were suspicous of too much power in one person's hands.

    Sadly, the Slate article does not perceive this real threat of concentration of power...and focuses on paranoia about Bush. Ah well...

    But a fascinating problem nonetheless!
    • ^
    • v
    The line of succession has remained pretty much as it is today since 1792 with some jiggering and adjusting.

    It is important to note the political underpinnings of the original line. In 1792, with Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (yes, that was their name) at each other's throats, the Federalists did not want the Secretary of State to be at the top of the list of succession because Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State and the titular leader of the D-Rs. And so succession went to Congressional leaders after the veep.

    Some of my best friends are old, too, but I think age is an irrelevant determinant in whether there should be a new constitutional amendment. I also don't think the 9/11 "climate" is a good enough reason for a new amendment and concentration of powers concerns are a bit of a red herring even in the Age of Bush.

    The thought of a dingbat like Margaret Spellings, who is 13th in line as Secretary of Education, becoming president is scary, but the present system is adequate and whether the republic is thrown into chaos does not rest exclusively on who would become president in the event of accidents and/or deaths.

    Finally, getting a constitutional amendment passed about anything would be difficult. As it is, the Secretary of Homeland Security is technically 15th in line but would not be able to serve as president because a bill adding him to the line was never passed.

    I am confident that these questions will continue to be debated in political science classes but that will be about it. And should be.
    • ^
    • v
    What if

    What if the US congress was meeting and the Senate was meeting and the President and VP and the cabinet was meeting and someone slipped a briefcase Nuke into the city and took them all out.

    Whose in charge now?
    • ^
    • v
    One option would be to allow each president to name a list of successors (maybe ratified by the senate), and this list could even include the next-in-line. The plus side (for some moderates) would be to encourage more cross-partisan administrations. (For all the talk we hear these days, there's just no way anyone will ever pick a VP from another party, for example.)
    • ^
    • v
    I believe a more relevent issue was something in yesterday's New York Times that had me thinking of a few related things. The op-ed in the Times was the need for a better succession plan involving both the outgoing administration and the new, incoming administration. That would mean Obama and his VP and team spending much time being briefed on national-security matters (the reason the article said a better succession is needed) and in my own view, learning more, all about what is done in the White House and why.

    I chuckled to myself when envisioning Obama and his VP and team not only in the White House but at Crawford, and Obama and his team being met by obviously conservative Lynne Cheney (such as at the Vice Presidential mansion). Hee, hee.

    The article was accompanied by two illustrations depicting giving and receiving a baton and I thought of an appropriate illustration a new President Obama could use, or some of his fans, or the media: a white hand, in the rear, passing a red, white, and blue baton to a black hand, in front.
    • ^
    • v
    Just a couple responses to the comments so far.

    1. With regard to the order of succession, the only thing specified in the Constiution is the Vice President being 1st in line, the rest is set by federal law so the Congress can change it.

    2. As to the Obama campaign being briefed on foreign policy, the Bush administration has actually been giving McCain Obama and while she was in the race Clinton briefings for some time now.

    They have not made a major deal of it because both they (Bush) and the campaigns felt it was important to do it, not to get press for it.

    So actually Bush and Cheney have been doing what is right DLS.
    • ^
    • v
    That's respectful and respectable of Bush and Cheney.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Dick Morris Strikes Again
How To Get The Barney Gumble Vote »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.