Presidential Line of Succession Examined

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- Congress should take its leaders out of the presidential line of succession to prevent a speaker of the House from using impeachment to put himself in the White House, two Senate panels were told Tuesday.

In a time of national crisis, there shouldn't be a fight over who the next president should be, said John Fortier, executive director of the private Continuity of Government Commission.

The Constitution specifies that the vice president succeeds the president but says only that Congress should name an "officer" to assume the presidency if both president and vice president are unavailable. In 1947 Congress put the House speaker and the senior member of the majority party in the Senate immediately behind the vice president on the succession list.

Fortier said that some House Democrats looked to the 1947 law during the Watergate scandal as a vehicle for taking the White House away from President Nixon.

more.............

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-presidential-succession,0,5812566.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[NashVegas]

1. Well Heck, Let's Just Do Away with the Legislative Branch Altogether

And make King George happy.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. If the President's brother is unable to serve, the acting CEO of Exxon

or maybe Halliburton.

[rocktivity]

5. The looked at changing the native-born American rule, now this?

Uh oh...what's Karl Rove's job title?


rocknation

[dflprincess]

7. But changing that provision would take an amendment

which 2/3 of the states must approve.

[BigLed]

10. No, I don't believe so

from the article

"With the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, Congress put the House speaker and the senior member of the Senate's majority party immediately behind the vice president in the succession. The secretary of state follows, and other members of the Cabinet follow according to the date their offices were established."

So it could be changed by Congress, with a presidential signature of course.

[R Hickey]

16. No, because they would just pass the law, then put their man in, then

deal with the unconstitutionality of it afterward. Since they'd own the court, the problem would quickly disappear.

[amazona]

3. why are they sweating this?

Can we hope this means a Cheney arrest is not far away?

[Paschall]

9. Cardiac or handcuffs? (eom)

[Nottingham]

4. I see Bush rewriting our Constitution! Republicans just say YES

Maybe they are not sure of the Speaker of the House

:bounce:

[mth44sc]

6. Well Newt

certainly dreamed of doing in both Clinton and Gore and taking over the big chair - so says Syndney Blumenthal in "The Clinton Wars"

[Whoa_Nelly]

8. Well, well...

Has this issue been brought up because there is a real possibility of impeachment on the horizon?
(fingers crossed and hoping!)

[dusty64]

11. Curious.

Wonder what the repigs are up too and why they are suddenly concerned about this. Do they sense the possibility of chimp/crashcart resigning or being impeached? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[BiggJawn]

12. Are they just jerkin' their brains, or are they woried about something?

I heard this the other day.
Honestly, I think there would be a better chance of Bug Man getting the Joint Chiefs to help him with a military coup.

They knock-off TinMan, or he resigns while he still can, and the Congress is goint to bring forward Articles of Impeachment and get a ruling on them before Karl can appoint a new vice-king? I don't think so.

[Rose Siding]

13. Suppose...

...there were another pres election with the "fix" in. Suppose the people catch on. It might be more difficult to rig enough Congressional elections to hang on to power. An opposition Congress would be a threat.

I love the smell of my own tin foil in the morning :scared:

[dusty64]

14. They DO seem to

be afraid of something (as they should be). Maybe they sense the backlash that they richly deserve.

[trogdor]

15. There was a good reason...

...for setting up the line of succession this way. Nevertheless, it would be a good idea to amend the Constitution to require special elections within, say, 90 days of the adbication of the President.

[emad]

17. Harry Truman knew his life was in danger....

and the resulting provisions for upholding the status quo cater for the unforseen and unexpected.

[pschoeb]

18. Here's web page for Continuity of Government Commission

Here are there other proposals - this was formed by the AEI and Brookings Institution. It's goal is to come up with ideas for continuity in case of a disaster or attack, so why the concern about impeachment which has nothing to do with either?

http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/proposals/proposals.html

Many seem to give governors the ability to appoint replacements to Congress if large numbers are killed.

Patrick Schoeb

[carpetbagger]

19. Smells like constitutional idiocy.

The Clinton and Johnson impeachments demonstrate that the President can be removed if hated by 2/3 of Congress, period. I'm not certain that the founding fathers would have considered that an inappropriate check on executive power. It's not as if Congress is some body that is composed completely independently from the political forces that cause presidents to win elections. Look at Al Gore's coattails in 2000 :) .

That having been said, the Speaker of the House makes more sense as a replacement than any cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretaries are chosen based on specific skills. Rumsfeld wages war, Ashcroft rounds up dissidents, Snow hemorrhages jobs, Powell does something. This was even more true in the Clinton administration regarding the senior cabinet positions. These guys did well at their jobs, but there'd be a definite learning curve for a Reno or Rubin suddenly in the presidency. As painful as it's been for me to watch Wes Clark and Howard Dean speak bluntly and give complex but sensible answers only to get Gored by press members who don't listen to anything beyond what they can soundbite in a sentence, they have time to master the curve. Dean's starting to do it, and Clark's going to get it at some point, hopefully soon.

In the end, the GOP joined in riding Nixon out of town because they were able to get a replacement for VP, and I'd expect the same thing if, say, Clinton and Gore were removed from office. But for a longstanding rule, which is likely to benefit neither party over the long run, I think the congressional leaders are better replacements, so long as the President Pro-Tempore position isn't doled out based on age.