# Presidential Succession



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

There is a thread going on Cheney's hotel accomodations. So as not to hijack that thread it seemed appropriate to address the issue of presidential succession separately.

Since there are a lot of conflicting opions on succession, it is instructive to review the actual process. There are a number of good sites on the subject.

Process was origionally established in 1792.
Changed by congress in 1886.
Changed again by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and signed into law by President Truman.
Until 1967, there was not a process in place for VP succession until 25th ammendment became law.

The First five officers in line to succeed a president are:
VP
Speaker of the House
Pres pro tem of the Senate
Secy of State
Secy of Defense
etc. if you are interested.

If Liberals regain control of Congress, and the Judiciary Committee, Sen Feingolds proposal would indicate that they will probably start the impeachment process.

It could be very interesting, and you can look at Sen Feingolds poroposal as a road map.
It will be difficult to establish the "Bush Lied" premise, since the testimony would call on George Tenent, CIA Director at the time. He was the one that responded to Bush's question "George, are you sure there are WMD in Iraq" with the answer, "I't's a slam dunk, Mr. President." (A holdover Clinton appointee, ergo, maybe not a neo con radical.)

They will have to take the approach that Bush used the FISA act improperly to mintior telecons between known terrorists outside of the US, and US citizens.

If that works, and Cheney is still around, he then becomes President.

That is why Libs were so gleeful about the process of Cheney's gunshot victim dying. If he was charged with manslaughter, they would have him out of the line of succession.



Carpe Diem


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I will throw in here the possibility that the current order of succession would be found unconstitutional. It is fairly evident that the wording used in the Constitution, Article II, section 1, para. 6, refers only to members of the cabinet and not to members of the Congress. Congress has the right to set the order, but not the right to inject themselves into it. 

The paragraph in question specifically says that Congress has the ability to set the order of succession among "Officers" of the government, which is defined in that section to exclude members of Congress. Thus, if the situation evern came up that both the Pres and VP were killed or impeached and removed from office, remember that they are seperate events, I'd imagine that there would quickly be a lawsuit brought to encourage the Supremes to make a judgement on this issue.

CT


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

The impeachment process, as Mr Hyde and company taught the world a few years ago, is 100% political - and 0% judicial. Therefore, no one would be fooled about any possible moral indictment - especially since ranking Democrats voted for the War and the Patriot Act (the very kernels of the likely charges).

To impeach Bush, one-half of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate must approve the Articles of Impeachment - and this seems highly unlikely, since not only must they get that many Democrats elected, but actually a margin above that, since there would inevitably be a few Democrats who would either vote against impeachment, or abstain - the latter actions either out of principle (ha!) or, most likely - to avoid stirring-up their moderate constituencies and losing their newly-acquired seats during the next election cycle. How many would really risk this merely to install a lame-duck, temporary President?

And unless the Democrats wish that Executive Vice President Cheney (aka Darth Vader) becomes the most powerful man in the country (_de jure_ instead of merely _de facto_), they must impeach him first - and then impeach Bush while there is still a vacancy of VP.

Naturally, since the Democrats will have attained a majority in the House before either of these events can take place, they would have previously elected a Democratic Speaker of the House, who would then become President. Such a man would have an incumbency advantage in the Democratic 2008 Primary, and this would be a very unfortunate situation for the other Democratic power-players and puppeteers who are seeking that office for themselves.

This is why I think that talk of impeachment is so much rhetorical sabre-rattling. It is just to fire up the Democratic base so that they will work hard and donate generously for the mid-term elections. Their best bet (which the leadership likely knows) is to let the Bush fiasco ride itself out, whilst working to win the office outright in 2008.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

CT:

Can you cut and paste the part of the Constitution you're basing your argument on? I'm just not seeing what you're saying.


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

You're quite right about the officer language in Article II. However, the Constitution does not define "officer", so I see no reason why the legislature, in which the power of succession is placed, cannot designate some of its own members as officers.



> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> I will throw in here the possibility that the current order of succession would be found unconstitutional. It is fairly evident that the wording used in the Constitution, Article II, section 1, para. 6, refers only to members of the cabinet and not to members of the Congress. Congress has the right to set the order, but not the right to inject themselves into it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> CT:
> 
> Can you cut and paste the part of the Constitution you're basing your argument on? I'm just not seeing what you're saying.


I agree with bosthist, CT. You may very well be right, but I don't understand. The process is a matter of law now, and it would seem that a constitutional ammendment would have to be enacted to overturn the present line of succession.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

From the other thread:

Posted - 03/24/2006 : 16:23:47 by Alexander Kabbaz 
Here, some fodder for the debate (my notes in italics):

_Presidential succession as a cohesive whole derives from Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the 25th Amendment thereto, and current statute, to wit: 3 USC 19. To answer a theory/question posed above, 3 USC 19 is quite specific: (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, *removal from office*, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President ...

The original Constitution provides that if neither the President nor Vice President can serve, the Congress shall provide law stating who is next in line. Currently that law exists as 3 USC 19, a section of the U.S. Code. This law was established as part of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. There, the following line of succession is provided:_

* Speaker of the House of Representatives
* President Pro Tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security (not yet set by law)

The only exception to the line provided in the law states that to ascend to the Presidency, the next person in line must be constitutionally eligible. Any person holding an office in the line of succession who, for example, is not a naturally-born citizen cannot become President. In this case, that person would be skipped and the next eligible person in the line would become President.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Intrepid:

Succession is set by law, not Constitutional amendment. A few years back there was a bill to add the Secretary of Homeland Security to the line, right behind the Attorney General. Still, given the XXth Amendment, I'm not sure how that law would be found unconstituional.

Edit: Alex makes the same point with more detail 30 seconds earlier than me. You win some, you lose some.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

This, from the 25th Amendment, is the only definition of "officers" I could locate. It seems quite clear, that if a decision were to be made by the Supreme Court, they would have to follow this reference which does offer Congress the power to designate what constitutes an "officer".

_"4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,"_

Corrections, anyone?

EDIT:
Search on, MacDuff:
https://www.usconstitution.net/

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote: Still, given the XXth Amendment, I'm not sure how that law would be found unconstituional.


 In which case, the Congress can impeach the Justices who voted that it was Unconstitutional [^]


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now _that_ I would love to see!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am trying really, really hard to invision 'liberals' gaining control of the House. Exactly how many third party or independants do you think have a good chance? Liberal is today what communist used to be, unless your learning about the Cuban sanctions on the TEEVEEE made by the PRC and yelling "Git er done!" in reference to anyone who isn't republican or disputes the Pan Islamist threat as something akin the The Reconquista of La Raza. If you think the party of Joe Lieberman is 'liberal' I have some wakey wakey pills bought online from Canada through a Nigerian.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I am trying really, really hard to invision 'liberals' gaining control of the House. Exactly how many third party or independants do you think have a good chance? Liberal is today what communist used to be, unless your learning about the Cuban sanctions on the TEEVEEE made by the PRC and yelling "Git er done!" in reference to anyone who isn't republican or disputes the Pan Islamist threat as something akin the The Reconquista of La Raza. If you think the party of Joe Lieberman is 'liberal' I have some wakey wakey pills bought online from Canada through a Nigerian.


 Yes. In practise, they are virtually without difference - which is why they must resort to the lowest kind of _ad hominems_ to get their followers fired up. Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly; Hillary Clinton, John Ashcroft. It is a high-stakes sport consisting of human lightning rods, money, propaganda, money, issue-baiting, money, stale cliches, money - and, not infrequently, lawsuits*. Tally-ho!

*unsurprising, considering how many players are members of the Bar. [xx(]


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

The American political scene is really fascinating, and the discussions that come from it are challenging as long as vitriol is not a part of the discussion.

Joe Lieberman was mentioned. Lets assume that Cheney had been forced to resign because his hunting accident had resulted in manslaughter charges. The President would have then been forced to chose a VP that could be confirmed by the Senate, as was Ford when Agnew was forced to resign.

It is a good bet that Sen Lieberman would have been appointed. He is a Democrat, and the Democrats would have been hard pressed to deny confirmation to the individual that they nominated as Al Gores running mate.

And yet, today, the Liberals are doing all they can to see that Sen Lieberman is defeated in his bid for re election in Ct. Their motivation is that Sen Lieberman came back from a trip from Iraq with the report that things were progressing reasonably well and that we should unite together to see the mission through to a successful conclusion.

Ergo, it is very hard to say that the Liberals are represented by one like Joe Lieberman that they are trying desperately to defeat. Interesting.



Carpe Diem


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

In my opinion there is absolutely no way Mr. Lieberman would have been appointed. None. There are many Republicans who could easily pass confirmation in the Senate. It would not be necessary, but if it came right down to it, McCain would easily pass confirmation. Never, ever would a Republican appoint a Democratic VP.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> CT:
> 
> Can you cut and paste the part of the Constitution you're basing your argument on? I'm just not seeing what you're saying.


Sorry this took so long, life intruded. 
The relevant bit of the Constitution is:


> quote:In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


Here, the term 'Officer' is used. In the Constitution, the phrase 'Officer of or under the United States,' or some variation thereof, is used pretty extensively. It is used only to refer to members of the executive & judicial branches of the government. The legislature is generally considered to be representivatives of the _people_ and not of the USA. Also, if you look at Article I Section 6:



> quote:No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.


It specifies that no member of Congress shall hold any Office under the US, sharply denoting a fundemental difference between officers of the US and members of Congress. To read the Constitutional Succession bits to include the Speaker and Pres Pro Tem, one would have to define 'Officer' differently in this section of the Constitution differently than it is defined anywhere else in the document.

Also, logically speaking, it makes more sense to read it to exclude members of Congress. The people, through their electors, chose an administration to take control of the executive branch, as defined by the president. Should the president and VP die, it would represent the original will of the people that the originally elected administration stay in power, rather than having the possibility that the other party could take over. Were this the case, the Congress could effectively nullify the will of the people simply by impeaching and convicting the President and VP and taking over themselves. But that's beside the point.

The order of succession is set by Congress, but I would argue that the Constitution only allows for them to chose from Officers of the US, and not from amongst themselves.

I hope this clears up what I meant in the first post. It's still early and the coffee in only just making it into my blood stream, so I hope I didn't miss too much.

CT

PS Here are two links, too (Warning, the first is long and a pdf):

https://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=914&wit_id=2603


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CT:

The passage which you cite has been modified by both the 20th and 25th Amendments. The 20th Amendment gives Congress the power to establish, by law, a chain of succession, which Alex posted it above. The language you cite remains in the Constitution but to my understanding is no longer operational.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.


 This is quite simply rectified by resigning one's legislative office prior to assuming an executive office.

I do recall this little bit of trivia: When I served on Community Board 8 in NYC, I was required to be cognizant of the NYC Ethics Code because I was an officer of the City of New York.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

AK,

Highly respected artisan and constitutional scholar? I detect the premise for a hit sitcom here! 

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The Republicans gained nothing with their ridiculous attempt to remove Clinton from office.

Sadly, I see little to indicate that the Democrats have learned from this mistake. They will only succeed in making themselves look petty.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> The President would have then been forced to chose a VP that could be confirmed by the Senate, as was Ford when Agnew was forced to resign.
> 
> It is a good bet that Sen Lieberman would have been appointed. He is a Democrat, and the Democrats would have been hard pressed to deny confirmation to the individual that they nominated as Al Gores running mate.


Bush would never appoint Lieberman. While Lieberman might agree with Bush on foreign policy, he is still a Democrat when it comes to many economic, labor, social and environmental issues.... all which are more important to the power players in the Republican party.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> The Republicans gained nothing with their ridiculous attempt to remove Clinton from office.
> 
> Sadly, I see little to indicate that the Democrats have learned from this mistake. They will only succeed in making themselves look petty.


I don't see the Democratic party making an attempt to impeach Bush - last I heard, only 31 house democrats have signed on. Nowhere near a majority.

There are always attempts to impeach. Only one party was stupid enough to actually get enough members to force the issue.

The Democratic party would much rather leave Bush in, to twist in the wind.... And get back at least one of the house or the senate, and the subpeona power that comes with it. (This is actually very significant - imagine having hearings with actual investigations - that will hurt Bush even more).

Bush is already a lame duck, albeit with one significant power - the ability to realign the supreme court should one of the 4 center-left judges pass away....


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

bothist - Oh, I agree that the 20 and 25 amendments give Congress the power to set the order of succession. It is just my understanding that neither amendment supderceeded the bit that I quoted. Neither the 20th nor 25 amendments state that they intended to modify the eligibility requirements for the line of succession. At least, I don't think so and there are some real constitutional scholars who agree with me (well, I suppose that I agree with them, technically). 

AK - Under the theory that I stated, that wouldn't work. The Congress would have to chose the president from the Officers of the US, which only include executive and judicial members. Thus, simply resigning from the Congress wouldn't cut it. They'd also need the president to appoint them to some positions which he could not of couse, being dead.

Who knows about all of this, though? The biggest problem is that the Constitution has gotten altered so many times by people who believe that documents breathe or eat or something that it's hard to figure out what was really intended when they wrote it. Fun to think about though, isn't it? And I'm pretty sure that nobody will ever ask my opinion where it matters.

CT


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I am trying really, really hard to invision 'liberals' gaining control of the House. Exactly how many third party or independants do you think have a good chance? Liberal is today what communist used to be, unless your learning about the Cuban sanctions on the TEEVEEE made by the PRC and yelling "Git er done!" in reference to anyone who isn't republican or disputes the Pan Islamist threat as something akin the The Reconquista of La Raza. If you think the party of Joe Lieberman is 'liberal' I have some wakey wakey pills bought online from Canada through a Nigerian.


"Liberal is today what communist used to be"; interesting statement. Almost 20 years ago, my grandfather taught me that Progressive, Activist, Leftist, Socialist, and Liberal are all code words used by Communists trying to hide who they really are. He told me that as a young man he had attended some of the Communist party meetings in New York City, this would have been in the 1920s or early 1930s, and the party leaders instructed everyone to use these terms to avoid being identified as Communists.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:the Officers of the US, which only include executive and judicial members.


 CT: You repeat the premise that only Executive and Judicial members are Officers. From whence comes this theory? Can you cite the article or amendment?

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

AK - Mostly, I read it in somebody's analysis of the Constitution and agreed with them. Specifically, my understanding (and forgive me if this isn't totally coherent) is that the Constitution specifically mentions two groups with the title 'officer': Officers of/under the United States and Officers of the Senate/House. For example:



> quote:No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.


That bit (Article 1, section 6) makes it clear that members of Congress cannot also be officers of the United States, at least not at the same time. As the argument was presented to me, the use of the term 'officer' in the succession clause was intended, worded, and understood to refer to Officers of the United States, hence not members of congress.

Why it includes judicial types is a little harder for me. The term meant those elected to US office and those appointed by them. Thus, the president was elected as an Officer of the US, so those he appoints are also Officers (cabinet members and judges).

You know, I just found a good Wikipedia entry on this very topic. Try taking a look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
for some more info. They have some links there are well that might be of help. Lord knows that the entry better describes what I'm trying to say than I do.

I'm not totally convinced by this argument mind you, I just think it makes much more sense than having those in charge of the impeachment/trial taking over afterwards. And I think that the Founders would have thought of that - they were a pretty bright bunch.

Isn't it fun to argue about this sort of thing?

CT


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CT:

It is my understanding that Article 1, Section 6 is set up so that members of Congress cannot create jobs for themselves while in office, apportion salaries, and then take those jobs, which is the definition of self-interest. In essence it says "you can't take a federal job created while you were a member of Congress". What is less clear is if you can take a federal job for which the salary increased while you were in Congress, which is the emoluments part.

Since the Presidency is an office which existed _prior_ to one's election, one would be free to take that office, or become a Supreme Court Justice, or any number of other jobs. In my reading a member of Congress could not have voted to create the Department of Homeland Security and then taken the job of Director of Homeland Security, for example. For the same reason an officer can't be a member of Congress concurrently: they would be in the position of voting on their own salary.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:Thus, simply resigning from the Congress wouldn't cut it. They'd also need the president to appoint them to some positions which he could not of couse, being dead.


 Thus, if Bosthist's argument is correct - and I tend to be of the same mind - your allegation goes ... kerplunk ... and those doing the impeachment and/or conviction can then resign their legislative positions and take the offices ... if they wish and if they qualify.

But to throw a monkey wrench into the debate, that will not happen as long as we have the Second Amendment. [}]

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> Thus, if Bosthist's argument is correct - and I tend to be of the same mind -


No...this..can't...be...happening...wait...must...photograph...Zimmerli...models...aaaaaaaaggggggghhhhh!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK. I've resisted all day. I'm sorry if I have put you in a position where your wife is threatening to leave and your friends are no longer speaking with you. Such are the pitfalls of modern life that one - even one from Massachusetts - occasionally errs on the Right side. Dismal as the day may seem, never fear. Tomorrow may be worse.

Must go clean the Glocks now. 

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How would that work? For them to be appointed to a cabinet level position, the president would have to appoint them and then they'd have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So, under my system (yeah, _mine_ ) that would be highly unlikely, since the president would be in the process of being impeached/tried and one would imagine that a Senate willing to convict said person would be unlikely to approve any new cabinet posts.

Also, bothist's argument actually works against him. Under the current succession plan, the pres pro tem and the speaker run afoul of the provision prohibiting holding two offices. If they are pres pro tem of the senate and both the pres and VP die, they'd be pres pro tem until the resign the position, right? If they take the Oath of Office before they resign, they be holding offices in the executive and legislative branch at the same time, a big no-no. If they resign as a senator before taking the Oath of Office, then they are not pres pro tem anymore, hence no longer in the line of succession.

Mixing branches of government is just a bad idea, there's enough bureaucratic incest as it is.

CT


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:there's enough bureaucratic incest as it is.


 Oh, c'mon, CT. Haven't we had enough of the Lewinsky scandal? 

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CT:

You're overthinking this. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to come up with a chain of succession, which it has, as Alex posted, and that chain of succession makes no mention of officers or any of the other language you're getting bogged down in.

Taking the oath of a new office is the resignation of the old office. If the president dies, the vice president doesn't resign as vice president in order to take the oath of office to become president, rather, it is understood that by taking the presidential oath, the old office is resigned. Likewise, in the event of the death of the president or vice-president, the speaker of the house needn't resign, he or she merely takes the oath of office and becomes president.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Just to muddy the water on the "offices" question-- I've been wasting time watching DVDs of "The Pallisers" while trying to get to sleep recently. From this (which is purported to be based on a series of Trollope Victoriana) it is made explicit that English MPs were not paid, and indeed, had to pay a lot to get into Parliament. Those without independent means therefore needed cash and one way to get it was Government office. One of the protagonists, for example, was invited to be Secretary of State for Colonies, a post that paid a much-needed 2,000/year. 

I'm assuming sort of maneuvering this was all pretty typical of Parliament earlier on in the 1770s and 80s.

Going back to succession, Article II 

"...In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." 

seems to imply that only office-holders are eligible to succeed if Congress passes the necessary law. The 20th amendment (1933) doesn't mention government "office" at all as a requirement, and indeed says that Congress can put anyone on the succession list that they have a mind to do. 
"... the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

One could read this narrowly, however, and have it apply only to cases when the elected President and VP die before assuming their new offices, or have failed to qualify.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*sniff* My dear man, I am an academic scientist. Overthinking things is my life.  Seriously, it would be interesting to see a Supreme Court pronouncement on this topic (well, other than the fact that both the Pres and VP would have to die for it to happen).

And AK, I don't think that was actually incest, per se. Although it may depend on the definition of 'was'.

CT

PS These totally pointless but semi-deep threads are fun, aren't they?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quoteS These totally pointless but semi-deep threads are fun, aren't they?


 Yes. (Must answer quickly before Bosthist takes sole custody and I start leaning waaay to the
tfel.)

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------

