After some discussion of the question, Congress implicitly ratified Tyler's decision by referring to him as "the President of the United States. President James A. Garfield's death led to a major change in succession law. Shot by an assassin on July 2, , the President struggled to survive for 79 days before succumbing to his wound on September Vice President Chester A.
Arthur took office without incident, but the offices of Speaker and President Pro Tempore were vacant throughout the President's illness, due to the fact that the House elected in had yet to convene, and the Senate had been unable to elect a President Pro Tempore because of partisan strife.
This legislation transferred succession after the Vice President from the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker to cabinet officers in the chronological order in which their departments were created, provided they had been duly confirmed by the Senate and were not under impeachment by the House.
Further, it eliminated the requirement for a special election, thus ensuring that any future successor would serve the full balance of the presidential term. This act governed succession until Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, ratified in , clarified one detail of presidential succession procedure by declaring that, if a President-elect dies before being inaugurated, the Vice President-elect becomes President-elect and is subsequently inaugurated.
Later that year, he proposed that Congress revise the order of succession, placing the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate in line behind the Vice President and ahead of the cabinet. The incumbent would serve until a special election, scheduled for the next intervening congressional election, filled the presidency and vice presidency for the balance of the term.
Truman argued that it was more appropriate to have popularly elected officials first in line to succeed, rather than appointed cabinet officers. A bill incorporating the President's proposal, minus the special election provision, passed the House in , but no action was taken in the Senate during the balance of the 79th Congress.
The President renewed his call for legislation when the 80th Congress convened in , and legislation was introduced in the Senate the same year. Debate on the Senate bill centered on familiar questions: whether the Speaker and President pro tempore were "officers" in the sense intended by the Constitution; whether legislators were well-qualified for the chief executive's position; whether requiring these two to resign their congressional membership and offices before assuming the acting presidency was fair.
Under the act 61 Stat. If there is neither a Speaker nor President Pro Tempore, or if neither qualifies, then cabinet officers succeed, under the same conditions as applied in the act see Table 3 for departmental order in the line of succession.
Any cabinet officer acting as President under the act may, however, be supplanted by a "qualified and prior-entitled individual" at any time.
The Presidential Succession Act of has been regularly amended to incorporate new cabinet-level departments into the line of succession, and remains currently in force.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy helped set events in motion that culminated in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, a key element in current succession procedures. Although Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded without incident after Kennedy's death, it was noted at the time that Johnson's potential immediate successor, House Speaker John W. Hayden was 86 and visibly frail. In addition, many observers believed that a vice presidential vacancy for any length of time constituted a dangerous gap in the nation's leadership during the Cold War, an era of international tensions and the threat of nuclear war.
The 25th Amendment, providing for vice presidential vacancies and presidential disability, was proposed by the 89th Congress in and approved by the requisite number of states in The 25th Amendment is the cornerstone of contemporary succession procedures. Section 1 of the amendment formalized traditional practice by declaring that, "the Vice President shall become President" if the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns.
Section 2 empowered the President to nominate a Vice President whenever that office is vacant. This nomination must be approved by a simple majority of Members present and voting in both houses of Congress. Sections 3 and 4 established procedures for instances of presidential disability. Any Vice President who succeeds to the presidency serves the remainder of the term. Constitutional eligibility to serve additional terms is governed by the 22nd Amendment, which provides term limits for the presidency.
Under the amendment, if the Vice President succeeds after more than two full years of the term have expired, he is eligible to be elected to two additional terms as President. If, however, the Vice President succeeds after fewer than two full years of the term have expired, the constitutional eligibility is limited to election to one additional term. Section 2 of the 25th Amendment has been invoked twice since its ratification: in , when Representative Gerald R. Ford was nominated and approved to succeed Vice President Spiro T.
Rockefeller, was nominated and approved to succeed Ford, who had become President when President Richard M. Nixon resigned see Table 2. While the 25th Amendment did not supplant the order of succession established by the Presidential Succession Act of , its provision for filling vice presidential vacancies renders recourse to the Speaker, the President Pro Tempore, and the cabinet unlikely, except in the event of an unprecedented national catastrophe.
The events of September 11, and the prospect of a "decapitation" of the U. Some were in the nature of "housekeeping" legislation; that is, they proposed to insert the office of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security into the line of succession, as has been done in the past when new cabinet departments are created by Congress. Others proposed more complex changes in the legislation. At both hearings, a wide range of points of view and legislative proposals was examined.
The question of continuity of government in the executive branch is also being addressed by a non-governmental organization, the Continuity of Government Commission, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute of Washington, D.
Succession Issues. Several issues dominate current discussions over revising the order of presidential succession. Some are "hardy perennials" that have risen in every debate on succession law, and have been cited earlier in this report; others relate more directly to elevated concerns over continuity of government.
Constitutional Legitimacy. There is no question as to Congress's constitutional ability to provide for presidential succession. This power is directly granted by Article II, Section 1, clause 6, as modified by the 25th Amendment, as noted earlier in this report. What the Constitution means by the word "Officer", however, has been perhaps the most durable element in the succession debate over time. The succession acts of both and assumed that the language was sufficiently broad as to include officers of Congress, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Attorney Miller Baker explained this hypothesis in his testimony before hearings held jointly by the Senate Committees on the Judiciary Committee and on Rules and Administration in This point was raised in congressional debate over both the Succession Act of and that of In the former case, opinion appears to have been divided: James Madison arguably the single most formative influence on the Constitution, and a serving Representative when the act was debated held that officers of Congress were not eligible to succeed.
Other Representatives who had also served as delegates to the Constitutional Convention were convinced to the contrary. The constitutional legitimacy of the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore as potential successors to the President and Vice President recurred during debate on the succession act. At that time, Feerick notes, long acceptance of the act, passed by the Second Congress, which presumably had first-hand knowledge of original intent in this question, was buttressed as an argument by the Supreme Court's decision in Lamar v.
United States. Professor Howard Wasserman, of the Florida International University School of Law, introduced another argument in support of the Speaker's and President Pro Tempore's inclusion in the order of succession in his testimony before the joint hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration:. Given the diversity of opinion on this question, and the continuing relevance of historical practice and debate, the issue of constitutional legitimacy remains an important element of any congressional effort to amend or supplant the Succession Act of Democratic Principle and Party Continuity.
These interrelated issues collectively comprise what might be termed the political aspect of presidential succession. The first, democratic principle, was perhaps the dominant factor contributing to the passage of the succession act.
Simply stated, it is the assertion that presidential and vice presidential succession should be settled first on popularly elected officials, rather than the appointed members of the cabinet, as was the case under the act. According to Feerick, the act's provisions aroused criticism not long after Vice President Harry Truman became President on the death of Franklin D.
The President explained his reasoning in his special message to Congress on the subject of succession to the presidency:.
Conversely, critics of this reasoning assert that the Speaker, while chosen by a majority of his peers in the House, has won approval by the voters only in his own congressional district. Further, although elected by the voters in his home state, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate serves as such by virtue of being the Senator of the majority party with the longest tenure. Against the case for democratic succession urged by President Truman, the value of party continuity is asserted by some observers.
The argument here is that a person acting as President under these circumstances should be of the same political party as the previous incumbent, in order to assure continuity of the political affiliation, and, presumably, the policies, of the candidate chosen by the voters in the last election.
According to this reasoning, succession by a Speaker or President Pro Tempore of a different party would be a reversal of the people's mandate that would be inherently undemocratic.
Moreover, they note, this possibility is not remote: since passage of the Succession Act of , the nation has experienced "divided government," that is, control of the presidency by one party and either or both houses of Congress by another, for 35 of the 57 intervening years.
The link between cabinet officers and the President preserves some measure of the last presidential election, the most recent popular democratic statement on the direction of the executive branch. Efficient Conduct of the Presidency. Some observers also question the potential effect on conduct of the presidency if the Speaker or President Pro Tempore were to succeed. Would these persons, whose duties and experience are essentially legislative, have the skills necessary to serve as chief executive?
Moreover, it is noted that these offices have often been held by persons in late middle age, or even old age, whose health and energy levels might be limited. The President pro tempore, traditionally the senior member of the party in control of the Senate, may be particularly ill-suited to the exercise of presidential duties due to reasons of health and age.
Conversely, it can be noted that the Speaker, particularly, has extensive executive duties, both as presiding officer of the House, and as de facto head of the extensive structure of committees, staff, and physical installations that comprise the larger entity of the House of Representatives. Moreover, it can be argued that the speakership has often been held by men of great judgment and ability, e. This question centers on the Succession Act provision that officers acting as President under the act do so only until the disability or failure to qualify of any officer higher in the order of succession is removed.
If the disability is removed, the previously entitled officer can supplant "bump" the person then acting as President. For instance, assuming the death, disability, or failure to qualify of the President, Vice President, the Speaker, the President Pro Tempore, or a senior cabinet secretary 29 is acting as President.
Supplantion could take place under any one of several scenarios. Critics assert that the supplantation provisions could lead to dangerous instability in the presidency during a time of national crisis:.
Moreover, as noted previously, any person who becomes acting President must resign his previous position, in the case of the Speaker and President Pro Tempore, or have his appointment vacated by the act of oath taking.
It is certainly foreseeable that public officials might hesitate to forfeit their offices and end their careers before taking on the acting presidency, particularly if the prospect of supplantation loomed. The "bumping" question has been used by critics of legislative succession as an additional argument for removing the Speaker and President Pro Tempore from the line of succession.
Another suggested remedy would be to amend the Succession Act of to eliminate the right of "prior entitled" individuals to supplant an acting President who is acting due to a vacancy in the office of President and Vice President.
Relatedly, other proposals would amend the law to permit cabinet officials to take a leave of absence from their departments while serving as acting President in cases of presidential and vice presidential disability. They could thus return to their prior duties on recovery of either the President and Vice President, and their services would not be lost to the nation, nor would there be the need to nominate and confirm a replacement. Succession During Presidential Campaigns and Transitions.
The related issue of succession during presidential campaigns and during the transition period between elections and the inauguration has been the subject of renewed interest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, The salient elements of this issue come into play only during elections when an incumbent President is retiring, or has been defeated, and the prospect of a transition between administrations looms, but uncertainties about succession arrangements during such a period have been cause for concern among some observers.
Procedures governing these eventualities depend on when a vacancy would occur. Between Nomination and Election. This first contingency would occur if there were a vacancy in a major party ticket before the presidential election. Those circumstances are provided for in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in Section 2 states:. So whether the VP becomes president — and the 25th Amendment clarifies that the second-in-charge doesn't just assume the duties of the president, he or, maybe someday, she "shall become president" — or the VP just vacates the office for some other reason, the president has the right to nominate a sidekick, which the House and the Senate must then confirm.
It might sound simple, but replacing a VP always has been a little sketchy. An unplanned presidential vacancy is immediately taken care of through Article II and the presidential line of succession ; it goes VP, speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the senate, secretary of state, right down the line to the newest cabinet post established, the secretary of homeland security.
Until the 25th Amendment, though, when a vice presidential vacancy popped up, the new president sometimes the old VP just left that No. John Tyler, who took over for William Henry Harrison who died of pneumonia just 31 days into his term , never had a VP in almost four years as president. Lyndon Johnson, who took over for John F. Humphrey filled the spot after the election. Even after the 25th Amendment, filling a vice presidential opening hasn't been particularly snappy.
It's happened twice since the 25th's passage in ' The office of vice president was empty for a couple of months in after Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned, until Gerald Ford was cleared to fill the spot.
When Nixon later quit in August , and Ford became president, he had no vice president for more than four months, until Nelson Rockefeller finally was confirmed by Congress. Through the years, the president and lawmakers have worked to grant the No. So no matter what happens in the messy world of politics these days, a president will have a vice president by his side — sooner or later. Fourteen vice presidents have risen to, or been elected to, the Oval Office.
The first was the first VP of the U. The most recent was George H. So if Biden and Harris won the election and Biden stepped down after taking office, as the post hypothesizes, Harris would become president and then nominate a new vice president. And Congress would have the final say on confirming that nominee. Kennedy — and was ratified by three-quarters of the states in , according to the U.
National Archives. And when Nixon resigned the following year, Ford became president and nominated Nelson Rockefeller, the former governor of New York, to become vice president.
0コメント