Talk:Presidential Succession Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Death of President-elect

What would occur if a president-elect died before taking office? Example....Let us say that Kerry won the election but died or was removed before Jan 8, 2005. Would the Vice President elect be put into office as President, would Bush remain in office or???

according to the 20th amendment of the US Constitution. (after the Electoral College has met), If President-Elect John Kerry had died, before January 20th, 2005 (Inauguration Day). Vice President-Elect John Edwards would become the President of the USA. Mightberight/wrong 17:45, 2 November 2005 (AST).

I have a bit of a problem with that line of succession. The Vice President Elect is not the acting VP at the time of succession. The term of the president does not expire until after the president elect is sworn in. If a new president elect is not available wouldn't the current president remain in office until a new election? Also, the electoral college casts the votes for president from the popular election results. Wouldn't the electoral college just reconvene and elect a presidential candidate from the remaining candidates (which would not include the VP candidates). Or, would the house of representatives be the ones to 'chuse'. It appears that the founding fathers intended that the winner of the popular election be the president and the runner-up be the VP. Or do I read that original amendment incorrectly? I don't know...I am confused 68.191.116.53 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Under Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment, the Vice President-elect is sworn in as President on January 20 for the full term if the President-elect has died. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Post 9/11 suggestion to place Governors in the line of succession

Would this be constitutional? The Constitution authorizes Congress to determine what "Officer" shall act if both the President and Vice President have died, been removed, resigned, or have an "inability" [to act]. As far as I know, Officer as used in the Constitution has always been construed to mean an Officer of the U.S. Government. Since State Governors are not officers of the U.S. Government, I don't see how they could be put in the line of succession without a Constitutional amendment authorizing such.

It might be, but Congress could probably grant the State Governors the power until an emergency election was held. Also, it is unlikely that anyone would challenge the Constitutionality of such a law; someone might before the cataclysm, but I doubt anyone would bother to in the actual event of such a disaster.12.17.189.77 03:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with 12.17.189.77. I think alphabetically is a dumb way to add governors and states admitted to union sounds dramatically sentimental. California (at current) should get the nod (though The Governator is kinda scary) followed by I think Texas (which is much scarier). New York would be third and so-on. What are the alternative solutions? The judges? Seems worse than the governors. Back in the day, someone in Washington would have been a wise choice, though it means less now. However, going down the list of senators might be wise (followed by the members of the House). I'm not sure how the military chain of command works, but some 5-star general might make sense. Just my two cents. Dawhitfield 04:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there hasn't been a 5 star general in 50 years, I'd say that's maybe not a great idea. JCO312 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Only Acting President?

According to this Act, If the President & Vice President died/resigned were or removed from office? the USA wouldn't have a President & Vice President for part of the terms. That doesn't seem correct. GoodDay 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked external links, on Acting President of the United States. Currently 'ONLY' the Vice President can become President, if the President dies, resigns or is removed from office. The other officers in the succession line, can only become Acting President. Therefore (if President & VP have died/resigned/were removed from office), the Presidency & Vice Presidency would be vacant for part of the term. GoodDay 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is true (and I think it probably is... although it should be changed). Odds are, if the Speaker becomes president he will finish out the term without appointing a Vice President. It's not unprecedented since there have been times in this countries history where there was no Vice President. Here's a better question, if an acting president serves 3 years in office are they eligible to be elected for 2 more terms? This seems odder to me than the whole appointing the VP to be president thing.--Dr who1975 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, under the terms of the 22nd Amendment, they would be eligible for only one additional term. JasonCNJ 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." according to the 22nd Amendment. LBJ could have ran again. Jjmillerhistorian 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The 25th Amendment & the Presidential Succession Act contradict each other. The 25th's section 3 & 4 says the Vice President can assume the Presidential powers & duties as Acting President (not mentioning any other officials). Yet the Presidential Succession Act claims all officials in the line of succession can assume the Presidential powers & duties as 'Acting President'. Perhaps this should be mentioned. GoodDay 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's a contradiction. The Succession Act talks about stuff that isn't mentioned in the 25th Amendment. But that's not a contradiction. john k 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1947 Act

Wouldn't the 1947 Act have been passed by the Republican Congress elected in 1946? And wouldn't that mean that Joe Martin, not Truman's friend Sam Rayburn, would have been Speaker of the House at the time? Also, the article gives no sense as to why Truman desired a change in the law. john k 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1947 Act was signed into law by President Truman on 18 July 1947. It was passed by the 80th Congress, who had earlier elected as Speaker Representative Joe Martin, Republican of Massachusetts. However, President Truman proposed the legislation in a special message to Congress delivered on 19 June 1945, with his friend Sam Rayburn as Speaker. I have not looked at this article in a while, but I will add the "why" behind Truman's desire to change the law. JasonCNJ 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Constitutionality

There should be a section to this article dealing the questioning of the Constitutionality of this Act. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 refers to an "officer" becoming Acting President when no Vice President can so become. Many Constitutional scholars believe, and have written, about how the Constitution does not consider the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to be "officers" regarding Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. There are also other provisions of this Act that have questioned Constitutionality. This issue should be in this article.--SMP0328. (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the challenge here is that most of what could be written here would be speculative, or original research. You mention that "Many Constitutional scholars believe, and have written..." If this is the case and you have access to these writings, you're probably in a good position to write this section, with good citable references.--TJRC (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a section dealing with the Constitutionality of the 1947 PSA. Any changes to this section, that aren't vandalism, are welcome. --SMP0328. (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Succession Act of 1947? or 1948?

Can someone dig out the actual enacted statute and confirm its date and title? Not the codification in the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. § 19); the actual Act as passed by Congress, usually found in Statutes At Large.

In The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, prepared by Congressional Research Service (a branch of the Library of Congress), in its discussion of the 20th Amendment, it is referred to as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1948". See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/ . The cite given for this is "Ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672, as amended, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 19."

Likewise, the Legal Information Institute copy of 3 U.S.C. § 19 provides this history: (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 677; ...) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-notes.html

On the other hand, the section "Constitutionality of 1947 Act" just added by SMP0328 cites two online sources, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19776,filter.all/pub_detail.asp and http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/pdfs/091603MillerTestimony.pdf, each of which refer to it as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947."

I see JasonCNJ's emphatic comment above that "The 1947 Act was signed into law by President Truman on July 18, 1947." Jason, if you're reading this, can you confirm that, and provide a cite?

I no longer have ready access to a law library, or other library with a copy of Statutes at Large, or I'd try to check this out myself. -- TJRC (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always known it as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947." [1]--SMP0328 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw this message.

I found a few cites for you, if this information is still in question.

From "On this date in White House History"

A Politico.com look-back article from 18 July 2007 entitled "Truman signs Presidential Succession Act"

I submit these sources should be sufficient to establish the date of President Truman's signature on the law.

JasonCNJ (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Implementation

Just a general observation. Until the case of the Vice Presidency being vacant upon the resignation, death or removal from office of the President, occurs - We're left in the fog, as to whether the Speaker (or who's ever next in line at that moment of double vacancy) becomes President or just Acting President. We'll just have to wait & see, before we can complete this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: See anon's question at Acting President of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1947 Act muddied the waters. In that act (text in article) it refers to an "Acting President," but someone becomes Acting President for the remainder of the current Presidential term in the event of a double vacancy (both Pres. & VP dead, resigned, or removed). In effect, a successor via double vacancy is the new President even though he is technically only "Acting President." Of course, also see the Constitutionality of the 1947 Act section of the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's always the chance a House Speaker (or who ever is next in line) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which hasn't occurred yet). GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember that, unlike Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, the 1947 Act specifically says "Acting President." Considering the issues regarding the act's Constitutionality, a Bush v. Gore type of situation is more likely than that which occurred in the creation of the Tyler Precedent. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading these exchanges too quickly or missing the point entirely. But I don't see it as being a very confusing question. The Constitution and the 1947 Act are clear that only two types of people can ever become a "President of the United States:" a duly elected President-elect after he takes the oath of office and a Vice President of the United States, upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President. The only person who can succeed to the Presidency is a Vice President. Every other officer - Speaker, President pro tempore, Secretary of State, whatever - only acts as President. In the event of a simultaneous double vacancy in the Office of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States, then the powers and duties of the Presidency fall to the Speaker of the House (if she qualifies under the Constitution and resigns her office to serve) as Acting President of the United States for the remainder of the then-current Presidential term (unless and until the Acting President avails herself of the Constitutional option to nominate a Vice President who, upon confirmation, shall succeed to the Presidency.)

I'll agree that the lack of implementation of the Act means these things haven't been tested, but the answer is clear based on a plain-text reading of the law. Whether the press/public would consider a long-term Acting President to really just be the President is a question none of us can answer. But we are allowed to state with authority that the law would not permit a Speaker, taking office after a double vacancy, to be anything other than Acting President. And I can't imagine how on Earth the Court gets involved in a discussion surrounding this.

JasonCNJ (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume in a double-vacancy scenario, the House Speaker (for example) is House Speaker/Acting President from the moment the double vacancy occurs, until the Speakership & congressional seat is resigned. For if not? How does a former House Speaker, assume Presidential powers & duties. The assumption of Presidential powers & duties, must be automatic. -- these things will be answered at time of implementation. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1947 Act requires that, prior to the assumption of the powers and duties of the Presidency, a duly elected and qualified Speaker of the House resign her seat in Congress and her position as Speaker to assume the powers and duties of the Presidency. No one can serve as House Speaker AND Acting President at the same time. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The resignations though, would not take effect until the person assumes the Presidential powers & duties; a former House Speaker can't assume Presidential powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, the resignations constitute acceptance of the office of Acting President. Did someone suggest a former Speaker of the House could assume the powers and duties of the Presidency in the event of a double vacancy? JasonCNJ (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I just wanted it to be clear, that there was no time-gap between the Speaker/congressman resignations & the assumption of Pres powers & duties. But, I still think we'll never 100% know how things will go, until it's necessary for the Act to be implemented. PS- CNN & other media's need to be educated - as they suggest full presidential succession. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also the problem of Constitutionality. It appears that the Constitutional Convention intended for an "officer" who was "Acting President" to continue in the other office. In the case of the Speaker and President pro tempore, this might violate Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 (the "Incompatibility Clause"). Read Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113 (1995) --SMP0328. (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The separation of powers clause, of course. So technically, until the House Speaker resigns (as Speaker & congressperson) to assume the Presidential powers & duties, the Secy of State is 'temporary Acting President'. PS- I know we're talking about matters of minutes here. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I've fixed up the description of the 'next-in-section' section. Currently, those in the succession below the VP, are only next-in-line to the Presidential powers & duties, not the Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made the part of the article discussing the Twenty fifth Amendment its own section. I also have clarified the introductory sentence of the Next-in-line section so it's clear that the officer becomes only Acting President, not President, after both the Presidency and Vice Presidency become vacant. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But, Carl Albert said he wouldn't serve 'til January 1977. Albert said he'd nominate a republican for Vice President or at least wouldn't cancel the vice presidential nomination of the previous President. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If Carl Albert had become Acting President, the only ways he could voluntarily not have served until January 1977 would have been suicide or resignation. It is not clear if the swearing in of a new Vice President would have caused that new VP to immediately become President. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert said he would resign. But when one thinks of it, if the Presidency is vacant (which would be the case here), the confirmation of a Vice President would cause automatic succession to the Presidency. All these confusions would be avoided, if the Speaker could succeed to the Presidency itself (with Speakership/congress seat resignations automatically kicking in). GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Having anybody, other than the Vice President, succeed to the Presidency would require a Constitutional amendment. Compare Section 1 of the Twenty fifth Amendment with the second half of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In full agreement, there's certainly a need for a Constitutional amendment (which could've been avoided had a section been added to the 25th Amendment, concerning officials below VP). GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There was such a section originally proposed in the Twenty fifth Amendment, but was soon taken out. That section would have provided for a strict Cabinet line of succession and the House of Representatives was clear in being against. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Thanks for the discussion gentlemen. PS- it would be interesting (though tragic) to see this Act implemented. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1947 Act

I moved all material regarding the current succession act into a single section (Current Act), except for original research (all of which I've removed) and for the line of succession list (no change). This will allow for all such material to be easily found, especially for those curious about the current Presidential line of succession. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Statutory citations

Looks like we have some errors on statutory citations. Until a few moments ago, the 1792 Act was cited as Pub. L. 1-240. Congress didn't start using the Public Law numbering until the 57th Congress in 1901. Also, the first number in the Public Law designation is the enacting Congress, and the 1st Congress sat from 1789-1791; the 1792 Act was enacted by the 2nd Congress. Even if the Pub.L. designations had been in place then, the first number would have been a 2, not a 1.

It's apparent that someone is confusing the statutes-at-large numbering with the public-law numbering. The 1792 Act is at 1 Stat 239 (Statutes at Large, volume 1, page 239), with the succession provision at page 240. I've added a link to the SAL version, and deleted the erroneous reference to Pub. L. 1-240.

But the 1886 Act has the same issue. It's footnoted as Pub. L. 24-1. That can't be right; 24th Congress was 1835-1837, and again, the public law scheme didn't start until 1901. I'm guessing that's also supposed to be 24 Stat. 1. Unfortunately, the Library of Congress Statutes at Large pages only includes the first 43 Congresses, 1789-1875, and I don't have ready access to a hardcopy, so I can't look. If any editor has access to the complete Statutes at Large, will you please look up 24 Stat 1, and see if that's the statute? TJRC (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: Googling on "24 Stat. 1", I see it's in the notes for Title 3, U.S. Code, indicated as related to 3 U.S. § 19, which is the current act, so I'm pretty sure my guess above is correct. Based on this, I'm going to update the article; it's clearly wrong now. It would still be great if someone with access to the SAL can verify this. TJRC (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

List of incumbents

I know this information is easily available elsewhere on wikipedia, but mightn't it be useful just to list the current incumbents in the offices in the line of succession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13djb13 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List

The list here was moved from Acting Vice President, and so includes only those who were next in line to the presidency without simultaneously being the VP—that is, when the vice presidency was vacant. At the same time, the header "Next in line" implies that it should include also the VPs; and quite to the contrary, the introduction to the list seems to imply that it should include all those next in line after any serving VP. I don't mind much which list we go for, but it seems inconsistent as it is... —JAO • T • C 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

O'Neil, Hastert and Pelosi?

During the time that the 25th amendment's disability section was in force -1985, 2002 & 2007-, the Vice Presidency wasn't vacant nor was the Vice President unable to assumes the presidential powers & duties as Acting President. Therefore, the Speaker of the House (during the 3 incidences) was not next in line. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

SMP, I think it would help, if you'd respect BRD - by joining this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy to join. When the Section 3 of 25A ("S3-25A") is invoked the President is disabled. If the VP becomes disabled while he's Acting President, then the President and Vice President would be disabled. In that case, the Presidential Succession Act would be invoked; it is not necessary for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency to be vacant. SMP0328. (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left those 3 in, but given them a subsection to the 1947 Act. This deals with the scenario you speak of, which never occurred as Bush41 & Cheney (twice) weren't incapacitated. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your change for the sake of clarity. I changed the title to that subsubsection to match the phraseology used in this article and in Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. Now, the colour scheme - in alot of these situations, when the Vice Presidency was vacant or the VP was performing duties as Acting President, the next in line was of a different political party. Should we & can we adjust it? GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's technically easier to note the respective parties of the people involved and insert a notation when a change of party would have occurred (Reagan and GHW Bush to O'Neill, GW Bush and Cheney to Pelosi). But I always have trouble with formatting these charts. JTRH (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If it can be done, I've no probs with it. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the numbering in the new subsubsection be 38, 39, 40 instead of 1, 2 and 3? SMP0328. (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, since all 40 individuals-in-question, were next in line to the presidential powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Incompatibility Clause

The section on constitutionality if the Act refers to some people claiming that the Incompatibility Clause renders it unconstitutional. Since the citation is a book rather than a link, could somebody who has access to the book give further context to clarify that argument? As it stands, that part of the article just doesn't make sense. The Incompatibility Clause says that members of Congress can't be appointed to offices that were created during their current term, but that's inapplicable to this subject on both counts. Presidential succession isn't an appointment, and the office of the Presidency was created in 1788. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about succession not being the same thing as "appointment." That probably deserves a mention in the article. However the clause also applies if the "emoluments," i.e. salary of the president increases during the congressman's term of office, which has happened since 1788. Richard75 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The loophole there is that the congressman is eligible to take the office at the previous salary. JTRH (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Gap in 1792 section of "next in line" section?

I was just wondering what is the reason for the 8-year gap in the next in line -section conserning the 1792 act? The Civil War could be the reason for the years 1861-1865, but still there is a gap of four years (1857-1861). I`ve checked and there was a President pro tempore of the senate during the missing years. 101090ABC (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The list only covers times when there was no vice president. Richard75 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aa, ok. 101090ABC (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1947 or 1948?

I've looked at the brief discussion in the archives (Talk:Presidential Succession Act/Archive 1#Presidential Succession Act of 1947? or 1948?) but I'm still confused. The printed text in the statute book indicates the date as June 25, 1948 [2] (warning: that's a very long PDF, it will take a while to load; scroll to page 695 of the PDF which is page 672 in the printed book). It says nothing about 1947. The Wikipedia article 80th United States Congress confirms June 25, 1948 as the date. There are various sources indicating that Truman signed the law on July 18, 1947 (e.g. [3]) but then why is that date not printed in the statute book? There might be a simple explanation for this, but I am confused. —Mathew5000 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you found an amendment to the 1947 PSA. The original version referred to the Secretary of War. That position was replaced by the Secretary of Defense in 1948. The PSA was accordingly updated, just like when the Secretary of Homeland Security was created. SMP0328. (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 1948 Act as printed in the statute-book certainly does not have the form of an amendment. Mathew5000 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay I found the 1947 version [4], it is P.L. 80-199, 61 Stat. 380, and covers only presidential succession. Then in 1948 it was wholly re-enacted as P.L. 80-771, 62 Stat. 672, in order to codify presidential succession rules as well as various other laws related to the presidency such as the counting of electoral college votes, compensation, and presidential protection. (And, as you mentioned, the new codification silently replaced Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy by Secretary of Defense.) —Mathew5000 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Invocations of the Twenty-fifth Amendment

The very last table in the article could use a few words saying why the 25th amendment was invoked (e.g. a three-hour medical procedure in 2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkarapin (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TJRC (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

1792 Act and presidential qualifications

Again my edit to this subsection has been reverted. The 1792 Act did not require a person to be eligible to be President for that person to become Acting President (the 1886 and 1947 Acts did so require). If there is neither President nor a Vice President, the successor becomes Acting President. An Acting President is not a President (just ask Dick Cheney, who served as Acting President twice without ever being President). Because an Acting President is not an occupant of the Office of President, it is unclear whether the qualifications for the office apply to a person who is Acting President. From 1792 to 1886 this issue remained unresolved. So it is unclear whether a Speaker of the House or a President pro tempore of the Senate could have been Acting President without being eligible to be President. To give a definitive answer in the article is synthesis. My edit should be restored, because there is no authoritative source saying whether Howell Cobb could have been Acting President. SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution is unambiguous. Nowhere does it say that the eligibility to act as President differs from "eligibility to the office" (Art. II, Sec. I), and a statute couldn't change that. It is not speculation or synthesis to state categorically that someone under 35 has never been eligible to be Acting President, regardless of the text of any version of the PSA. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, but it is still just an interpretation. The Presidential Qualifications Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5) refers only to the "Office of President". The Twelfth Amendment extends those qualifications to the Office of Vice President. Nowhere in the Constitution are those qualifications made applicable to an Acting President and so it is wrong for this article to say definitively that a Speaker of the House who was less than 35 years old was not eligible to be Acting President. Just because you believe your interpretation is the correct interpretation, does not mean the article should state it as fact. SMP0328. (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not an "interpretation." Can you find a credible source that the qualifications for acting as President have ever differed from those for actually holding the office? I'm not aware that it's ever been a subject of controversy. Besides, in this particular instance, we're debating something that hypothetically could have happened but didn't, in a two-day period 165 years ago. It honestly seems a bit trivial. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The 1886 and 1947 Acts expressly state that a person must be qualified to be President for that person to be eligible to be Acting President. The Congresses that passed those laws clearly felt that this issue was not so obvious. My edit does not answer whether Presidential qualifications apply to an would-be Acting President. You want the article to answer that question, so the burden is on you to provide a reliable source. As for triviality, why did you revert my edit if you feel it was trivial? SMP0328. (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing the point. I have never seen a source implying that there was any ambiguity, any difference between the two sets of qualifications, or any way that someone under 35 could exercise the Presidency on any basis, acting or permanent. But if you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and restore your language. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Majorly flawed article

I've noticed that this article is majorly flawed. I hoped to fix this in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmons123456 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Before changing the article, please specify the ways in which you believe the article is majorly flawed. SMP0328. (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Twenty-fifth" versus "Twenty-Fifth"

I don't feel very strongly about whether the sub-section on invocations of the 25th Amendment should be titled with just the first letter of the first part of "twenty-fifth" capitalized (i.e., "Twenty-fifth") as opposed to with the first letter of both parts of the hyphenated word capitalized (i.e., "Twenty-Fifth"), but I wanted to note that the Chicago Manual of Style now prefers placing the first letter of both parts of the hyphenated number in uppercase when writing titles. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/about16_rules.html This is different from the case of the capitalization of a hyphenated number at the beginning of a sentence, where obviously only the first letter is capitalized. But if, unbeknownst to me, the general rule on Wikipedia is not to capitalize the first letter of the second part of a hyphenated word (including a hyphenated number) when writing a title, then I apologize for my ignorance and for my edit. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My goal is consistency. If "Twenty-fifth" is to become "Twenty-Fifth", then it should be changed throughout Wikipedia. This would include moving Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to "Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution". SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can appreciate your goal, and agree with you that consistency should be paramount. As I said, I wasn't aware that not capitalizing the last part of a hyphenated number was the standard throughout Wikipedia, or else I would not have made the change. That being said, were I the Grand Poobah of Grammar and Punctuation, I would change the Wikipedia rule to spell it "Twenty-Fifth" in titles and headings (just as it is spelled "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and, even more to the point, "The Thirty-Nine Steps"). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Twenty-Fifth Amendment" is the proper name of a thing. Does that affect the decision? 206.74.211.208 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Along with" vs. "As were"

Under 2.1 Presidential Succession Act of 1792, 2.1.2 Potential implementation, I changed "President John Tyler narrowly missed being killed (along with Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur, and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Walker Gilmer)" to "President John Tyler narrowly missed being killed (as were Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur, and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Walker Gilmer)." My edit was quickly reverted.

As I read it, "along with" seems to indicate that Upshur and Gilmer also narrowly missed being killed, whereas "as were" indicates that Upshur and Gilmer were in fact killed, which is the case.

I certainly don't want to start an edit war. But this is how I read it. Grammarian3.14159265359 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I think sentence structure is the problem: along with modifies the verb kill, not the verb miss, but the parenthesis breaks up the phrase. I question if the inclusion of Upsher and Walker is even necessary in the sentence at all or if it is just trivial in this case. Removing the parenthetical reference would resolve the issue. RM2KX (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Text of "Revisions" section

The text in this section is identical to a 2016 book found online: https://books.google.com/books?id=epHiDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false While the Wiki text existed before the book, the section should be rewritten and re-referenced. RM2KX (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Pages 119-120 RM2KX (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? Richard75 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it is copied from a source, which would be a copyright violation, but it could be that the source copied Wikipedia or that both copied something else. I was told at Teahouse that it should be changed in an instance like this, but I don't know for sure. What I do know is that as it is written, it doesn't cite any source at all, so it's at least missing references, which is what I was trying to find. Citation [8] in the same section does not verify the majority of the text. RM2KX (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The book was published December 27, 2016. That text is present from at least a year earlier, see revision as of October 29, 2015 (probably further back; but one year was good enough for me). There's two possibilities here. The most likely one is that the books author simply took the text from Wikipedia, without complying with the Wikipedia license; another possibility is that the author wrote that portion of the article, and later re-used his own text (which would be perfectly okay). Anyone sufficiently motivated can investigate the page history further.

But neither of those scenarios obligates Wikipedia to revise an article based on some re-use external to Wikipedia.

Now, apart from that, if it's missing references, that should be corrected; as long as this likely mis-use of wikipedia is not cited to circularly support the text that it lifted. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Presidential Succession Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67sZJhkHR?url=http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/7/06%20continuity%20of%20government/06_continuity_of_government.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/7/06%20continuity%20of%20government/06_continuity_of_government.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006053411/http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.123/pub_detail.asp to http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.123/pub_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Citing a source

Much of this article is directly taken, without attribution, from Douglas E. Campbell, Continuity of Government: How the U.S. Government Functions After All Hell Breaks Loose, Syneca Research Group, Inc., 2016. I have no idea whether this source is a reliable one. JTRH (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: "Next in line" section

I wish to move the "Next in line" section tables from this article to United States presidential line of succession. IMO the "Potential implementations" subsection for each Succession Act renders the tables redundant (or the tables render the subsections redundant). I also would like to see the tables included there rather then a listing of potential successions to the presidency mirroring what's already here in this article. Does anyone have any serious objections to moving the tables? Drdpw (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The Next in line section gives much more information than do the Potential implementation subsections. Having that section's material put in the other article you cite, but I don't see having those subsections and tables in this article as being redundant. SMP0328. (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, perhaps I could have found a better word. At any rate, I'm rounding-up a few citations for the next in line tables prior to moving them to the line of succession article.. Drdpw (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Page move

What was the point of this page move? There was no other similar article to disambiguate it from, and the original article is just a redirect to here, not a new disambiguation page. Richard75 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the article and talk page back to where they were originally. An article move should be discussed on that article's talk page and consensus for the moved reached before the move is implemented. I agree with Richard75: the move appear to be unnecessary. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a "Presidential Succession Act" anywhere else in the world? If not, it's unnecessary to specify that this applies to the US. JTRH (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes there are. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Only this article is named "Presidential Succession Act". There is Order of succession, with Presidential succession redirecting to a section in it, but I doubt anyone would confuse that article with this one. SMP0328. (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if any other country even has such a thing. JTRH (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Most of them are less unwieldly. There are provisions for acting presidents in most Republics.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)