Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Trouble With 25.

Section 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, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

------

It's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which an intensely loyal (perhaps advantageous) FBI Director warns the president that the Veep and the Cabinet are thinking about invoking the 25th Amendment. The Director informs the president who in the Cabinet are leaning in that direction.

So the president then fires five members of the Cabinet and appoints lackeys. He also fires the acting Cabinet secretaries in case the Senate stalls on confirmation hearings. Finally, he warns the Veep that if he persists in trying to remove him from office, he'll have the party loyalists dump him from the ticket for re-election.

The House immediately moves to impeach but the Senate can't muster a 2/3 vote to convict. The Veep resigns in disgust and the FBI Director is nominated for the office of vice president.

-----

This is why I propose that Congress move to amend the 25th Amendment and allow the Vice President to specify that a recently fired Cabinet officer will be the one to vote on whether to remove the president, not the president's lackey. POTUS shall not be allowed to stack the deck in his or her favor.

While they're at it, fix the presidential line of succession to put SecDef, Sec Homeland Sec and the AG above the Treasury Sec. In fact, leave it at those three (plus State as the top of the Cabinet list). Leave the other Cabinet secretaries out of it and put state governors in the mix. Not necessarily the governors of the biggest states, but perhaps the chair of the National Governors' Conference (if vacant, all remaining governors can vote to name a new chair).

[u]My proposed presidential succession line[/u]:
Vice President
Speaker of the House
Majority Leader of the Senate *
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Chair of the National Governors Association
[i]
* That's right. [u]Not[/u] the President pro tempore, who is often the senior most (and often the oldest) member of the majority party.[/i]

This way, even if both houses of Congress could not convene to elect new leaders and even if the Cabinet didn't survive an attack, a governor could become acting president. And if that particular governor did not survive, the remaining governors (including those who succeed to their governorships thru their own state lines of succession) could quickly elect a new Chair of the NGA who would then upon his/her resignation as governor become acting president for the remainder of the current presidential term. In other words, the House electing a new Speaker would not "bump" the acting president. That new acting president would also be the person to submit to the Congress a nomination for an acting vice president, who would also serve until the end of the current presidential term.

While it would take time to have special elections to fill vacant seats, I don't like the idea of having Members of Congress name their own successors, since those persons may or may not be elected officials. State legislatures could elect successors until special elections were held, but perhaps limit the vote to members of the party of the deceased Member of Congress. Again, even that would take time.

Hence it's better to just move on down the line of succession and have an acting president for the remainder of the current president term - and not until the Congress elects a new Speaker. What if the Senate acted first? That person would bump SecState, but then get bumped by the new Speaker.

In a national emergency, it's best for the people to know that the first person surviving in the succession line will be the acting president until the next election (unless death or a Constitutional removal from office).
The succession doesn't "bump" unless the question is reopened by a new death of the current office holder.
@beckyromero I think THAT makes a lot of sense, because it avoids having to always have a single document which would say, e.g.,

"I, <name>, in assuming the President pursuant to <specific citation> hereby set aside my posts as <appointed post> and <citizen-elected post>, as required."

An amendment which says that a person can only serve in one branch of government *or government-related activity* at a time, and that taking any position in another branch *or government-related activity* terminates any prior position, effective immediately.

("Government-related activity" is meant to contemplate things such as being in the Federal Reserve, etc.)

But I am loath to have your too Defense-heavy list replace the existing one. Tilting the list toward hawks is not what succession is intended to do, and your lidt could embolden a group opposed to a more dove-ish President, say. The succession is supposed to make transitions smooth through being pre-defined, not encourage assassination as a tool of side-stepping the electorate.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@SomeMichGuy [quote]But I am loath to have your too Defense-heavy list replace the existing one. Tilting the list toward hawks is not what succession is intended to do, and your lidt could embolden a group opposed to a more dove-ish President, say. The succession is supposed to make transitions smooth through being pre-defined, not encourage assassination as a tool of side-stepping the electorate.[/quote]

The mostly likely scenarios that would bring about us having to go that deep into the succession list, not necessarily in this order, are::

1) Nuclear confrontation with a major power on Earth
2) An attack from an extraterrestrial world
3) a catastrophic meteor hit
4) a ranging pandemic far worse than Covid

I didn't put the CJCS on the list because we need to keep civilian authority over the military. But we'll need someone who is defense-orientated. Not the Secretary of the Interior.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
There's a lot of amendments that both need to be either rewritten or even made. I don't see this one as a priority... Yet.

I could be wrong though.

 
Post Comment