The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

DLS — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:43:08 -0000

That's respectful and respectable of Bush and Cheney.

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

troosvelt_1858 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:19:50 -0000

Just a couple responses to the comments so far.

1. With regard to the order of succession, the only thing specified in the Constiution is the Vice President being 1st in line, the rest is set by federal law so the Congress can change it.

2. As to the Obama campaign being briefed on foreign policy, the Bush administration has actually been giving McCain Obama and while she was in the race Clinton briefings for some time now.

They have not made a major deal of it because both they (Bush) and the campaigns felt it was important to do it, not to get press for it.

So actually Bush and Cheney have been doing what is right DLS.

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

DLS — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:15:51 -0000

I believe a more relevent issue was something in yesterday's New York Times that had me thinking of a few related things. The op-ed in the Times was the need for a better succession plan involving both the outgoing administration and the new, incoming administration. That would mean Obama and his VP and team spending much time being briefed on national-security matters (the reason the article said a better succession is needed) and in my own view, learning more, all about what is done in the White House and why.

I chuckled to myself when envisioning Obama and his VP and team not only in the White House but at Crawford, and Obama and his team being met by obviously conservative Lynne Cheney (such as at the Vice Presidential mansion). Hee, hee.

The article was accompanied by two illustrations depicting giving and receiving a baton and I thought of an appropriate illustration a new President Obama could use, or some of his fans, or the media: a white hand, in the rear, passing a red, white, and blue baton to a black hand, in front.

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

aba23 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:40:19 -0000

One option would be to allow each president to name a list of successors (maybe ratified by the senate), and this list could even include the next-in-line. The plus side (for some moderates) would be to encourage more cross-partisan administrations. (For all the talk we hear these days, there's just no way anyone will ever pick a VP from another party, for example.)

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

Neocon — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:12:09 -0000

What if

What if the US congress was meeting and the Senate was meeting and the President and VP and the cabinet was meeting and someone slipped a briefcase Nuke into the city and took them all out.

Whose in charge now?

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

shaun — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:22:14 -0000

The line of succession has remained pretty much as it is today since 1792 with some jiggering and adjusting.

It is important to note the political underpinnings of the original line. In 1792, with Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (yes, that was their name) at each other's throats, the Federalists did not want the Secretary of State to be at the top of the list of succession because Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State and the titular leader of the D-Rs. And so succession went to Congressional leaders after the veep.

Some of my best friends are old, too, but I think age is an irrelevant determinant in whether there should be a new constitutional amendment. I also don't think the 9/11 "climate" is a good enough reason for a new amendment and concentration of powers concerns are a bit of a red herring even in the Age of Bush.

The thought of a dingbat like Margaret Spellings, who is 13th in line as Secretary of Education, becoming president is scary, but the present system is adequate and whether the republic is thrown into chaos does not rest exclusively on who would become president in the event of accidents and/or deaths.

Finally, getting a constitutional amendment passed about anything would be difficult. As it is, the Secretary of Homeland Security is technically 15th in line but would not be able to serve as president because a bill adding him to the line was never passed.

I am confident that these questions will continue to be debated in political science classes but that will be about it. And should be.

Re: The Real Problem With Presidential Succession

Marlowecan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:31:46 -0000

Patrick, while I agree with your view that "Like most Slate articles it is heavy on paranoia and attacks on the evil Republicans" the underlying issue is fascinating.

I did not know, for example, how often the line of succession has been changed in the history of the republic. Once, for example, the line was retained in the executive.

You make a good point with regard to the need to revisit this law in the 9-11 climate...when taking out two just individuals could throw the government into chaos.

Ironically, while Slate is obsessed with anti-GOP paranoia...I think the idea of a Speaker becoming president - with his/her years of control of a major part of the Legislative branch - combined with total control of the Executive branch is a far greater threat to the republic than Condi becoming president.

Separation of powers is "separation" for a very good reason. Like the Roman republic, the Founders were suspicous of too much power in one person's hands.

Sadly, the Slate article does not perceive this real threat of concentration of power...and focuses on paranoia about Bush. Ah well...

But a fascinating problem nonetheless!