Talk:United States presidential line of succession

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mortifeye (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 26 March 2021 (→‎Lloyd Austin and Merrick Garland party affiliations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States: Government B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Adam Szubin

Can anyone explain why Acting Treasury Secretary Adam Szubin is shown as ineligible? He was born in Teaneck NJ to naturalized parents, is 45 years old and has resided in the US continuously since at least 2001 (specifically in DC where he has been working at DOJ and then the Treasury.). He seems to meet all the requirements. TheCormac (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation would appear to be in the "Acting cabinet members" section below,where it is assumed that no acting department head is eligible regardless of citizenship.Regardless,the article as is treats some acting heads as eligible and some as ineligible without any clear basis.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This needs to be resolved and also kept up to date with recent confirmations like Sessions. 172.56.22.40 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's technically ineligible because he was never confirmed for his position as Under Secretary. If you read the section on eligibility, it explains that acting heads are in the line of succession, but only if they have been confirmed for some post by the Senate. Because Szubin was never confirmed for his post as undersecretary, he is thus not in the line of succession. 38.140.146.178 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The chart now is a total mess. Only one has no number, some are italicized with footnote, others italicized without footnote, others neither but left without color, and none of it is consistent. 172.56.22.40 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Senate approved Rex Tillerson as United States Secretary of State. Addyp101 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1], needed for inclusion. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Rex Tillerson was approved by the Senate committee, not the full Senate... which should take place this week. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 04:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rex Tillerson is approved by Senate panel for secretary of State" – via LA Times.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

Jack Flash (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orrin Hatch is no longer President pro tempore of the United States Senate, it is now Hugh Leatherman according to news articles I've read online.

That's the South Carolina state Senate. JTRH (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current Numbers

As I understand the current situation, only some of the current acting cabinet members are in the line of succession, because only some of them have been Senate approved. This is reflected in my February 1 version where Szubin, Haugrud, Hyatt, Clemmenson, Bochenek, Rosenfelt, and Snyder are skipped over. But now it keeps being changed to put more people in line. Does anyone have an authoritative list of which acting secretaries were confirmed by the Senate and which ones weren't? -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugler is INELIGIBLE

With Puzder's nomination withdrawn we will have an Acting Secretary of Labor for some time yet...and I looked at Hugler's article.His permanent job (apparently held since the Clinton Administration) is as a Deputy Assistant Secretary.If you look at the List of positions filled by presidential appointment with Senate confirmation you'll note that no positions at that level qualify in that Department or any other.He's probably a top civil servant.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this verifiable? JTRH (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent substitution of Acting Secretaries turned up another civil servant not on that list of presidential appointments confirmed by the Senate...Mike Young is (saith Google finds) being considered for Deputy Secretary but his permanent job is Director of the USDA's Office of Budget and Program Analysis.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to get the article changed? Because if not, please read WP:NOTFORUM. CityOfSilver 20:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Chao

Hi Why is Elaine Chao marked Not eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's a naturalized citizen, born in Taiwan. JTRH (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Hugler

Hi Why is Edward C. Hugler marked Not eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugler wasn't confirmed by the Senate. He's only acting secretary. Jac roe 22:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Please change the current picture, of the ex Vice President, to the current Vice Presidents' picture. 2600:8804:8B80:FD00:4D86:3BB0:7E0:BA76 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: there are no pictures of Mike Pence or Joe Biden in the article. ProgrammingGeek talktome 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"who could in effect remove the Cabinet member..."

"The fact that, should a Cabinet member begin to act as President, the law allows the House to elect a new Speaker (or the Senate, a new President pro tempore), who could in effect remove the Cabinet member and assume the office themselves at any time."

Is this referring to removal upon impeachment? Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President (which if they are acting as President would be themselves) and are subject to removal upon impeachment by, the House and Senate. Not by the Speaker and President Pro Tempore who by themselves cannot remove an official. The current wording suggest that the Speaker and Pro Temp can impeach and convict officers by themselves which, unless I missed something the Presidential Succession Act does not change this nor would federal law be able to this would require a constitutional amendment. If this is referring to impeachment than it needs to read,

"The Constitution allows Congress to remove cabinet members through conviction upon impeachment, including when that cabinet member may be acting as President, thus allowing a newly elected Speaker or President Pro Tempore to act as President presenting a conflict of interest."

Then there is the issue of whether the Congress would be impeaching the Acting President which the Chief Justice would have to preside, who would also likely be dead or disabled. The Constitution does not say who may act in the Chief Justice's place in the event that he is absent during the President's impeachment trial. Making the trial of the Acting President at best difficult, at worst impossible.

If the text is referring to Congress impeaching and trialing the official as a cabinet member than the Vice President, who would also be dead leaving the presiding duties up to the Pro Temp who the Senate may or may not have elected at the time leaving no one with the legal authority to preside. In addition the Presidential Succession Act says "and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them." This leads be to believe that as long as impeachment charges are filed after the cabinet officers becomes Acting President than he is eligible to serve as Acting President, but then there is the additional issue of what exactly "not under impeachment" means is this strictly from the time that the House votes to impeach and until the Senate votes on the matter? If they as Acting POTUS are convicted does this period end? If so then does that allow the cabinet officer to simply step back into that role as Acting President because he would be technically eligible (Again impeached and convicted from the Acting President position not from the cabinet position).

In summary the wording needs to be cleaned up and clearer, but I am not sure of the original intent and would like some discussion over what others think.Simmons123456 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The context is not impeachment, but rather a major disaster that takes out muvh of the statutory line of succession until it gets down to a cabinet member; in particular at the inauguration. The text in the cited source is:
Congress has been annihilated as well, with only a few members who did not attend the ceremony remaining. It will be many months before Congress can function. Our Constitution requires a majority of each house of Congress to constitute a quorum to do business, and no such majority of the House or Senate exists. In addition, because of a series of past parliamentary rulings, there is confusion about whether there are enough members to proceed. The House’s official interpretation of the quorum requirement is a majority of the living members, a proposition that scholars have questioned. Under this interpretation, if only five House members survive, a group of three might proceed with business and elect a new Speaker who would become president of the United States, bumping any cabinet member who had assumed the presidency and remaining in office for the rest of the four-year term.
TJRC (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Number Four?

I was having an argument with someone who claimed that since the Speaker of the House is Number 3 in the line of succession, the president protempore of the Senate would actually be 439th because if the Speaker were assassinated on the same day as the President and the Vice President, the House would elect a new Speaker, and they could do that more than 400 times before they ran out of members to elect. What do you think? -ErinHowarth (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The President pro tem would become POTUS upon the Speaker's death. JTRH (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link

The link to the WikipArticle on the U.S. Constitution is broken. Instead, it points to THIS article.2604:2000:C682:2D00:DD8D:843A:22B7:6BEF (talk)Christopher L. Simpson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential line of succession. 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:

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) 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

I believe that the table of next-in-lines could be improved by adding a color bar for the President's party. It would make it easier to spot the times when a party switch was a distinct possibility. WHPratt (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented – I have modified the next-in-line tables; thanks WHPratt for the suggestion. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice addition! WHPratt (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

miscalculation

this line is wrong "when President William Henry Harrison died in office, only 31 days into his term" it uses age in days|Mar 4, 1841|Apr 4, 1841 but that is wrong because it was the 32nd day of his presidency i would like to change that to "when President William Henry Harrison died in office, on the 32nd day of his term" עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A month" is precise enough. JTRH (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't come out to a month it calculates 31 days עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
March 4 to April 4 is a month. JTRH (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as written now it says 31 days i want to correct it to 32nd day עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is not wrong, WHH did die 31 days into his presidency. The wording in this article is consistent with the wording in WHH's bio article and is consistent with similar wording in other articles where length of time in office is noted. Though it may seem incorrect to you, it's not. Drdpw (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had Harrison died on March 4, 1842, it would make a lot more sense to say that he died "after having served a year in office" rather than saying "in his second year in office." Similarly, we say that Harrison was sworn in as president "when he was 69 years old," not "when he was in his 70th year." The correct way to express the time elapsed before Harrison's death is "31 days into his term." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
when you talk about years or months you are correct but when it's days it should be different and since we aren't saying "only a month into his term" which would be consistent with year we should count all the days he was in office which is 32 עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - At a glance, there appear to be a lot of reliable sources, including the White House and major news outlets, that state either "32nd day" or "32 days". Just sayin' - wolf 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, President Harrison died in the wee early morning hours of April 4, 1841. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes but still on his 32nd day in office עם ישראל חי (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest line of succession above the cabinet, beginning in 2019?

Not certain of this (nor do I have a source), but the President will be 73 in 2019 & the Vice President will be 60. The likely Speaker of the House will be 79 & the likely President pro tempore of the Senate, will be 86. Will this be the oldest lineup in US history? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

probably but not relevant to be included anywhere עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is the oldest first-term president in history, but I'm not sure the combined ages of Trump, Pence, Pelosi and Grassley are the oldest combination ever. There have definitely been older Speakers and older Presidents pro tempore (Strom Thurmond was 98 while third in line behind Bush, Cheney, and Hastert).JTRH (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but they were Bush - 54, Cheney - 60 , and Hastert - 59 Thurmond - 98 total - 271 while currently Trump, Pence, Pelosi and Grassley are together 295 עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On January 3, 1953, the combined ages of Harry Truman (68), Alben Barkley (75), Sam Rayburn (70), and Kenneth McKellar (83) summed up to 296, or over 298 if you count days because Rayburn and McKellar were close to their birthdays.Sbb618 (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True on January 3, 1953 they equaled 298 years and 250 days on January 3, 2019 they will equal 296 years and 74 days but then was at the end of the congress this is the oldest at the beginning of a congress and will beat them on August 18, 2019 when they will total 298 years and 252 days. עם ישראל חי (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With or without a source, that information is trivial and would only be relevant to the article if, at some point in the future, the age and ability/inability of persons in the line of succession receives significant coverage (as it did post-Kennedy assassination and during Watergate). Drdpw (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions & Questions

The primary reference for the succession chart should be a law school or other authority that explains 3 U.S. Code § 19 plainly (e.g., US House Gov website, Cornell LII, GPO via GOVinfo). Current citation is from CNN "Fast Facts" report produced in 2013, ret 2018. Nothing against CNN, but can we do better and go to the source instead? Supplying links that I believe qualify as alternatives for CNN.

  1. From U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Code: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section19&num=0&edition=prelim
  2. From Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19
  3. From Government Publishing Office/GOVinfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title3/pdf/USCODE-2011-title3-chap1-sec19.pdf

MUnderwood 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and will add one of the above suggested references to the CNN reference in the "Current order" section. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Sec. of Homeland Security

I believe that McAleenan should have the same note regarding potential ineligibility as other acting secretaries, though am unsure as to how to put it in. I ask that someone please makes this edit. JJThunder1 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have another problem with McAleenan, in that he may not actually be the acting secretary, under 6 U.S.C. §113(g), it appears to go to Claire Grady. Remember, just because Trump says something is so doesn't mean it's so. Issue raised here. -Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JJThunder1, I’ve taken care of the shading & note. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I believe the accepted theory is that anyone within the line of succession for a Senate-nominated position can be made Acting Secretary, even if they aren't the immediate successor. This was shown when Trump made the Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia his Acting Attorney General despite other positions being higher in the line of succession. However, this has never been tested in court, and the recent stint of Whitaker as Acting Attorney General totally went against this theory as he had not been confirmed by the Senate at all. JJThunder1 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, under the Vacancies Act, yes. But, since the Department of Homeland Security was created after the act was written, it has language in its authorization that may override the Vacancies Act (the act which allows the president to appoint an acting department head in the case of a resignation). Everything's complicated.Sbb618 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility of Robert Wilkie

Has anyone found any discussion regarding the possible ineligibility of Robert Wilkie? He was born in Germany, to a father who is a US citizen (stationed there in the military) and to a mother who I assume is also a US citizen. While a majority would probably argue such circumstances would make Wilkie a natural-born citizen (analogous to John McCain's status) and therefore eligible to the presidency, it's definitely within the gray-area of the natural-born citizens interpretation. This reasonable doubt, no matter how small, might be sufficient to prevent him from being named the designated successor for an event, lest a catastrophe strikes and a vocal minority uses this to question the validity of his accession to the role of Acting President. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prevailing interpretation of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause is that persons who are U.S. citizens at birth (pursuant to U.S. law in place at the time they were born) are natural-born citizens of the United States. It's not a "gray area," any more than the eligibility of someone born in the United States to a non-citizen parent (e.g., Barack Obama) is a "gray area." I don't think that any asterisk or footnote should be added to Wilkie.
FYI, even if Wilkie's mother was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth (and given that she had known Wilkie's father--who grew up in South Carolina--since childhood, it is almost certain that she was a U.S. citizen), Wilkie still would be a U.S. citizen at birth so long as his father had resided in the United States (which would include U.S. military service abroad) for at least 10 years in the aggregate (not necessarily currently or consecutively) of which at least 5 years were after having turned 14 years of age. From the description of Wilkie's father in Wilkie's Wikipedia article, I don't think that there's any doubt that Wilkie is a U.S. citizen from birth. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Something I have wondered about the US Presidential Succession process that I haven't found answers for is If the President is removed/etc., who becomes the Vice President after the original VP becomes President? Does the Speaker of the House? If the President and the Vice President are removed/etc. I know the Speaker of the House would become the President. Who becomes the Speaker of the House? Is there a selection process? Does the House take another vote? Does the Pro Tem or other Cabinet members move up? Would said Speaker be both the President and the Speaker? How is the Vice President selected? I don't think removal is about to happen (though it's possible) but I never learned this aspect of the logistics of said succession plan when I learned it in school and I didn't really find my answer here either... Can someone who is knowledgeable on this clarify this to me? Potentially we could put the clarification in the article as others might have questions as well. The Secretary of Labor wouldn't become the Secretary of Commerce, correct? I am wondering what happens to the "successee" position when a successor is selected.

Thank you!

-TenorTwelve (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever the vice president becomes president, whether it be due to the president's death, removal from office after impeachment, or resignation, no one automatically becomes vice president. In other words, there is no vice presidential succession like there is for the presidency. Instead, the new president (former vice president) would nominate a new vice president under section II of the 25th amendment and that person would then become vice president after confirmation by both houses of Congress. This is exactly what happened after Nixon resigned and Ford became president; Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller to replace him as vice president. Prior to the 25th amendment, there was no mechanism to replace a vice president who had become president, so the office was left vacant until the next presidential election, sometimes for nearly an entire presidential term. For example, there was no vice president for nearly 4 years after Lincoln was assassinated and Johnson became president. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To further answer your question, the line of succession is simply a list of officers eligible to become president in order of priority. It is not a ranking in any other respect, i.e., under no circumstances would any officer "move up" to an office listed higher on the list because of a vacancy in the presidency or another office on the list. If the Speaker of the House or the President pro tempore of the Senate became acting president, then the House or the Senate would elect a new Speaker or President pro tempore, respectively, according to the Constitution. Due to the Constitutional issues of including members of Congress in the line of succession, they must resign from Congress and as Speaker/Pres. pro tem. to begin acting as president (see Presidential Succession Act#Constitutionality and discussion in this article about issues with the current line of succession). If a cabinet secretary became acting president, then they would then, as acting president, nominate a replacement for themselves who would then be confirmed by the senate. Of course, if a cabinet secretary became acting president, it would probably be due to a catastrophic attack on the US government and replacing the cabinet members probably wouldn't be the top priority. Note that only the vice president becomes president when they succeed to the office after death, removal, or resignation; if anyone else succeeds to the presidency in those circumstances, the law states they are merely acting president Mdewman6 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Great explanation!
Have a good day!
-TenorTwelve (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

opening lead

The opening sentences should tell readers what they want to know--just what the line of succession is. The legal justification can came later. Major web services like Google, Siri, Alexa use the first couple sentences of Wikipedia articles to answer millions of searches every day. Rjensen (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences appear are in reverse order, as we need to understand what a line of succession is before telling who fills it. I recommend this replacement:
Oh, wait, I'd missed that the current version is something you had just plopped in. So I'm just going to alter your change with this, since I'm not disrupting some consensus status quo. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the earlier status quo first sentence. I do thank you Rjensen, for moving the “order” sentence to the lead. Drdpw (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility of Vice-President who has already served as President

The following question has arisen in social media (e.g. Quora): what would happen if Joe Biden is elected president, Barack Obama is his vice-president and Joe Biden becomes incapacitated midterm? Obama has already served two full terms and is not eligible for President. The Constitution, however, allows an individual to serve up to 10 years as President if up to 2 years are served as acting president (precedents are available). Would he serve up to two years more or would he be skipped? If he does serve with more than two years remaining til the end of the term, would there be out-of-order elections for POTUS or the next in line would step in after Obama's two years pass?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazibara (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point, and one we should include into the article. Simply put, there's no definite answer to this question[1] and no possible court precedent since this hasn't ever happened. Legal arguments for vs. against could be an interesting section. Eliaszjm (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 22nd Amendment explicitly prohibits election to the presidency more than twice. The two years is before you're elected president, not after. There is no provision whatever for a time limit within a presidential term. Obama could not only be acting president, he could succeed for the remainder of the term if something happened to Biden. The only thing he couldn't do is run for another full term as president. JTRH (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's your analysis, not a matter of consensus, court ruling, nor indisputable legal precedent. The section should explore the question through its diverse points of view. Those cited in the below references could be good starting blocks. [2]Eliaszjm (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Could Barack Obama Serve as Vice President?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
  2. ^ "Could Joe Biden pick Barack Obama as his running mate? Yes. But".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Though there is neither court ruling nor indisputable legal precedent to back this up ... Obama is, according to the 12th Amendment, eligible to serve as vice president and again as president or as acting president (in accordance with the 25th Amendment). However, as JTRH stated, he is not, according to the 22nd Amendment, eligible to be elected again as president. All that said, while interesting, this speculative future-gazing (which came up in 2008 and 2016 about a theoretical Clinton–Clinton ticket) does not belong in the article. Drdpw (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "my analysis," it's a matter of the text of the Constitution. There is no court case and no legal precedent because there has not been an actual situation where the matter had to be ruled on, nor will there be until a former two-term president actually seeks to become VP. So, as Drdpw points out, it's inherently speculative even to discuss it. While I haven't researched this extensively, the only places I've seen the argument made that it couldn't happen are one law review article (by Akhil Reed Amar, if I remember correctly) and one National Review opinion piece in the late 1990's which was specifically directed against Bill Clinton during his second term as president. The rest of the scholarship that I'm aware of agrees that a prohibition on election to a third term as president is only that, a prohibition on election and not a prohibition on succession by other means, whether election as VP, appointment as VP under the 25th Amendment, or accession from another point in the statutory line of succession such as being Speaker of the House or Secretary of State. Two disagreements from what is otherwise a consensus don't qualify as "diverse points of view." JTRH (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is definitely an open question, with good arguments both ways that I won't go into further, and one that won't be resolved unless it were to come up, which itself is highly unlikely. (I will point out, though, that the courts would likely stay out of it (political question doctrine) and leave it to Congress to accept/reject the VP electoral votes or consent to the nomination or not in the case of the 25th am.) There is already significant discussion of this topic at Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Interaction with the Twenty-second Amendment and at Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment. At best, I would support a brief statement pointing to those discussions, if there is an appropriate location for such a sentence to be installed. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acting vice president

I just removed this unsourced 2020-12-04 addition by User:Enthusiast01:

On a vacancy occurring in the office of vice president, for example upon the vice president assuming the office of president, the person next in line of presidential succession assumes the office of vice president on an acting vice president basis. The next in line would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and not the President pro tempore of the Senate.

There no such thing as an Acting Vice President of the United States, other than as an informal title used at times in the past. See Special:Permalink/848251703 for details of its historical usage. -- ToE 16:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not only unsourced, it’s untrue. JTRH (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Chao removal

Someone needs to remove Elaine Chao from the current line of succession—she announced her resignation on January 7, 2021 in response to the Capitol insurrection. I'm not sure how that needs to be accomplished, so I'll let a more knowledgeable user handle it. 2601:3CA:204:F860:68BC:12CD:8289:FD0 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed she has announced her resignation, which becomes effective on January 11, 2020. She will be removed from the succession table on that date. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chao's resignation went into effect today (11 January 2021), so she needs to be removed from here, and her successor acting secretary Steven G. Bradbury needs to be put in her place, with the same footnotes as all other acting secretaries. Negrong502 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why only acting president? for those below the vice presidency.

Wait a sec, if the Speaker or the President pro temp, or any other lower in the line official, assumes the presidential powers & duties (not the office). Why then do they have to resign their offices? Is this a confusion in the article? or a scholarly confusion, over a situation that's never occurred? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They indeed must resign their House/Senate office AND their House/Senate seat before assuming the powers and duties of the presidency. Movies and television depictions of such temporary transfers always seem to miss this detail. It all has to do with the Separation of Powers doctrine. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
eg: The West Wing (fyi) - wolf 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there are a lot of problems with The West Wing's interpretation of presidential succession, when the Speaker of the House becomes acting president at the end of season 4 (episode Twenty Five), the speaker does resign before becoming acting president. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I mentioned The West Wing and specifically linked to that episode. - wolf 22:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone cannot simultaneously serve in the legislative and executive branches. JTRH (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the Ineligibility Clause (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2) of the US Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But once when they resign, wouldn't that automatically 'remove them' from the line of succession? This wouldn't be the case if they succeeded to the presidency, which they apparently don't. If this is already under dispute among scholars, then, I won't push it any further. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In some article on WP there is/was discussion of this point, that it is a sort of "constitutional paradox". It is debated by scholars, and is one of many reasons why some argue the presidential succession act has unconstitutional provisions and needs reform. As for why all lower officers are just acting president even if the president dies/resigns/is removed, that derives from Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, which gives Congress the authority to specify who past the VP may act as president. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 U.S. Code § 19: If [etc etc] there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President (and similarly for the Senate Pres P.T.). However, that doesn't rule out the possibility of doubt about the constitutionality of such provisions. The Fordham article [1] (p943ff) accepts 3USC19 on its face, but does no analysis of its validity, and Fordham is, after all, only a law review article. So I think we should probably cite and quote 3USC19, and mention that Fordham takes it as valid, but leave it at that -- not assert it as flat fact unless we have a very authoritative source (e.g. a constitutional scholar, specializing in the area, writing under his own name) giving an affirmative endorsement of its validity. EEng 19:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Austin and Merrick Garland party affiliations

@Mortifeye: lists both as Independents, which may be accurate, but I can't find any references as to their party affiliations. Some US officers are not even registered to vote, and many decline to do so to avoid being partisan; the same with some judges. As far as I'm aware, one can register as "no affiliation" in some places, in addition to Democrat, Independent, or Republican.

So maybe it would be best to leave the party slot empty for them unless more information could be gathered. In case Independent were to remain I'd suggest linking it to Independent voter instead of Independent politician as neither is what we traditionally understand a politician to be. == Peter NYC (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter NYC: Thank you for the input. I did not consider the independent voter and no affiliation side of the independent "coin" in this situation, and I agree due to a lack of political information on Garland and Austin. --Mortifeye (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_presidential_line_of_succession&oldid=1014380297"