Humanities desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 14

Some questions about presidential succession in the USA

1. Assume that, for whatever reason, president Joe Biden leaves office. Who becomes president? I assume vice-president Kamala Harris. Question: Who then becomes vice-president (and how is that result achieved)?

2. Another scenario: Assume that, for whatever reason, both president Joe Biden and vice-president Kamala Harris leave office. Question: Who then becomes president and vice-president (and how are those results achieved)?

3. Can someone give a brief play-by-play of how exactly did Gerald Ford become vice-president, president, etc., during the Watergate scandal? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For parts of 1 and 2, see United States presidential line of succession. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)See United States presidential line of succession. Item 1, Harris becomes president and appoints a vice president. Item 2, if they leave office at the same time, the Speaker of the House becomes president, who would then appoint a vice president. Item 3 has more steps: Agnew resigned as VP in the fall of 1973. Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to the office. Nixon resigned as president in summer 1974. Hence Ford became president. Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Play-by-play: Nixon resigns on August 9, 1974. Ford is sworn in that same day. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Ford becoming Vice President was unrelated to the Watergate scandal, except for the minor issue that he possibly negotiated with Nixon's people to pardon Nixon should Nixon resign or be impeached in order to be named VP, but all of THAT was only necessary because Agnew resigned amid his own, entirely unrelated, corruption scandal, related to widespread corruption in Baltimore County, Maryland regarding public works contracts; there were rumors that Agnew had been involved in taking kickbacks during his time as a county official, but the damning evidence was testimony that he had continued to take bribes and exert political pressure in favor of his cronies while serving as VP. Lester Matz, who ran an engineering firm with lots of Maryland government work, paid Agnew $10,000 cash, physically conducting the transaction in the White House itself. --Jayron 32 16:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Great. Thanks for the quick history lessons / reminders. It's hard to keep all this stuff straight. So, Agnew leaving office as VP (resigning) was totally unrelated to the Watergate shenanigans? He wasn't involved in that at all ... and the Watergate shenanigans only surfaced after he was gone and the "new" VP was Ford? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to keep straight if you lived through that whole sordid situation. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. In fact, I did live through it ... but was just a little kid. Totally oblivious to any of these happenings. Ignorance is (errr, rather ... was) bliss. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. Being a kid, the details of the political world were probably less interesting to you than they would be to an adult. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ignorance most certainly was bliss! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, his shenanigans emerged during the Watergate investigations; even though they were unrelated. 1973 was a good year for shenanigans. The Watergate investigation was well underway by the time Agnew's troubles became public; as soon as the 5 Watergate burglars were convicted in January, 1973 of the breakin, the focus became on the connections between the Committee to Re-elect the President (aka "creep"), the burglars, and the Nixon administration. Those connections started to come out during the burglar's trials, but once the trials ended, the investigations of Creep and the Nixon Administration directly began. By April of that year, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean had all already been implicated, Nixon had fired Attorney General Kleindeist. Dean shortly thereafter turned state's evidence, and testified on the existence of the tape recordings that Nixon kept. Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973; the Saturday Night Massacre was October 20, 1973. Though it was before I was born, I can only imagine how absolutely bonkers the news must have been that year. --Jayron 32 17:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. So, all of those answers pretty much aligned with what I thought they'd be. So, I guess I really had a "larger question" of concern ... more about philosophy than about mechanics and logistics. We have a long (somewhat complex) United States presidential line of succession. And that's all "set in stone". We have a number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., ... all the way down to number 16 or so. So far, so good. So, in the three original questions that I posed above, there is a certain "break" ... whereby a new president (unilaterally) gets to select on his own who the next VP will be. Doesn't that "philosophy" -- as it were -- go against the whole idea of democracy, elections, the reasons for having the Constitution, etc.? Or is the thinking "just let the new president unilaterally pick someone that they like as their new VP, so that they can all get along and get some work done"? In other words, why not simply move down the "chain" of the numbers in the United States presidential line of succession list ... to fill the vacancies? Not sure I understand the reasoning / rationale / philosophy of letting one person unilaterally select the VP, who would normally be elected by millions of people. Although -- of course -- when a presidential candidate is running for president, he unilaterally chooses his VP running mate, I guess? Although, I also imagine that the party's "big shots" must have their hands in all of this as well. (?) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way ... when people are placed on that list of succession, they are deemed "good enough" (i.e., eligible) to be president ... if the need / situation arises. Why, then, would they not be "good enough" to be vice president ... so much so that a whole new procedure is invoked? (i.e., the new president unilaterally selects their new VP.) Also, when the new president selects the new VP, are there any stipulations at all (age, citizenship, whatever) ... or essentially anyone at all can be selected? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reason why the succession skips over the Vice Presidency is NOT because those people aren't "good enough" to be VP, it's that the VP's job is so unimportant, those people all have more important jobs and it really isn't worth it to replace the VP. The Vice President has exactly two defined constitutional roles: 1) To be alive, just in case the President isn't. 2) To preside over the Senate ex officio, and to break tie votes in said body. That is literally it. It's a title without portfolio, has almost no need to exist from a constitutional perspective. Even presiding over the Senate is such an unimportant role, that for well over a century, no VP has done so except for ceremonial occasions and for when a tie vote is expected. The President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate doesn't even actually do the job of presiding on a day-to-day basis, it is usually delegated to a very junior senator, since no one actual wants to do it. Back to the VP, John Adams (the first VP) said of the job "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived". John Nance Garner, one of FDR's veeps, was much less eloquent; he said that the job "wasn't worth a pitcher of warm piss". Cabinet secretaries and the like have actual administrative jobs to do, unlike the VP. In fact, the job was so unimportant, it wasn't until the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which only came into effect in 1967, a bit more than a year before Nixon's own presidency began, that there was any mechanism to replace a Vice President. Previously, when the office was vacant, they just left it vacant, since it was an entirely unnecessary job. Several presidents, who finished out the terms of their successors, served their whole term without one, such as John Tyler and Chester A. Arthur; other times when a VP died, they also never replaced them. James Madison had not one, but two VPs die in office (Dr. Funkenstein and Elbridge Gerry), neither was replaced before the next election. --Jayron 32 18:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm ... interesting perspective. So, the new president has the unilateral ability to select his new VP. So -- given your above comments -- does that mean that the new president can unilaterally select no one at all ... i.e., he can (legally / constitutionally) say "I don't want/need a VP, so I am appointing no one". That's his prerogative? And in that case, (having a vacant VP role) ... what happens to the succession list? Does the Speaker "skip over" the VP job (since it's vacant) ... and the Speaker becomes the new president if needed? And, in that case, (having a vacant VP role) ... who breaks the Senate tie votes? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the 25th Amendment, the new President didn't select anyone as VP, because there was no mechanism to do so. Since the 25th Amendment, they must select a replacement VP per the procedure so laid out in that document. Prior to the 25th, Presidents could not legally name a successor VP (VPs could only become VPs during a quadrennial election cycle). After the 25th, unless they did so by dragging their feet, they cannot not name a successor VP. And yes, with regards to what happens if the President dies when the VP office is vacant, then the Speaker becomes the next President. That's exactly how the succession list works. Also, if the VP office is vacant, then there is no tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Usually, under normal parliamentary procedure, tie votes do not pass the motion; you need 50%+1, so if there is no VP, and a vote goes 50-50, the motion fails. --Jayron 32 18:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, to reiterate what is below, the President has the unilateral ability to nominate the successor to the VP office; that successor needs to be confirmed. The scuttlebutt around Ford negotiating with Nixon to pardon him in order to get nominated as Agnew's replacement was never really well established; but Ford easily passed confirmation of both Houses; unlike Agnew (and of course, Nixon), Ford was a well-respected, above-board politician with no controversies in his past. He was thought of as a "Boy Scout" and squeaky clean. Plus, Ford was a natural successor to Agnew. He was House Minority Leader, which is an extremely high-ranking position in the party; making him the #2 or #3 guy after the President himself. When Nixon sought advice from his party on who to select to replace Agnew, literally every Republican asked said that Ford was the guy for the job. --Jayron 32 18:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new president does not have the unilateral ability to select his VP. The person he or she chooses has to be confirmed by both houses of Congress. Similarly, all those Cabinet members on the list of succession had to be confirmed by the Senate to reach their current positions. I believe this covers the original poster's point. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It took something like 4 months for Ford's choice of Nelson Rockefeller to get approved by the House and Senate. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian scholar means what by word 'decomposition' ?

A day before we were discussing Nissaism on this desk in reference to Feminism in Pakistan, in the same sequence I reached to a paper by a Russian scholar Marina V. Bakanova, seem to be written sitting in Islamabad. Paper seem to be Russian along with English translation for the abstract.

Following is an excerpt from English translation of abstract of the research paper.

Currently, the country is represented by classical European feminism (which is subject to decomposition to a certain extent), the Nisaism movement (they seek the rights for women in accordance with Islam) and individual activists

Original Russian language sentence seem to be

" .. В настоящее время в стране представлены классический европейский феминизм (который в определенной степени подвержен разложению),

движение Нисаизм – добиваются прав женщин согласно исламу и отдельные активистки, занимающиеся защитой прав женщин по своей личной инициативе. .. "

PDF link @ philosophy.rsuh.ru/jour

Google translator too seem to be translating word 'разложению' to 'decomposition'

1) Can some one help find out from her Russian paper text whether she is criticizing impact of 'classical European feminism' on Pakistani feminism and she means 'decay' while employing word разложению or she means process of 'dilution or localization'?

2) "Нисаизм" This transliteration seem to be for Nisaism. Whether she is referring Nisaism in the sense of traditional restrictive meaning or in the sense of Islamic feminism or both or just women's rights according to Islam? Whether she is appreciative or critiques in her paper.

Those who do not aware of complexity vis a vis Nisaism topic may refer to yesterdays discussion above.

3) Which references she is using for 'Nisaism' ?

Detail citation: Bakanova, Marina V. (2021). "FEMINIST MOVEMENT IN PAKISTAN. YESTERDAY, TODAY, TOMORROW". RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies, International Care Medical Centre “Dua Hospital” (1): 306–314. doi:10.28995/2073-6401-2021-1-306-314.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intended sense of wikt:разложению seems to be "corruption". On the page numbered 312 there's a list of four points, which (if I try to correct the translation) are as follows:

Large amounts of aid money for Pakistanis is received by organizations, but then deposited in private accounts and not used for the intended purpose.
Activists who encourage women to vote, and to defy the advice of their family or recommendations of their spouse, often simultaneously urge the women to vote for the activist's own governmental candidate. If the candidate wins a place in government, most promises to voters are left unfulfilled.
Often the “help” that women receive consists of “loud things” and PR actions to form a positive image of the organization. In most cases the women don't receive assistance in a pure form, but in the form of loans with a large interest rate. Some - despite many requests - do not receive any help at all.
These organizations are considered to be “clean patrimony”. If a foreigner, even if he is permanently resident in Pakistan, seeks to help with development, they will refuse membership, or, much more often, simply do not respond.

Thus, Europeanism in Pakistan is gradually moving into the stage of decomposition [corruption], living in "their close little world", and is becoming less and less involved in really helping women.

Card Zero (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Card_Zero Okay this is very helpful because I was already about to cover Maliha Zia's criticism of NGO of 1990s being not being committed enough to feminism in real sense and mismanagement of overseas financial support. I can add Marina V. Bakanova's observations on the same track.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Nisaism, specifically a sentence explaining its popularity among middle-class Pakistani women, has a footnote citing Alice Su's "The rising voices of women in Pakistan", National Geographic February 6, 2019. However, this article does not mention the term Nisaism. Another publication cited in the section is Rubina Saigol (2016), Feminism and the Women’s Movement in Pakistan: Actors, Debates and Strategies. Islamabad: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Pakistan Office. This booklet too does not use the term. --Lambiam 09:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was H. M. Hodgson OBE?

There is an undated letter from David Lloyd George, on 10 Downing Street notepaper, to an H. M. Hodgson, Esq., saying

Dear Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve that you should receive the honour of Officer of the Order of the British Empire in the forthcoming list of the new Order of the British Empire.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient Servant,
D. Lloyd George

I would like to know who Hodgson was. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Henry Michael Hodgson? Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If so, Robin Hodgson, Baron Hodgson of Astley Abbotts is his grandson. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Good work - the full name led me to this page which the first lists for the Order, from Augut 1917 (I don't think we have it on Wikipedia), which has "HENRY MICHAEL HODGSON, Esq. Contraband Department, Foreign Office" being made OBE. DuncanHill (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! [1] I think the Contraband Department might be concerned with the Blockade of Germany, which some historians believe won us the war by the rather ungentlemanly method of starving the German civilians. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Foreign Office and World War says:

Several new departments were created, the biggest of which was the Contraband Department – established to lead and coordinate all aspects of economic blockade policy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just typing a reply with a link to the same article! But got distracted by looking up a reference in Tom Jones. When it comes to ungentlemanliness, the Rape of Belgium and Unrestricted submarine warfare spring to mind. Blockades were hardly a new form of warfare - a little Corporal had tried it on us before. One thing that's rarely mentioned is that on the morning of the Armistice Lloyd George summoned Tom Jones to Downing Street and directed him "to tell the Shipping Controller to pour food into Germany".^[1] I think it was the French who objected to that. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was the French, but the continuation was also supported by the manderins of the Foreign Office, Admiralty and War Office.^[2] The fact that post-war starvation was not contemplated in 1945 suggests that many felt that it wasn't our finest hour. Alansplodge (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jones, Thomas (1954). A Diary with Letters 1931-1950. London: Oxford University Press. p. 244.
^ A "Weapon of Starvation": The Politics, Propaganda, and Morality of Britain's Hunger Blockade of Germany, 1914-1919 (pp. 132-134)

[1] Jones, Thomas (1954). A Diary with Letters 1931-1950. London: Oxford University Press. p. 244.

[2] A "Weapon of Starvation": The Politics, Propaganda, and Morality of Britain's Hunger Blockade of Germany, 1914-1919 (pp. 132-134)

[1]

[2]