October 16, 2006

Not paying attention

That means I totally missed this:

In a little-noticed action taken nearly four years ago, the House amended its rules dealing with the "continuity of Congress" in emergencies and the succession of speakers. The rule, cited recently in Roll Call, directs the speaker to "deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore . . . in the case of a vacancy in the office of Speaker."

Normally, "speaker pro tempore" is the title given for a few hours at a time to various members of the majority who preside over House sessions. But the rules revision made in January 2003, in response to worries about terrorist strikes that could wipe out large numbers of elected officials, appears to bestow upon a newly named replacement all the powers enjoyed by a full-time speaker elected by his peers.

That would include standing behind only the vice president in the line of presidential succession, said Sally Collins, spokeswoman for House administrators. But other House officials said it is extremely unlikely that a speaker pro tempore could assume the presidency before Congress would reconvene and elect a new speaker.

One thing is certain: The identity of the speaker-in-waiting is a closely held secret. Hastert's office declined to discuss the matter, citing security concerns, and the clerk's office confirmed only that Hastert's list is not made public.

Perhaps the biggest question, some lawyers say, is whether a House speaker -- full time or pro tempore -- can assume and keep the presidency under any circumstance. A statute, not the Constitution, lists the speaker's place in the line succession.

A case can be made that no one in Congress qualifies as an "officer" eligible to assume the presidency under Article II of the Constitution, said Neil Kinkopf, a professor of law at Georgia State University. The question may never be settled, he said, because the Supreme Court would take it up only if a speaker became president and someone challenged the action in court.

As for nightmarish constitutional what-ifs, Kinkopf said, "Imagine where the presidency falls not to the speaker, but to somebody on the speaker's secret list."

Posted by binky at October 16, 2006 09:27 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics


Comments

Well it's a travesty that the law including the Speaker and the senator most likely to be on life support (excuse me, the president pro tempore) hasn't been revised to kick them out of the succession.

Though if the Court were ever to take up this issue I'd think that they'd decline to consider either one of those people eligible to serve as president, much less someone on "The Coach"'s secret list.

But really, the law needs to be changed to exclude any members of Congress.

Posted by: Armand at October 16, 2006 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

i don't know enough about this to get too heavily invested in the discussion, but it does seem to me that the speaker is a logical person for succession following the VP. he is, at least arguably, the third (or perhaps second) most democratically chosen member of the government, the most popular or influential of the most popular party in congress. the same as a presidential election? no. but in the unlikely event of either a double-assassination or a rapid one-two death of pres and VP, it seems like it should do.

of course, bear in mind that a VP who ascends to the presidency has to name someone and seek congressional (senate?) approval to fill the VP's spot anyway, and that process is no more popularly democratic than the selection of a speaker, really.

regardless of the rest, however, any matter of presidential succession should be visible to the public. the notion of a secret list pertinent to that matter is deeply troubling whether legal or not.

Posted by: moon at October 16, 2006 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, well first off I believe VERY strongly we should have a democratically elected president so I VERY strongly believe we should abolish the electoral college and all those ridiculous rules about the president and the vice president potentially getting elected by the House and Senate.

Secondly, I find it very odd that we could have a president who is not of the same party as the president who's been elected (as is entirely possible with a Speaker), and won who's only won the votes of 100,000 or US voters (which you might also get with a Speaker turned president.

And the idea that you should become president just b/c you've managed not to die (the president pro tempore of the Senate) - how in the hell do we still have THAT as US law?

But all that said - my reasoning on this matter has less to do with my likes and dislikes than it does with who's an official "officer" eligible to ascend to the office - and I think a strong case can be made that those people reside exclusively in the executive branch.

Posted by: Armand at October 16, 2006 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

most every "officer" in the executive branch is a patronage appointee of the president, and therefore not even democratically elected by 100,000 people. michael brown for president? how about chertoff? condi? rummy? hell, why not rove?

and to decontextualize it from the bush admin, how about kissinger?

i'm not saying i like the idea of hastert being president (duh), but i'm not sure your solution is any better.

Posted by: moon at October 16, 2006 01:32 PM | PERMALINK

When you are talking about a country of 295 million people, honestly I don't see much difference between getting 0 votes (the cabinet)and 100,000 votes (some House members). Neither has any legitimate standing to say they are the voice or representative of the US people.

And no, I don't like that system where someone who's gotten no votes becomes president (actually I don't like fixed terms - so personally I'd favor someone who succeeds to serve as acting president until another election were held, maybe within 6-8 months). But it seems to me that millions of Americans, when they are voting for president, are really voting for the party and priorities of that individual - which one would think would likely be reflected in the people they appoint to high office. Say what you will about Kissinger - he and Nixon saw eye to eye on lots of stuff, so he'd make sense as a Nixon replacement (though I don't think he could have been president, as he is a naturalized citizen).

Posted by: Armand at October 16, 2006 01:53 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?