Talk:United States presidential line of succession/Archive 1

"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, one Member of the House of Representatives and one Senator from each political party have served as designated survivors concurrently with the Cabinet member so designated, so they can succeed to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives or President pro tempore of the Senate (the offices that are respectively first and second in the line of succession to the presidency after the Vice President)"

Does this mean:

1.) Two Republicans and two Democrats in the Senate and two Republicans and two Democrats in the House are designated survivors so that one of each can succeed, respectively, to the offices of President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House, or

2.) One Senator and one Represenatative, each from a different political party, are designated survivors so that they can succeed, respectively, to the offices of President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House?

And if #2 is chosen, how do they decide which political party's man succeeds to the position of Pro Tem/Speaker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.137.241 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

neither. it means that one republican and one democrat in the senate and one republican and one democrat in the house are designated survivors. --Wuestenfux (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the postmaster general not listed in the line of succession? According to the 1947 succession act. "d)(1)If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under subsection (b), then the officer of the United States who is highest on the following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Attorney General, Postmaster General, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor." was postmaster general removed from the list at some point? Ealster2004 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the confusion of whether or not people in line to become president must be natural born citizens? the 12th Amendment clearly states: "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So no one in line to succeed to the presidency can be non-eligible for the presidency. It is clearly written.

I wonder what happens if for some reason President Bush was unable to continue to hold office. Vice President Cheney has publicly said that he does not want to be President. Would he resign or continue to hold office?

-- I would be very surprised if the VP can turn the job down. I suspect he has to accept the job and then resign. The legislative successors, on the other hand, need only refuse to resign their legislative offices: the Constitution prohibits anyone from holding both a legislative and an executive office, and so a legislator who refuses to resign would be ineligible.

-- Similarly, is there a law preventing a Vice President from assuming the duties of President, appointing a new VP, and immediately resigning? For example, President Bush is impeached and removed from office; Cheney becomes President; Cheney appoints John Yoo as VP; Cheney promptly resigns, elevating Yoo to President without Yoo ever having been part of a ticket. Legal? --Akwhitacre 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Yes, legal. This somewhat how Gerald Ford became President, although he was selected by Nixon. Keep in mind that Congress must approve under terms of the 25th Amendment Samatva (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC) )

The new VP would have to be confirmed by the Senate. It's not as easy as a simple appointment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.247.11 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

It would be interesting to learn what political deals were made to create the list in its order. Why Treasury ahead of Defense? Why Energy ahead of Education? Kingturtle 08:30 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

It's by order in whinch the Departments were created.

• Treasury : created 1789.
• Defense: amalgamated in 1947. (combined Depts. of War, Navy, & Air Force)
• Energy: created 1977.
• Education: created 1979.

-- Someone else 08:41 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

oooooh! i always wondered. what a simple solution. Kingturtle 08:44 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)

When did they decide that Homeland Security was going to come fifth in line (within the Cabinet) after Attorney General instead of last? This is the first I've seen of its placement in the line of succession. Katagelophobia

The anonymous user who contributed that offered up this URL: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s148.html. It's also the first I've heard of it. I don't know if that bill was ever passed or signed into law. It does seem reasonable though, since Homeland Security is mostly made up of older, established agencies. -- Minesweeper 03:13 31 May 2003 (UTC)

The Senate wesite says that this bill is still in committee - since January. Rmhermen 03:37 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm the anonymous user who made the edit. I'm sorry about making the change before realizing that the bill I referred to hadn't even passed yet. Mxn 23:22 12 October 2003 (EDT)

Hmm... perhaps it gets the seniority of its oldest constituent agency, the Coast Guard, which was established in 1789? The Defense Department, after all, has the seniority of the old war department, and Health and Human Services has the seniority of the old Health, Education, and Welfare Department. As far as lengthy lists of possible people after the ones actually in the law, where are you getting that, J.J.? john 03:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, there's finally some news to clear this up: [1]. The bill to move Homeland Security up the list has passed the Senate and is pending in the House. Until this becomes law, I'm moving Ridge back to the bottom of the list. -- Minesweeper 09:18 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The reason Homeland Security is higher is because the Sec of Homeland Security is going to be much more in the loop than say Vetrans Affairs who would not be up to date on the same things. Not all Secretaries are involved in issues such as national security which would probably be a big issue if we ever got that far down on the list.

Shouldn't this be called United States Presidential line of succession or something like that? The US is not (by far) the only country with a "President". -- stewacide 20:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree and will move it. --Lorenzarius 09:52 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles now pointing at the redirect which are probably worth fixing as a result: What links to "Presidential line of succession" --Daniel Quinlan 10:24 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'll do it now. --Lorenzarius 10:37 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed this from the article as it contradicts the end of the article: "In the extremely unlikely case that this entire list of people were killed or unable to serve, the presidency would likely be passed to the first deputy secretaries of each department. For example, if all 15 secretaries were killed, the list would still dictate that the Secretary of State was first in line. Since the Secretary of State would be dead, the Deputy Secretary of State would assume the office, and thus the presidency."

Could someone provide a reference to a law establishing this and add it to the text. If it is true. I can't find it on Google. Rmhermen 23:53, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

That's complete poppycock. The Deputy Secretary of State does not become Secretary of State upon the Secretary's death. They become the Acting Secretary of State. Senate confirmation is required for anyone to become a cabinet secretary as per the US Constitution. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I think House of Representatives would "just" elect a new Speaker of the House if the entire list were exhausted. Someone should just check the succession law. Daniel Quinlan 01:47, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

should an officer other than the Vice President succeed in the event of a vacancy in both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, it is clear that such an officer would merely act as President without actually succeeding to the office itself..

Please justify this. In the first place, where is this "clarified", and in the second place, what is the difference? RickK 02:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that passage was questionable too. "Acting", especially in light of the 25th amendment, primarily means the President is still around, but someone else is filling in for him. The phrase "act" originates from Article II, Section 1 (which was amended by the 25th amendment, but not entirely superceded).

"In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

I'll fix up the text. Daniel Quinlan 02:39, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Done. My new text:

This precedent was followed thereafter, and was clarified in section one of the 25th Amendment. The 25th amendment specifies that "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." However, it does not specify whether officers other than the Vice President can become President rather than Acting President in the same set of circumstances.

Daniel Quinlan 02:54, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC) P.S. I didn't write the incorrect text originally!

Thanks, Daniel. RickK 02:57, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

One more slight clarification. It is true that "US Code 3 USC 19 does further clarify that an officers other than the Vice President may only act as President." so I added that text. I chose not to explain subsection (d) of US Code 3 USC 19, it's a bit complicated and probably just as easy to read in the US Code itself. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

What does "statory" mean? Kingturtle 03:03, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It means someone typed or spelled "statutory" incorrectly. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Just in case you're curious (I was), here's the list of how often people with positions on the current succession list have later (at some point) gone on to be President. The ordering of 2 through 6 seems a bit off to me. 3 is downright scary since the tradition is for the longest serving member of the majority party to hold that position — usually someone very old. I'm not including this in the article, although adding just the counts (assuming I got them right) might be interesting.

1. Vice President - 14 times (John Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, G.H.W. Bush)
2. Speaker of the House of Representatives - 1 time (James Knox Polk)
3. President pro tempore of the Senate - 1 time (John Tyler)
4. Secretary of State - 6 times (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Q. Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan)
5. Secretary of the Treasury - never
6. Secretary of Defense - 2 times (James Monroe and William Howard Taft as Secretary of War)
7. Attorney General - never
8. Secretary of the Interior - never
9. Secretary of Agriculture - never
10. Secretary of Commerce - 1 time (Herbert Hoover)
11. Secretary of Labor - never
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services - never
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - never
14. Secretary of Transportation - never
15. Secretary of Energy - never
16. Secretary of Education - never
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs - never
18. Secretary of Homeland Security - never

Daniel Quinlan 08:27, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I added John Tyler, who served as President pro tempore during the 23rd Congress, during the Jackson administration. Katagelophobia

If George W Bush dies does that mean nancy pelosi becomes VP Fergie fergo (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit from 68.18.3.231 because it contained (at least) the mistake that the succession order has already been changed to move the Homeland Security Secretary upwards (and even said it was quickly changed). The bill has not been signed into law, a fact that has been amply discussed on this page. There appeared to be some other good changes in the edit, so it might be worth going back to recover them, but I think any facts need to be double-checked. Daniel Quinlan 19:48, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

What I just cannot help but wonder: What if, by some horrible chance, all these 18 fellows (people, I'm not sexist) were to be shot? The most coordinated (and complex) assassination in history. Who, then, would take over, and is there a way to determine how many people would have to die for a (Constutitionally qualified) person to be come President? Not... that I've such plans. I'm not qualified for the job anyway.

--cuiusquemodi 04:16, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Most coordinated assassination? Think outside the box. The Wall Street Journal reports the possibility of nuclear terrorist attack. I'm sure the Secret Service thought of this decades ago, even before the WSJ. Chergles (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The deputies would. If, for example the current cabinet was all killed, Armitage would become Secretary of State, Wolfowitz would become Secretary of Defense, etc etc. And then, as Secretaries they would in turn fill the succession list. And the new Secretary Armitage would become President, in this case.

user:J.J.

even if all members of congress and the president and the cabnet were all killed in an attack, each governor can apoint their members of congress, therby filling all congrestional seats, then they could appoint a speaker of the house who will them become president, with the iternet and mass communication, this could take verry little time, and not all governors have to appoint congressman, just a quarum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.253 (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The capitalization of this article title looks weird. Shouldn't the article be United States presidential line of succession? --Lowellian 06:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, changing the capitalization would make the title consistent with such pages as U.S. presidential election, 2000. --Lowellian 22:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

And it would be consistent with the usage in the article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that someone else linked to in the page. --Lowellian 18:01, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the recent edit saying:

Theorhetically, however, if every single member of the cabinet was dead, the succession line would still be valid. Each deparment of government has their own inidividual executive succession lists, indicating who becomes secretary when the sitting occupant dies or resigns. Thus, if all cabinet secretaries were killed simultaniously, so too would all their various deputies assume office immediately afterwards, once again "filling" the list of Presidential Succession.

This has been discussed previously on this talk page. Cabinet level Secretaries have to be approved by the Senate. An under-secretary would become Acting Secretary in the case of the Secretary's removal or death, but would not actually become Secretary and would not be in the line of succession. older ≠ wiser 19:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Federalists did not want the Secretary of State to appear next on the list after the Vice President because Thomas Jefferson was the current Vice President and had emerged as an Anti-Federalist leader.

Is it just me or does this not make any sense? Was Jefferson VP or SoS when the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 was passed? older ≠ wiser 19:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone PLEASE TELL ME what happens if all members of the cabinet are unable to serve as president? Who becomes president say, in case of a nuclear attack and the line gets past Tom Ridge?

misterwally@comcast.net 15:33, 10 October 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you would read the article, it is made pretty clear that there are no official provisions as to what would happen in the case that you mention. There is some speculation, but no one really knows what would happen. older≠wiser 16:15, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

CHAOS. There is no provision in the law for that. If that really happen one of the deputy secretaries would probally assume the presidency even though he/she did't hopefully not be challenged until Congress could reconve and choose a succesor. Somebody would have to take charge even if it's just a General with the nuclear codes.

Alphaboi867. 17:24, 22 October 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we all pray it never does. At least, I know I do.--cuiusquemodi 02:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A possible solution would be for the House of Representatives to elect a new Speaker. He/she would then run to the nearest available federal judge with a Bible in hand. Kewpid 05:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it takes time for the House to meet, and it would especially take time for them to elect what would be an Acting President. This, of course, in what is almost certainly an emergency situation in which time is scarce.

You're also assuming that there's still enough representatives alive to form a quorum; otherwise, you need to hold elections to reconstitute the House, and that will take months. The Senate actually is more likely to provide an Acting President, because governors can appoint senators to fill vacancies.

— DLJessup (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Only the cabinets members? There'd be no panic, as long as the Speaker of the House of Represenatives & the president pro-tempore of the Senate (as of Oct,2005 =Dennis Hastert & Senator Stevens) were alive & well. --142.176.115.81 20:32, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well when you think about it for that to happen there would have to be a big disaster, so a General would take over, because it would be the middle of war. The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be the best to take over in that situation.--CommanderOne 07:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)--CommanderOne 07:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Steps are in place to prevent situations like this from happening. For example, any time there is a joint session of congress (such as the state of the union) when most of the cabinet are present, one or more cabinet members are taken elsewhere should such a catastrophe take place.

I goofed. I corrected 66.254.238.236, writing that "Officers of the United States" referred only to members of the executive branch. If I had reread an external link that I myself added, I would have read this:

"Officers of or under the United States" thus means certain members of the executive and judicial branches, but not legislators.

In my defense, several arguments note that there are separation of power issues with allowing legislators to become President and these would equally apply to judicial officers, and I appear to have confused the textual and separation of power arguments. But the fact of the matter is that I was flat out wrong on this correction. If 66.254.238.236 were not an anonymous user, I would apologize to them on their talk page.

Since the time that I "corrected" 66.254.238.236's change, Daniel Quinlan made a different change to the same sentence (change is noted in bold):

The term "Officer" in the relevant clause of the Constitution is most plausibly interpreted to mean an "Officer of the United States", which is an office-holder in the Executive Branch appointed by the President.

The problem with this construction is that the President (and the Vice President, when not acting as President of the Senate) is an Officer of the United States, but obviously not appointed by the President. Moreover, there are also positions (such as National Security Advisor) which are appointed by the President and are not Officers of the United States. I hope this is sufficient to explain to Mr. Quinlan why I am reverting both his change as well as my goof.

— DLJessup 02:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is a fine clarification, however, the article does not currently define the term "Officer of the United States" in a way that makes it specifically clear which positions are generally considered "officers". In addition, I think we need some form of legal precedent or credible legal reference here. My reading of the Constitution is that heads of departments are generally considered officers in addition to the President and Vice-President. I'm less clear on whether supreme court justices would be considered officers in terms of being eligible for succession, though, but I let you slide on removing that without a reference. Really, I'm just asking for some references on this detail. Daniel Quinlan 22:01, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

(a) I goofed once again, this time on my discussion. As I considered your question about what positions are generally considered officers, I realized that my previous post was wrong: the National Security Advisor is an Officer of the United States. I had thought that Officers (aside from the President and Vice President) required Senate confirmation. But Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution reads:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Since the office of NSA is established by statute and the President appoints him, the NSA is an Officer of the United States. I have therefore stricken that portion of my previous posting.

(b) When you write "the article does not currently define ...", are you referring to the Wikipedia article or to the article in the external link I referenced? If the former, I didn't think it was particularly relevant: the only relevant fact was that legislators are not Officers, and the Constitution requires that somebody in the line of succession be an Officer. My writing was less than stellar; I probably should have written:

The term "Officer" in the relevant clause of the Constitution is most plausibly interpreted to mean an "Officer of the United States", which must be an office-holder in the Executive Branch.

The point is that you took my clause as a definition of Officer, when I meant simply that the set of Officers is a subset of the set of members of the Executive Branch.

(c) Supreme Court justices would be considered Officers of the United States, and would thereby escape that definitional objection to being in the line of succession. However, the same separation of powers arguments that apply to the legislature also apply to the judiciary, so it would probably still be unconstitutional.

(d) "Really, I'm just asking for some references on this detail." Which detail?

— DLJessup 08:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criminey

• The term "Officer" in the relevant clause of the Constitution is most plausibly interpreted to mean an "Officer of the United States", which must be a member of the Executive or Judicial Branch. The Speaker and the President pro tem are not officers in this sense.

This appears to be original research. It is also not adequately referenced. Please tell me why I should not remove this. Daniel Quinlan 07:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's go through this:

(a) First of all, the bullet point you reference is not my claim. It is the claim of constitutional scholars such as Mr. Amar. My controlling statement here is:

Several constitutional law experts, such as Akihil Reed Amar (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/amar/lawreview/1995Succession.pdf), have raised questions as to the constitutionality of the provisions that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate succeed to the Presidency.

I then go on to present summaries of two of the arguments employed, of which the bullet point you reference is one.

(b) As for references, this objection appears in [2] and [3], which links appear in close proximity to the objection.

(c) The U.S. Senate Committees on Rules and Administration and on the Judiciary held hearings on the Presidential Succession Act on September 16, 2003. The first two of the four witnesses, Mr. Amar and John C. Fortier, presented this objection in their testimony.

Is this sufficient? — DLJessup 14:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EdwinHJ just added the {{cleanup}} template, with the edit summary that "CABINET OFFICERS NEED TO BE UPDATED FOR 2005". Let's go through the my issues with this action:

1. As far as I can tell, the list of cabinet officers is actually up to date. This page has seen quite a lot of editing in the past couple of months with the whole Cabinet reshuffle.
2. The cleanup template requires that the person using it add an entry to Wikipedia:Cleanup so that the community can effectively address the problem. I only know about the cleanup reason because this page happens to be on my watchlist; your average user would have no idea why the {{cleanup}} template has been applied here.
3. Typing in all caps is generally considered to be poor etiquette, as it is the online equivalent of shouting.

For reasons 1 and 2 above, I am removing the {{cleanup}} template. — DLJessup 19:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You are quite right see my talk page for more. EdwinHJ | Talk 21:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I remember being taught during a History of the Presidency course in college, that should all the listed persons be unable to serve, the next in line would be the Governors of the States, in order of the states' ratification of the Constitution. Was I taught fact or my Professor’s wishful thinking?

It was only your professor's wishful thinking. Not only does the statute (3 USC 19) peter out at the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, but a law putting governors in the line of succession would most likely be unconstitutional as governors are not officers of the United States — they are officers of their respective states. — DLJessup 05:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but there has been some talk about expanding the list to the Governors in order of that state's creation (e.g. DE would be first as it became a state in 1790 and HI would be last, as it became a state in 1959. And if you include the territories, MP would be the last as it became a territory in 1978.). As you said, it would dodgy for the reasons you stated. - Hoshie/Crat 06:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is an old conspiracy theory that there is a secret list that includes hundreds of statesmen and officials, including all governors and senators. A secret list would not have any constitutional standing. you know, at every State of the Union speech, one cabinet member is selected at random to be elsewhere. i imagine if all 17 died, congress could select a new speaker of the house, and a new senate pro tempore. Kingturtle 06:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, my (admittedly amateur) reading of the law would be that if the list were exhausted, it would constitute a continuous vacancy in the office of President which would be filled by the first new officer in the line. The only two positions that could be created wihout presidential appointment would of course be Speaker of the House and President pro tem. So whichever house was able to convene and vote first could effectively elect a new president by filling one of those offices. This is actually a notable (if unlikely to be needed) advantage to having legislative officers in the line. I imagine the House might actually differ to the Senate on this, since it has less members to convene and generally has more experienced members who would presumably be more suitable to be President. Ddye 00:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

My facts may be wrong, but I thought Alberto Gonzales was born in Mexico, and is also thus ineligible to succeed to the presidency. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Never mind - his article says San Antonio. Don't know where I got the idea. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

however, there is also much evidence to the contrary, the most compelling of which is Article I, section 2, of the Constitution itself, the relevant text of which reads:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

It seems to me that that SUPPORTS, rather than contradicts, the view that he'd be Acting President. If he were to become President, then there would no longer be any Vice President, making it a case of "the absence of the Vice President". Were the intention that he become President, surely it would say "... or when he become President of the United States", or, more likely, simply say nothing as that would be redundant with the already-stated case of his absence. Nik42 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe thhis was superceded by the 25th amendment which more clearly states the the Vice President will become President, not just acting President. 75.70.123.215 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but the discussion isn't whether the VP is properly Acting President *today*, but whether he was prior to the 25th Amendment. Nik42 05:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Albert questioned whether it was appropriate for him, a Democrat, to assume the nation's highest office when there was a public mandate for the Presidency to be held by the opposing party. Albert decided he had no right to a White House that the American people had entrusted to a Republican. He announced that should he need to assume the presidency, he would do so only in an acting capacity, and would resign immediately after Congress appointed a Republican Vice President.

The Succession Act would make him Acting President, yet the 25th Amendment states that the President nominates a Vice-President. So, wouldn't he be Constitutionally incapable of nominating a Vice President? Indeed, wouldn't it be Constitutionally impossible for anyone to nominate a Vice President? Nik42 06:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Each VP who has replaced a dead or resigned Presaident has been called the "President" not the "Acting President" so thee point is moot. Edison 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the consensus is that, whatever the technicalities, they probably would not matter much in such a case. If Acting President Albert had nominated a Republican VP, who would have objected? The Democrats? To do so would have looked like the Watergate hearings were just a power grab. The Republicans? Not bloody likely. Would the Supreme Court step in? Can you say, "Political Question?" I knew you could. 71.246.29.112 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You may search the Constitution until you are blue in the face, but I doubt you will find any reference to the merits of keeping the Presidency within a given political party. The framers of the Constitution were not big fans of political parties, and the Presaidency passing from one party to another would not have been frightening to them at all. Edison 04:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and thing the people above are largely missing the point. The issue as I understand it was that Albert felt it inappropriate. However I have no seen any evidence that anyone felt it would be unconstitutionally or whatever. Had it occured, he would have lawfully remained President until he resigned, died or was lawfully removed... Nil Einne 12:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The 25th Amendment & the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, cleary state: Only the Vice President can become President (in case of the death, resignation or removal from office of the President). Anyother officer in the line of succession, can only become Acting President (in case of the death, resignation or removal from office of the President & Vice President, before confirmation of a new Vice President). Therefore, House Speaker Carl Albert would have become Acting President NOT President. GoodDay 00:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no authority, and so it may well have been the intention of Congress that no one but the VP could become President, as you say, but it most certainly is not made clear in the text of the amendment. In fact, it appears to me that the title of "Acting President" only applies while the President is still alive but incapacitated. All bets are off once he dies or resigns. And, even if, as you state, the 25th Amendment does not allow anyone but the VP to become President, keep in mind that precedents can trump anything. There were an awful lot of "authorities" who rejected John Tyler's claim to the Presidency, saying that he was only "Acting President", but his precedent established the Vice-Presidential succession to the Presidency as a fact—about 125 years before the VP accension was written into the constitution (with the 25th Amendment). Unschool 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A review of Article II does, I think, lend support to your notion that these other officers would only be "Acting" President. Still, I think that, in light of Tyler's precedent (followed by seven others before the 25th Amendment was even passes) likely renders moot this notion. I think in our time, an "Acting President" will only exist while the president is alive but disabled and unable even to resign. Unschool 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And I now see, from a review of the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, what you are talking about. And I would concur that there has been nothing of a precedential nature that would override this. The law is fairly clear, even though the 25th Amendment is not. Unschool 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The term, "Commission" suggests a body appointed by the President or Congress to study the situation. As worthy of respect as this joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution is, we should take care not to mislead the reader. "Private, bipartisan think tank" is as NPOV and accurate a term as I could think of. 71.246.29.112 08:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the sole word "Republican" to refer to the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson is misleading; the institutional continuity is from the Democratic-Republican Party to the modern Democratic Party, not the modern Republican Party. Using the full term "Democratic-Republican" is the only NPOV way to refer to this party. The ideology of the Democratic-Republican Party isn't the least bit comparable to either modern party. Using the name of a modern party as the name for the Democratic-Republicans, even though the term "Republican" was commonly used at the time for the Democratic-Republicans, is at best confusing, and at worst transparently POV.

The two ineligibles should be removed from the list and explained separately imho. That's how it is in the German version of this article (which is featured)Borisblue 01:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about the line of succession as established by law. That two of the offices are currently held by individuals not eligible for the Presidency does not affect the fact that the law lists those two positions. Nik42 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut from article:

This claim was quickly denounced by many, because according to the line of succession listed above, Haig was still two positions away from legally assuming "control." However, some have suggested that much of the controversy was the result of Haig's being in conflict with the White House Chief of Staff. It is possible that Haig only intended to express that he was personally overseeing executive matters at the White House pending the Vice President's return. On the other hand, audio tapes made that day in the White House by National Security Advisor Richard Allen and released in 2001 suggest that Haig was indeed under the erroneous impression that the Constitution placed him after the Vice President of the United States in the Line of Succession.

We need to clarify what Haig meant, or at least what he later said he meant. Also, it's no good quoting "some". This was a big deal at the time and is still a source of bitterness for Haig's political opponents, as well as a Democrat-Republican bone of contention.

pro-Haig side:

• Haig only intended to express that he was personally overseeing executive matters at the White House pending the Vice President's return.
  • Or pending re-establishment of phone or radio contact with the VP (Pappy Bush).
• We need a quote from Haig or a supporter on this.
• Off the top of my head I recall something about "assuring our friends and our enemies that the ship of state has someone at the helm"
• I also recall White House fears that this was part of a wider conspiracy to disrupt the goverment, and that Haig felt it important to assure foreign governments that we (America) had everything under control and that it would not be wise to make any provocative military moves (e.g., Soviets).

anti-Haig side:

• We need to identify the "some" who claim Haig was under the erroneous impression that the Constitution placed him after the Vice President of the United States in the Line of Succession
  • A quote from a tape would be nice. Readers could evaluate his words for themselves.

I put a summary of the dispute immediately back in the article, but that is not sufficient. We need to flesh this out. I can think of at least 3 things that need looking up.

There's a fair amount of overlap in the six Wikipedia articles dealing with the general topic of U.S. presidential succession:

• Acting President of the United States
• Fiction regarding United States presidential succession
• Presidential succession
• Presidential Succession Act
• Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• United States presidential line of succession

I think there is the potential for merging some of these. --Mathew5000 09:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a seventh:

• Acting Vice President

Ericl 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a section in this article on interesting situations, which arise, I believe, because the laws governing succession to the Presidency are not comprehensive enough: In my lifetime alone, such situations have been intriguing: When JFK was assassinated, there was discussion about how, if President Johnson were either killed or incapacitated, the next two men in line were so old it was considered problematic: Speaker of the House John McCormack, and President pro Tempore of the Senate Carl Hayden. I don't recall if they were younger than President Reagan, but they were considered in poor health and somewhat frail. (2) More significantly, after Richard Nixon resigbned from office, we had a President who had never been elected to national office, because former VP Agnew had resigned after bribery scandal revelations (yes, I know, hasn't our nation been blessed with great statesmen?). Gerald Ford had been nominated to serve as VP by Pres. Nixon after Agnew's resignation, and was confirmed by the Senate, in accordance with law. Now Ford became President. We had no Vice President at all until the Senante confirmed Nelson Rockefeller, who was was nominated by Ford. During that time interval, if something had happened to Ford, presumably the House Speaker would have succeeded, as we had no Vice President. Let's not even begin to discuss Dan Quayle in the Oval Office...but 66.108.4.183 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

The infermities of McCormack & Hayden (in November 1963), along with a new President (LBJ), who had heart disease, kick started the movement towards the 25th Amendment. GoodDay 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always been told in school and for that matter beleived, throughout many years, that the Governors of the states followed the presidential line of succession - ordered by when their respective state ratified the Consitution.

I did not really see this mentioned in the article, the closest describing some sort of rumor that did not really sound like this situation.

Has anyone else heard of this? Or is it wrong? --Firebird2k6

It's wrong. State governors are not in the line of the succession to the US presidency. --Mathew5000 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the Constitution provides that Congress may designate what "Officer" shall participate in the line of succession, which is interpreted to mean officer of the federal government. Most scholars would argue that it would be unconstitutional to have state governors in the line of succession. However, there is at least one proposal, by Mr. Miller Baker, to have state governors in the line of succession if the President has chosen to "federalize" them in their capacity as commander-in-chief of their state's National Guard [4].--Mathew5000 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been said time and again in the discussion page that if the list were exhausted then the House or Senate could elect a new Speaker or President pro tempore respectively and those persons would automatically be in the succession, but that scenario assumes that the House and Senate are still around (which they probably wouldn't be in the event of a nuclear attack). Still it is highly unlikely that all 17 (and possibly 18) persons on the list + designated survivors + the House and the Senate would be killed (that is after all why one person on the list and the designated survivors are always hidden away during important functions), but in the interest of discussion, should such a situation actually occur, then theoretically (if I remember what was said earlier on this page), the governors would have a role in presidential succession: an indirect one. If such a situation were to occur, then the Governors would have to appoint new Senators and the new Senate (which obviously would have to meet somewhere else) would then elect a President pro tempore who would then go on to become the next President of the United States. Now did I get that right or did I miss anything?

This situation, although not actually in the law would seem to be the best situation, since it allows for the reconstitution of an arm of the federal government - part of the legislature (which in turn would reconstitute another arm of the federal government - the executive). If Governors were allowed onto the succession list, might'n this cause problems? For example can you imagine if Arnold Schwarzenegger....wait, he's not a natural born citizen, okay forget that (which brings up another problem - how many governors would be disqualified from a governors' list for not being natural born citizens?). But essentially my point was that since each state is theoretically equal then there could be disagreement even over any official governors' list. Also, without a federal government (and if the federal government was not at least partially restituted in the form of the Senate for whatever), would the individual states then become (or have the option to become) fully sovereign? What if the governors (or at least some) decide not to appoint senators?72.27.92.7 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if DC were nuked, there'd probably be *some* Congressmen outside of DC. It's very rare for all 100 senators and all 435 Representatives to be present at the same time. There's usually at least a few on vacation or fact-finding missions, or even on the campaign trail. Nik42 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a whole paragraph devoted to Condoleeza Rice being the third African American woman in the presidential line of succession? This doesn't fit with the rest of the article or with the section it's in. If someone wants to create a section about women and minorities entering the line of succession, go ahead, but don't arbitrarily put one example in a spot it doensn't belong.Papercrab 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Was it called "Air Force One" at the moment Johnson took the oath? My understanding is that the pilot didn't designate the flight as "Air Force One" until after Johnson took the oath. SnappingTurtle 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I forget, is it 314,546 angels that you can fit on the head of a pin, or 314,547? :-) Unschool 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

LBJ became President, immediately upon JFK's death. Therefore he was already President for a few hours before his swearing-in on Air Force One. GoodDay 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

People need to understand that until our newly elected leaders actually take thier offices (most of them will do so at the start of next year), they are not automatically in the line of succession. If the President were to die tonight, right now, the list that is up there now would be the one which would be used. -Husnock 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the next step and semi-proected the article. There have already been at least four people changing the article to reflect the newly elected people before the elections were even over let alone anyone appointed. Also, Rumsfeld is still the SecDef until his offically retires and his replacement is appointed and confirmed by the Senate. -Husnock 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Rumsfeld, yes he has to resign first. However, Gates could become the Secretary as a recess appointment. But he would not be eligbile to be in the line of succession until he confirmed by the Senate. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because the Democrats have said she is the new speaker, doesn't make it so. Please wait for the official results from the house and senate themselves pefore putting her in the order.StayinAnon 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This problem could be solved by removing the present officeholders entirely. -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think StayinAnon's explanation is sufficient for now. The present officeholders should definitely remain. Zz414 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should we retain the present officeholders? They are always changing resulting in a need to continually update a page that otherwise would be quite stable (or risk having out of date info). The articles on each office list the current office holder. -Will Beback · † · 07:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people enjoy creating easy tasks that "need" doing to give themselves something to do that occupies their time and provides a sense of accomplishment. Whatever floats your boat. WAS 4.250 07:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because if something happened today to the line of the Presidency, the present officeholders would take over. This page should reflect that, until something changes. It's not so hard to wait until January 3 or 4. Zz414 08:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article must say that the Nth place in line belongs to office X. I don't see why we need to keep a constantly-updated list of 20 officehoders when their names are adequately recorded just one click away. As far as how hard it is to wait, just look over the edit history. -Will Beback · † · 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article "Secretary of Defense" states that Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense as of December 6th, 2006
This article states that Robert Gates does not become Secretary of Defense on December 18th, 2006 when he is sworn in.Which one is correct? user:mnw2000 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Secretary of Defense has already been corrected to December 18. Gates doesn't take office until he's sworn in. -Will Beback · † · 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd Session of the 109th Congress ends at noon on January 3rd. However, Congress enacted a law that the new Congress does not begin until January 4th. In the interim -- will Speaker Hastert and President Pro Tem Stevens still be in line? The Senate is a continuous body. Therefore, one could make an argument that the President Pro Tem remains in place until a new one is appointed/elected. However, the House is not a continous body and thus, as of noon on January 3rd there will be no actual representatives -- only representatives elect. Does that mean that the line of succession skips the Speaker of the House? Certainly it can be argued that the representatives-elect take office at noon on January 3rd (even without being sworn in). However, the Speaker will not be elected until January 4th. ResearchExpert 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the second session of the old congress ended at midnight, there's been lots of arguments abou that. While the Senate is a continuous body, the officers terms last only two years, so there is a vacancy that lasts anywhere from twelve hours to three weeks (one year in the '80s, the swearing in didn't take place until the 25th or something like that.) So. As of now (or 35 minutes from now), nobody is speaker or president pro tempore, and second in line is Secretary of State Rice. Ericl 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

EricL, we meet again :) The Senate is a continuous body, as ResearchExpert mentioned above. Additionally, Senator Stevens, the President pro tempore, was not up for election in 2006; he thus he maintains his position as Senator without interruption (he won't even take a new oath tomorrow) and Senate rules provide for him to maintain his office as President pro tempore unless he dies, resigns, his term expires, or a new President pro tem is elected.

I agree that there is no Speaker of the House. But there absolutely is a President pro tempore of the Senate: Senator Ted Stevens. He will remain so until the Senate convenes tomorrow and elects someone else to that position. He is still in the line of succession as the new number two and Secretary Rice is temporarily number three. JasonCNJ 05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether something along these lines might be of any interest (if so it could use some work still):

Шизомби 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This might work as an interesting trivia article (There is an article about Women in the United States Senate). Madeleine Albright and Elaine L. Chao and possibly others would have to be removed because they are not natural-born citizens and are/were ineligible to the Presidency. NoSeptember 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We get to do this again in two years. I hope someone remembers. Remember the only double vacancy occured in 1973. A unique event, which should render most of this stuff merely theoretical.Ericl 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Double-vacancy? Huh?

I think next time we might want to submit this page for full-protection to prevent early adjustment of the line of succession. JasonCNJ 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So, it's understood. Only the Vice President can become President (if the President died, resigned or was removed from office). All other officers in the succession line, can only become Acting President (if the President & Vice President died, resigned or were removed from office and before a new VP was confirmed by the Congress). GoodDay 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hate to add to the theoretical mess here, but I have two questions (which are probably answred in some article or other that I've not seen). First, if the President and VP are both in some fashion removed from office, does the Speaker of the House both act as President and keep her legislative role? So she would be the for-real Speaker of the House and hold all the power that that entails, as well as holding all the executive power delegated to the President, concurrently? And second, what happens if a VP who has served, say, 5 years as President prior to being elected VP (for whatever reason) succeeds to the Presidency shortly after the beginning of his or her term? No one can serve 9 years as President, so what happens when the 8th year is done? Would the President be required to resign and allow the (new) VP to complete the term? Vbdrummer0 07:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon the death, resignation, or removal of both the President and the Vice President, the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President of the United States only upon resigning as Speaker and as Representative in Congress. If the Speaker refuses to resign, he/she cannot become Acting President.

Let me correct one thing initially: "No one can serve 9 years as President" is incorrect. The 22th Amendment provides that a Vice President who serves as President for less than two years of a term to whom someone else was initially elected is eligible to run for two full terms in his own right. The U.S. nearly faced this situation with Lyndon Johnson, who won election to a full term in 1964 and initially sought re-election to a full term in 1968 - despite having served as President from November 1963. So, essentially, someone could serve as President for 9 years, 364 days.

The second question you asked is a bit confusing. Let me fill in some years.

Person A was elected President of the United States in 2008 and served from Jan 20, 2009 until Jan 20, 2013.

Person A was re-elected President of the United States in 2012 and served from Jan 20, 2013 until his resignation on Jan 20, 2014.

The then-Vice President, Person B, was sworn in as President on January 20, 2014 and served until January 20, 2017; although eligible to serve one additional term as President, Person B did not seek election as President in the 2016 elections.

You seek to know what might happen if Person A was elected Vice President in 2016 (or any other election year) and then had to succeed to the Presidency.

I don't know if that's possible since the 12th Amdt requires a Vice President to be constitutionally eligible to the office of President. Obviously this has never been tested, but I would argue that the 22nd Amendment adds a qualification to the office of President and that Person A, having been twice elected to that office, would fail to meet the qualification. If my interpretation is correct and Person A failed to meet the standard, then he wouldn't be eligible to the position of Vice President.

If my interpretation is not correct and the 22nd Amdt does not add a "qualification" to the office of President within the meaning of the 12th Amdt, then...providing that the President on February 20, 2017 suddendly dies, Person A, serving as the Vice President, is elevated to the Presidency. He takes office under the terms of the 25th Amendment and he runs afoul of no Constitutional provision by serving out the term to which his predcessor was elected. He cannot run again for office but if he runs the course of the term he will have served a combined total of 8 years and 11 months in office. He would not be required to resign after 8 years to allow the next in line to finish out the 11 months remaining on the term. JasonCNJ 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The 22nd Amendment only limits election to president. It doesn't say anything about succession to the presidency. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the 22nd amendment adds additional qualifications, but rather restricts the number of times that a person may be elected President. So, I agree with Will, and in my opinion the 22nd amendment does not prevent a person from succeeding to the Presidency, even if they have already been elected to 2 full terms. In theory, that could allow an individual to serve more than the 9 year, 364 day maximum that could occur if an individual succeeded to the Presidency more than 2 years into the term of their predecesor. In fact, it could, in theory, allow an individual to serve an infinite number of terms, so long as they continue to succeed to the office, rather than be elected to it. Of course, none of this has or likely will ever be tested, but it's an interesting debate nonetheless. JCO312 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When I get a chance this week I will head downstairs to the court's library and read over the legislative history of the 22nd Amendment to see if this issue was ever discussed (my guess is no). Without legislative history I don't know how the Court could conclude that the two term limit applies to succession as well as election, unless they got creative with the definitions. JCO312 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How creative with definitions would they need to be? This is a bit of a guess, but the 12th Amendment says the VP must meet the same eligibility requirements as the President. If no person who has served 2 terms as President (or acting President per the 22nd Amendment) is eligible to be President again, couldn't it follow that a person who has held the Oval Office for 2 terms is also not eligible to be VP? I think that that isn't a very controversial claim. But while I'm at it, what if someone who's been elected President twice and serves all 8 years then becomes Speaker of the House at some point in the future? Is he or she eligible to act as President, perhaps for an extended period of time, if the President and VP cannot serve or are removed? This is quite a quagmire; I'm not sure I'd like to see what would occur in govenment if situations like these should happen. (And I just realized that JasonCNJ made the same argument I did, just above. Great minds.) Vbdrummer0 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would need to be super creative actually, because the Constitution does not say that no person who has served 2 terms as President is ineligible to be President. Section 1 reads as follows:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Obviously there is a difference between being elected President and serving as President (Gerald Ford being the best example of this, as he wasn't elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency). A Vice President who succeeds to the presidency was never elected President. Thus, the Court would have to interpret the term "elected" to include "succeeded." The plain meaning of the words, of course, would contradict that reasoning. Surely, the framers of the 22nd Amendment could have written "No person shall serve in the office of President more than twice," and since the Court always begins with the plain language, they would have to go to other sources, legislative intent or something, to interpret the Amendment as you and User:JasonCNJ suggest.JCO312 03:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So.. if the President (Bush, for example) were to resign or die, the Vice President would become president, until election time? I'm just curious why this isn't mentioned in the 'intro', since what I know of American history, they were disdainful of any British customs, and have gone to great lengths to diststance themselves from the British (including language). If my question is incorrect, I have no idea how this would make sense at all. Disinclination 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the President were to leave office the Vice President would serve the remainder of the term. Maybe I'm missing something, but what British custom is the United States trying to avoid? JCO312 14:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if the VP became President before the two year mark, he (or she) would be eligible to run for two full terms after the end of the current term. If it is after the two year mark, then he (or she) would only be eligible to run for one full term. user:mnw2000 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Other way around. Pre-two year mark, only eligible for one more term, post-two year mark, can run for two terms. JCO312 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the British custom in question is that the Prime Minister may be replaced by his or her party without triggering new elections. I'm not sure how evolved that system was when the U.S. Constitution was written. Do the British even have have a civilian line of succession for their head of government, such as in case of nuclear attack? In any case I don't see the need for special mention in this article. -Will Beback · † · 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a distinction, as the replacement of an American President by the Vice President doesn't trigger new elections either. I agree that it doesn't warrant mention in this article. JCO312 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So, a person can be President of the United States for 10 years (2 full terms & half a term): example - Jan 20, 2011 to Jan 20 ,2021) or Acting President (half a term) & President (2 full terms): example Acting Pres - Jan 20, 2011 to Jan 20, 2013 then Pres Jan 20, 2013 to Jan 20, 2021? GoodDay 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as we can tell, a person could succeed to the presidency an unlimited number of times. For example, former President Bill Clinton could run for VP or become Speaker of the House, and in the case of the appropriate vacancies could serve the remainder of the term. He could then run again for VP and could again succeed the president in case of a vacancy.

While this speculation is fun, let's try to cut it short. This isn't a discussion forum. -Will Beback · † · 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. GoodDay 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an account, or otherwise I would have just made the change.

The article says "President Arthur, when he left on trips, would leave an envelope addressed to 'The President', assuming, if worse came to worse, someone would pick it up and open it."

But the saying should be "if worst came to worst."See http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/11/messages/425.html

68.90.159.175 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Daniel

I disagree. "If worse comes to worst" indicates a progression from "more bad than some things" to "the worst possible thing". However, in searching Google for support for this, I've found various sites which support each of "worse comes to worse", "worse comes to worst", and "worst comes to worst" as the "preferred" version of the idiom, as well as many others which have no consensus. Therefore, it would seem to me that there is not a compelling reason to change the page. --ΨΦorg 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you don't need an account to change the page! Cheers, JCO312 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not realizing that this page was protected from unregistered users. Cheers, JCO312 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One reason to remove this idiom (apart from the controversy about its wording) is that it is vague, and in this context, meaningless. What circumstance is it referring to? The death of Chester Arthur while abroad? His incapacity? Why not say exactly what he was thinking of, if we know. Also, if it were addressed to "The President", then presumably the only person who would be entitled to open it would be the the person who had legally succeeded Arthur as president, not just somebody. JackofOz 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I love this detail and badly want to know if this alleged letter was preserved, and what did it say? Tempshill 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This page was protected because people were jumping the gun and putting in information that wasn't valid before 12:00 on 4 Jan. However, that date has now passed. Can the page now be unprotected? — ciphergoth 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Secy of State Haig, didn't just say 'I'm in control here', he said roughly 'I'm in control here, pending the return of the VP. Keeping in contact with the VP. Plus Haig pointed out the VP (during that crises) made the decisons. The House Speaker was next-in-line. Saying Haig merely said 'I'm in control here' suggests he also ignored the VP. GoodDay 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the full quote, so it should address your concern now. JCO312 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to add this to the article. The think tank (mentioned in the article), gives concerns of the president pro tempore being in the line of succession because the longest serving Senator of the majority party is elected to the position, (Strom Thurmond given as example). It should be mentioned, the majority party in the Senate, doesn't have to selected the longest serving Senator. They would or could, elected a young healthy Senator (to avoid succession concerns). GoodDay 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From a practical perspective, it seems unlikely that the Senate would have the ability to knowingly depart from tradition, as the sort of catastrophe that would allow the President Pro Tempore to act as President probably wouldn't be forecast in advance. In any event, I don't think that the article needs to rebut every potential concern. JCO312 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds sensable. GoodDay 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was having a discussion with one of my friends and I became stumped. What would happen if a President-elect were to die or become otherwise incapacitated prior to being sworn in? Would the VP-elect then become President-elect? Would the current President remain in office until a new election could be held? (That leads to a slippery slope of a President being able to order assassinations of Presidents-elect to remain in office). -- 12.116.162.162 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe found my answer in the article. It helps to RTFA before asking questions :-p -- 12.116.162.162 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I assume the things you found included Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment? Newyorkbrad 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm am currently a student who has recently taken a U.S. Constitution Test, and from what I learned, AFTER Pro tempore, succession is followed by the Senate Majority then the Senate Minority Leaders, then the cabinet members.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.98.17 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

You were poorly taught. Presidential succession flows from the President of the Senate pro tempore to the Secretary of State. The Majority and Minority Leaders have no place. JasonCNJ 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I guess I just remembered it wrong.68.255.103.129 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Apologies if my prior message seemed harsh. If there's anything else to clear up, don't hesitate to ask. JasonCNJ 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do the seals of the officials in the line of succsion improve the list? Since the seals of cabinet secretaries aren't well knowen, they dom't seem aid in recognition. They do make the list much longer. Any thoughts? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the seals are helpful. I think they make the list too long and do not contribute enough to justify their inclusion. I would support a revert to the list without the seals of the cabinet agencies. JasonCNJ 02:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed them. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JasonCNJ 16:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Should Alberto Gonzales be removed from this list? He's resigned, but his resignation doesn't take effect until September 17. In the interim, is he still considered part of the presidential line of succession? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes (to your last question). Til Eulenspiegel 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alberto Gonzales is still the Attorney General. His removal from the list corresponds with the effective date of his resignation - not his announcement of his resignation. He is still the Attorney General, still has the powers, duties, and responsibilites of the office - and under normal circumstances will do so until 17 September. Please, everybody, let's keep him in the list. JasonCNJ 16:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Once his resignation is effective, and SG Clement becomes Interim (or is it Acting?) AG, will Clement qualify for the list? He was not confirmed as AG, but was he not confirmed for the Solicitor General Position? In other words, does a person in the list have to be confirmed by the Senate for the position they hold, or just confirmed for some position even though they currently hold another? (Also, when Clement takes the helm of the DOJ, will he continue in his post as Solicitor General?) Vbdrummer0 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Clement won't qualify; yes, the position must be confirmed. See Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947#Text_of_current_law, subsection (e). -- Terry Carroll 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I know there was a bill set to move up the Secretary of Homeland Security in the order (which failed) but have there been any recent movements to change the line of succession. It seems to me that at least one office, the Treasury, is placed much too high on the list. Now, I'm sure this is because of historical significance, but seeing as how the office is not as active in everyday world affairs, it seems more fitting toward the bottom of the list. Now, who am I to suggest this, but I was just curious as to whether historical significance is truly the reason the Secretary of the Treasury has remained on the top of the list. Jared (t)  23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Secretaries of the Executive departments are in the line of succession in the order in which their respective Departments were established. Thus, the Secretary of State (Department of State), followed by the Treasury Secretary (Department of the Treasury), followed by the Secretary of Defense (Department of War which was renamed the Department of Defense in 1947), follwed by the Attorney General (Department of Justice.), continuing on to the Secretary of Homeland Security. I am aware of no proposals to change this law to place the Treasury Secretary further down on the list. JasonCNJ 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The ministers of foreign affairs, financial affairs, defensive affairs, judicial affairs and home affairs are almost always the top members of the cabinet of every country in the world. Those five and my title of "Minister of Primal Affairs" and his deputy, and, if available, the head of state. Therequiembellishere 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is he still in office?! Therequiembellishere 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked... According to the VA site, the head of the Department is now "Acting Secretary" Gordon Mansfield; it no longer lists Nicholson, so I guess he isn't... Til Eulenspiegel 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering there . . . Therequiembellishere 22:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I submit that Acting cabinet officers not be included in this list. It seems incredibly silly to list them with * notes that indicate they're not actually in the line of succession since Acting officers don't count. I submit we should make the office list "vacant" since ....those offices are vacant. The Acting Officers may be great trivia and should be noted on the article for the relevant department -- but not on the page where acting officers do not count. JasonCNJ 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the list of occupants of these offices changes frequently. It makes sense to keep the overall list of offices unchanging, and then slot in the officers as they come and go. My personal view is that we'd be wiser to omit the current officeholders entirely. It changes roughly several times a year. That means it requires constant maintenance to remain accurate. Aside from making that radical change, one thing we could do could be to move the ineligible officeholders to footnotes, or at least make them less prominent. - On further review I think the existing formatting works well, and I don't recommend a change at this time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that this question has been picked over at length, but it's worth noting that there's been at least one bill proposed in Congress indicating that US Code 3 USC 19 does, in fact, allow Acting Cabinet Secretaries into the line of succession. Rep. Cox put forward a bipartisan bill, H.R. 2319, in the House back in 2003 that amended this area of the Code to remove Acting Secretaries from the succession order, but the legislation never made it out of committee. Moreover, a Brookings Institution paper from the same year [5], written by the Executive Director of the Continuity of Government Commission [6], states that Acting Secretaries do serve in the line of succession provided that the Senate has confirmed them to any kind of position -- that of an Undersecretary, for example. The law certainly may have changed to bar Acting Secretaries since 2003, of course, but I haven't been able to find that evidence. Is there documentation to back up the elimination of Acting Secretaries apart from the apparently disputed text of US Code 3 USC 19? 70.17.64.113 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Brookings Institution article is like a magazine article; it is not even a research paper by the Brookings Institution or a law review article, let alone a Congressional finding, an Office of Legal Counsel opinion, or a court case. Also, the Brooking's author seems to be simply in error; he is not acknowledging some conventional wisdom of the Presidential Succession Act and then explaining why that conventional wisdom is incorrect, he simply states without justification that an Acting Secretary is in the presidential line of succession when the U.S. Code says no such thing. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize it would take a long time before this would be an issue but... As a naturalized citizen, is Mel Martinez inelgable to become President pro tempore or would he be simply skipped in the Presidentail line of succsession should he become President pro tempore and a succession emergency arises? Just curious.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind... I got the answre from the page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

if president and vice president would die who would be next in chain of command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.198.43 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, as is displayed very prominently on this article. -kotra (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Under the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution specifically disallows legislative officials from also serving in the executive branch. For the Speaker or the President pro tempore to become Acting President, they must resign their position, at which point they are no longer in the line of succession. This forms a constitutional paradox to some."

Upon assumation of the postion of President or Executive position, Wouldn't that be the time at which they would vacate the legislative position?Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed on the list of US presidents page that LBJ never appointed a VP. Was he supposed to? I find it odd that a president served for almost a year with no VP. It presents some questions -- was the rest of the order of succession intact? The order of succession implies that all of the people die at the same time, roughly -- it is kind of assumed that "order is restored" by the president appointing a VP, in other words the order of succession is not invoked over several months. But I guess this isn't true. Presumably the Dems controlled the Senate at the time, or LBJ would have taken action. I can only imagine if this happened today, one of the first things the new president would do is name a VP to "reassure" the people -- it is interesting that this had little perceived value in 1963-64. Perhaps it was because the election was not too far off. Anyone know? Priceyeah (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In 1963-4 the 25th Amendment didn't exist, so LBJ was legally unable to fill the vacancy. The fact that in the past there could be almost four years with no VP was the main reason for that part of the Amendment.125.239.174.238 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the popular comic "Y: The Last Man," an apocalyptic scenario does play out, and the Secretary of the Interior becomes president. I don't know if there is a section for fictional treatments of the line of succession. Priceyeah (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galatica. Everyone is killed down to the 16th place. The secutary of education thus becomes president.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.250 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Today I removed a line that made reference to "historian and Constitutional scholar" beliefs. This line had been marked for a citation needed for some time and none had been given. Furthermore, the Constitution is not vague on the fact that "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation ..." Meaning that the exercise of the Office is determinant on taking an oath, contrary to what this line had professed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.119.246 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

These two areas of the article seem to be conflicting:

"According to some reports, President Harry S. Truman suggested that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate be granted priority in the line of succession over the Cabinet so as to ensure the President would not be able to appoint his successor to the Presidency (the Secretary of State is appointed by the President), whereas the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate are elected officials. (The Speaker is chosen by the U.S. House of Representatives and every Speaker has been a member of that body for the duration of their term as Speaker; the President pro tempore is chosen by the U.S. Senate and must be an elected member of that body.) The Congress approved this change and inserted the Speaker and the President pro tempore in line, ahead of the members of the Cabinet in the order in which their positions were established."

This passage can be interpreted that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate was not placed in the third position to succession until Truman's presidency. However, the following paragraph can be interpreted that the President Pro Tempore was third in line for the Presidency at the time of Lincoln's assassination:

"In 1865, when Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency on the death of Abraham Lincoln, the office of Vice President became vacant. At that time, the Senate President pro tempore was next in line to the presidency. In 1868 Johnson was impeached, and if he had been removed from office, President pro tempore Benjamin Wade would have become acting President. This posed a conflict of interest, as Wade's own vote on removal could have helped to determine whether he would succeed to the presidency." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.223.173 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

James Peake is without colour. Is there a reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Harrison (talk • contribs)

The colour is an indication of party affiliation. Checking Peake's WP biography, I see no sign of any declared party affiliation. (He seems to have had a career as a professinal soldier). It's reasonable to leave out any indication of party affiliation if we don't have any evidence of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the Succession Act of 1947. Since then, some new cabinet officers have been created. By custom, the oldest of the new ones are more senior. However, the act does not mention the newer departments (since the government is not in the fortune telling business). Article should mention that the newer ones are in the presumed line of succession. Chergles (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read it all carefully, it mentions there has been legislation more recent than 1947 defining the order, most recently in 2006. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel, do you know for a fact that the 2006 legislation passed? As I recall, the purpose was to elevate the Secretary of Homeland Security to the #5 position, under the assumption that he or she would be more appropriate than, say, the Secretary of Education, to assume power in the event that a national catastrophe had occurred that could decapitate the US government by killing the top six or seven people in the line of succession. I thought it had gotten bogged down in Congress. Unschool (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The most recent legislation that passed placed the Secretary of Homeland Security last in the order of succession, consistent with the prior practice of keeping the Cabinet officers in the order of succession in line with the creation of their respective departments. Any suggestion that the article is not up-to-date with the "new" executive departments created after 1947 is incorrect; similarly, the Homeland Security Secretary is not #5 in the list but is appropriately placed at the end of the list. JasonCNJ (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That confirms my thinking. Are you able to provide a link to show us this? Unschool (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is simply speculation. I don't see the value in that section. It's probably obviously unverifiable, and even if every one of those persons is eventually nominated some may not be sworn in for a while. Any objections to deleting it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it. It should be limited to names that the incoming administration has announced will be nominated, and a caveat to that effect should be included. But it's verifiable. The fact that the cabinet occupants have been, I'll use the word designated, and are expected to be in the positions indicated, has neither WP:CRYSTAL nor WP:VERIFY issues; and it facilitates updating when the administration takes over in a month. TJRC (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How do we verify their place in the line of succession? What reliable source do we have for this information? For example, the Gates entry has a citation, but the actual source mentions nothing about his place in the line of succession. More broadly, what purpose does this section serve? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this, pending sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Their designations have been widely reported in the media. To the extent that they have not been, they should not be added. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored. Two editors, myself and TheMarshman (the editor who added it) favor its inclusion. One editor does not. This is not a consensus to remove. TJRC (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

What are the sources for this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

See, e.g., Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Cabinet_and_top_advisors. TJRC (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is about line of succession. Do we have even a single source that confirms any of this? If not it's just speculation (original research) about a non-notable topic. Again I ask, what purpose does this serve? What are we telling readers that they can't figure out on their own? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I sincerely do not understand your questions and position. Are you saying there are no sources for the expected occupants of the cabinet positions? Those have been provided. Are you saying there are no sources for where the cabinet positions are in the order of succession? Those sources are in the article. Are you asserting that a source is required specifically stating the order of succession? That's not a standard that applies to the current order; why a separate standard for the order under the new administration? Or is it something completely diferent that I'm missing?

As to what purpose it serves: it serves to provide information on occupants of the anticipated U.S. presidential line of succession. Am I missing a point here, too? Do you not think that a reader of an article on the order of succession would not be interested in what the oprder will be in the new administration? TJRC (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have even a single source directly addressing the "anticipated" line of succession.

So we're just going to what, delete this in a month? It's not encyclopedic to add content that will quickly be non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We have the same level of sourcing for the anticipated line as for the present line. We're not going to delete it in a month, we're going to move it to the present order section. Notability is not temporary; it's not notable for a month. Each of these individuals has clear notability. If anything, the individuals will become more notable in a month. TJRC (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not going to move the list up in a month. After the inauguration, the only names on the "current" list will be Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd. There's no point in retaining a list of possible members while we await their confirmation. Maybe because this is the first transition in Wikipedia history, but this seems like an excessive case of "recentism". As for the sourcing of the present line, two wrongs don't make a right. That list should be sourced too ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I expect we'll have "(pending confirmation)" much as we currently have "(not eligible)" in the current list. For a few days, at most, in most of the cases. This is not "recentism". Do you actually believe a reader of an article on U.S. Presidential succession during a time of presidential transition is not interested in the order of succession under the incoming administration? On the sourcing, I've added express sources. TJRC (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

People who are pending nomination aren't in the line of succession. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what "pending" means. TJRC (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've posted over at WikiProject United States, soliciting input here. It will probably be a bit more productive than just the two of us talking to ourselves. TJRC (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple rule of thumb: if you don't have a source saying the same thing Wikipedia says, it's original research. If you can find where anyone else has published such a list, then that's different. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we've got cites to the Office of the President-Elect, I'm thinking that's a pretty good source. TJRC (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Do the references actually mention the article subject, ie, the line of succession? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources, such as this one[7], mention succession. Frankly, considering there has never been a single case in U.S. history when the line of succession has even gone past the Vice President, I don't understand the need to have this "anticipated" succession list. The current list is an obscure topic to begin with, and a list of possible future entries is even more obscure. Since it hasn't even occurred to any reliable source to discuss this, I don't see why we have it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with combining references to explain the order. Are you guys perhaps thinking of WP:SYN? Taking a well-sourced list of positions and mechanically including the occupants (in one case) or proposed occupants (in the other) is not synthesis. Mere combination is not synthesis. There's no "novel conclusion," "advancing a position," "editor's opinion," etc. that is a defining characteristic of synthesis. TJRC (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources not only provide verifiability, but also notability. So far, there's no indication that anyone outside of Wikipedia is even thinking about the future, possible line of succession (besides the Secret Service). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, no reliable sources (at least to my knowledge) have yet to discuss the current line of succession. Parler Vous (edits) 05:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While it's fine to list the offices, I think it's a mistake to list the office holders, especially without any source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Blue denotes that the person highlighted is a Democrat, red meaning the person is a Republican. Why is Robert Gates in Blue? He's a Republican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.219.211 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The color is not blue it is grey. Grey is the color that is designated for Independents. According to his article that is correct. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

^[1], needed for inclusion. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

•  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)