What if terrorists detonate a nuke in DC...

[J. J.]

I REALLY think there should be some statutory provision. 

That said, it is exceptionally likely that some Representative would be left to elect himself Speaker (and President).

[J. J.]

They have one cabinent member out of town for the State of the Union speech.

The problem is during the non state of the union times.

There are two possible scenarios:

1.  Everyone in the cabinet just happens to be in a 5 mile radius of ground zero and they are killed.  Most of Congress is killed and somebody, like Spector (getting medical treatment in Phila), is the sole survivor and elects himself PPT (and President).

In this scenario, it's likely that a backbencher might become the next president, probably a House member, that elects himself Speaker (and President).

2.  Along with the nuke, the terrorists send out assassination groups that take out the one or two secretaries outside of DC.

In this senario, it's probably the same house member.

(Not an inspiring scenario.)

[J. J.]

A quorum is the majority of the members Art. I, Sec. 5.  A majority of 1 is 1.

I'll throw out a name:  Rep. James Barrett (R-SC).  He's a second term Congressman.  Suppose he's just happens to be visiting his dying mother that day, or something, but he's not in DC and is the sole surviver.  He's our new president or at least gets to pick the next president.

I've never heard of him, and he's probably a nice guy, but this scenario is possible.  I could just as easily be Rep. Kucinich.

[J. J.]

I hope it's Curt Weldon

The problem is, in the middle of a national crisis, do you want to get the guy who didn't happen to be in building running the country.

I'll give you another possibility; most the Rebublicans in the Senate go home and the only the Democrats are in the building, at a caucus meeting.  Talk about going nuclear!

[J. J.]

If you were the lone represenatative alive, you should probably elect as speaker someone with experience as an executive for the time of crisis, and have him resign as president as soon as possible.

Most, if not all, of those people would be dead, however.  Pataki might be a good choice.

[J. J.]

This is a scary scenario.

Yes, but we should prepare for the possibility.

[J. J.]

The office of the president should pass to the governors, in the order that their respective states joined the union, or in the case of the original 13, ratified the Constitution.

I'm not certain that the Governor of Delaware (Minter?) would be the best choice.  I'd go most populus to least populus in the last Census; we'd have to skip CA this time.

[J. J.]

Sensenbrener for President!! JK

Or Chakka Fattah for President!  ;-)  It all depends on who stayed home that day.

[J. J.]

This is a scary scenario.

Yes, but we should prepare for the possibility.

Personally, that consists of praying to God for salvation.

The Lord helps those who help themselves.

[J. J.]

I believe most states allow their governor to temporarily fill vacant Senate seats. This would allow the Senate to be reconstituted in order to elect president pro tempore. Isn't this individual in the line of succession?

Yes, but after the Speaker.  One member could elect a Speaker.

[J. J.]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

[J. J.]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

If Congress is in session and the President does not sign a law for ten days, it becomes law without his signature.

The ten day delay is the problem.

[J. J.]

It's obvious what would happen. Governors would appoint Senators. The Senate would choose a Pro Tem leader.  The Pro Tem leader would swear in as President.

Seems the quickest and most likely option to me, too.

You have to make an assumption that every member of the House has been killed.  There usually is someone out of town.

[J. J.]

In the past I heard that Governors already were sort of in line; if everyone in the federal government died, the Governors would succeed as President on the basis of the order they entered the Union, at least until they were able to swear in the Senators they appointed.

I have heard that, but it isn't correct from everything I've read.

[J. J.]

Given that the situation that would bring this about is almost certainly a military one, it seems more prudent to have the line of succession run through the military than through Governors.  Begin with the JCS Chair, then Vice Chair, then the Service Chiefs, then the Theater Commanders in the order in which those positions were established.

That would be a very very very dangerous idea.

It seems to me that the situation is already a disaster no matter who takes over.  I'd at least like experts to be in charge.  Why exactly is it a bad idea?  We elect Generals to the Presidency all the time.

We have elected exactly one ex-general in the last 100 years; that is hardly "all the time." 

[J. J.]

We have elected many men on the basis of their military experience in the last 100 years, and before your selectively chosen time period, we elected many Generals too.

We have elected precisely one in the last 100 years that held either the rank of general or held a "major" command.  Other than Eisenhower, there wasn't a general officer since Garfield.  Even Hayes never got his star.  In Hayes's case, I wouldn't classify a regiment as a "major command."

Even in Eisenhower's case, he headed Columbia University prior to the presidency.

We have elected very few men based solely on their military experience to the presidency, perhaps the last one being U. S. Grant.   While I honor the military service of such presidents as Turman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush, none of these guys were elected office because of an outstanding military record.

 At best, it played a role in  T. Roosevelt's selection as Vice President, but certainly it was not the cause of his 1904 victory.  Even here, it was not because of his command of a large force.

[J. J.]

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, US Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, and Dwight Eisenhower were all elected president after being a General (Not counting T. Roosevelt).  Thats eight Generals to the White House, more than one in six Presidents.

I suppose this is where you make the irrelevant point that Eisenhower is the only recent General for the third time in as many posts, right?  The fact remains though, the US has frequently elected Generals thorughout its history, and therefore we had ought not worry about including the Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders in the line of succession in a catastrophic event, which in case you hadn't noticed is the actual subject of this thread: Line of succession, not when the last General elected president was.

Using your "logic," since nine of the Presidents were born British subjects, we should include British subjects in the line succession.  :-)

Here we are looking at a situation not where was a general at some point in their lives and later became President, but one where someone goes from general to president is a very short time and, as is the case today, spent their adult life in uniform.  On that list, we have,  Zachary Taylor, US Grant, and you could argue Dwight Eisenhower.

Let's take a look at the rest of the list. 

George Washington, not career military, served as a militia commander in the French and Indian War (1755-1763), planter, member of the House of Burgessed, delegate to the Continental Congress prior to his appointment a commander of the Continental Army.  Delegate and President of the Constitutional Convention.

Andrew Jackson, attorney at age 20, procecutor for Nashville, member of both the House and Senate prior to military command.

William Henry Harrison:  Secretary of the Northeast Territories, member of the US House, Governor of the Indians Territory for 12 years.  Left government service from 1813 until 1840.

Rutherford B. Hayes:  City solictor of Cincinnatti prior to military service.  Served two terms in the US House and three terms as Ohio Governor prior to being elected.

James Garfield:  Member of the Ohio House prior to the war; left the army to run for the US House.  Was Senator-elect from OH when nominated for president.

Even with the "career" officers, Grant left the Army for 6 years prior to the Civil War and Eisenhower left for 2 years.

We have only had two "Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders" in the last 35 years that had substancial non-military experience.  Alexander Haig, who was White House chief of staff prior to becoming Supreme Commander of NATO and Collin Powell, who was National Security Advisor prior to becoming Chairman of the JCS.  The military leaders of today, with these few exceptions, even though well educated and well trained as military leaders, lack the broadness of non-military experience of a Hayes or a Garfield.  Certainly, most lack the governmental experience of these people.

The world has changed a lot since the last time someone went, almost immediately, from the millitary to the presidency.   Today, all "Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders" have there positions because they have served in the military for 25-30 years.  When you use that as a model, you will find only two presidents Taylor and Eisenhower that meet that model; the latter also had a two year break. 

[J. J.]

The military should not be in the line of presidential succession.  Governors are even worse. 

Why do think including the Governors is a bad idea?

[J. J.]

Why do think including the Governors is a bad idea?

Because you are essentially turning over the entire union in the most extreme state of war to the leader of a single state.  Even in the hands of a good leader who wont take advantage of this it still creates the perception of one state ruling the entire country.

You mean like Florida in 2000, impression wise?