Presidential Succession

[A18]

Discuss.

[A18]

No. "Officer" in context means "officer of the United States," which does not include members of the legislative branch.

Under Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

It's funny that you quote that, while saying 'yes' to the poll question. The text makes it clear that a federal legislator may not be an officer of the United States. "Officer of the United States," then, must not include members of the legislative branch.

[A18]

If a legislative position is an office, then surely one who holds it holds an office under the United States.

EDIT: 'office,' not officer

[A18]

What are you talking about? An officer of the United States can not be a member of the House or Senate. It's obvious, then, that a member of the House or Senate is not an "officer of the United States" within the meaning of the Constitution.

[A18]

I don't see what that has to do with our conversation.

The point is that only "officers" can be placed in the line of succession.

[A18]

The "civil officer" versus "officer" distinction is not going to get you anywhere.

Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 makes it clear that no officer of the United States may hold a legislative position. It does not use the potentially limiting adjective "civil."

Article II, Section 3 provides that the president shall "Commission all the Officers of the United States." The president certainly does not commission federal legislators.

The only way it can be constitutional is if a federal legislator is an officer, but not an officer of the United States.

It may not be completely unworthy of mention that Article II, Section 2 seems to treat the phrases "officer" and "officer[] of the United States" as synonyms.

[A18]

I suppose I would respond that while in that instance, the officer is clearly an officer of the House as distinguished from an officer of the United States, in other contexts, the word "officer" is most naturally read as meaning officer of the United States.

If it is not so in the Succession Clause, then what kind of "officer" does it refer to? Could Congress specify that the governor of a state is to act as president? While this reading is not entirely absurd, it seems awkward. (Think of the state favoritism and disunity that would result.)

For what it's worth, which may not be much, early versions of the Succession Clause explicitly referred to an "Officer of the United States" to be chosen by the Congress. It was a later style committee that deleted the words "of the United States."

Consider some technical problems that may arise if we read it as the 'yes' votes desire. I am speaker of the House. The president dies while the vice presidency is vacant. I am now called to act as president. But in order to do so, presumably I must resign. At which point, I am no longer speaker of the House, and no longer entitled to act as president.

Let's overlook that, but try another scenario. The president's disability is merely temporary. The vice presidency is vacant. I resign, and become acting president. Later, the president recovers, and I am now out of a job. I am no longer entitled to my House seat (in fact, a successor representative may have already been elected), nor the powers and duties of the president.

A cabinet official, on the other hand, could keep his cabinet post while serving as acting president.

[A18]

Yes, it could be said that the acting president is not an officer of the United States, but merely acting as an officer of the United States. Therefore, the speaker of the House would not have to resign.

But if he is able, then, to continue to exercise both the powers and duties of the presidency, while at the same time utilizing his abilities as a member and speaker of the House, this would severely undercut the separation of powers.

If he is only to act as president, while merely retaining his seat in the House as an official matter, then I suppose this would not be as big a problem.

But in either case, could the acting president not be impeached? The Impeachment Clause speaks only of the "President," not an acting president, just as the Incompatibility Clause speaks only of an "officer of the United States," and not one who is merely acting as an officer of the United States. I suppose to be consistent, either both clauses would have to apply, or neither would.

[A18]

See my earlier post for a response to that.