Presidential Succession

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, but it isn't wise.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Article II Section 1 also makes it clear that Senators and Representatives are not Officers under the United States.

“...no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

As for the difference between “civil Officers” in Article II Section 4 and “Officers”, the distinction there is that it doesn’t include military Officers (whose removal would be covered under the power of the Congress to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” in my opinion, and it doesn’t include legislative or judicial Officers who aren’t be covered under Article II.

Now it is obviously clear that under even the most obtuse of interpretations of tjhe word “Officer” that the Chief Justice could be included in the line of succession.  Article II Section 2 refers to “ Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States” so clearly Judges are included in the phrase “Officers of the United States”. Thus, an argument against including legislators among “Officers” on the basis of separation of powers clearly doesn’t hold.  While I wish the language were clearer, and I don't think that as a matter of policy that it is wise to expand the line of succession outside the executive branch, given the weight of historical precedent going back to the 18th century, I am forced to conclude that it is Constitutional.


Quick trivia question, under what circumstances might it be unconstitutional for a Speaker who satisfies the requirements of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 to become President?  (I say might because it requires yet more hair splitting of what certain words mean to reach the answer I’m looking for.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can somewhat agree with you for generic legislators, but the Speaker and the President pro tempore are Officers of the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively and thus “Officers”.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I did, and while I agree with all the difficulties you rasied, especially in the case of an acting President, I don't agree because of the combination of the vagueness of the language and the history of the succession law.  In any case, until we get a Secretary of State suing the ex-Speaker of the House over who gets to be President, I don't think the Constitutionality will be resolved.