The ‘what if’ scenarios of the presidency

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

By NEIL H. SIMON
Media General News Service

Published: November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — Among his firsts, Barack Obama on Jan. 20 will become the first new president sworn in since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Click here for political coverage from our Washington Bureau

His inauguration also will mark the first wartime transfer of executive power in the United States since 1969.

It’s no secret that enemies still want to attack the United States. What would happen if an attack should take the life of the president- or vice president-elect in the weeks before the inauguration?

Lawmakers focused on this dire scenario shortly after 9/11 when Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., introduced legislation to clarify procedures for replacing the head of state should a mass casualty event occur.

“You never want to have to wonder, ‘Who is president?’ Sherman said. “You certainly don’t want to do that in a time of national crisis.”

Members of Congress have not wanted to deal with the issue, and Sherman’s bill has languished in committee. Some governance scholars say the bill is excessive in trying to address every “what if” doomsday scenario.

“I think we have a lot of fail-safes built in to the system now,” said Stephen Hess, who advised Presidents Ford and Carter.

No House members co-sponsored Sherman’s bill in the current Congress.

“Many members, to be perfectly blunt, don’t want to deal with this,” said Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., who introduced a bill last year to address legislative continuity in the event of mass casualties. “I think we must deal with it at some point.”

Here’s a look at some worst-case scenarios and how they would be handled under current law.

What happens if a presidential or vice presidential nominee dies before Election Day?

The national parties would replace the candidates. Both the Republican and Democratic National Committees have rules to address this situation.

Has this ever happened?

Yes, in 1912, Republican President William Howard Taft’s vice president, James S. Sherman, died six days before the election. Sherman’s name remained on the ballot.

After the election, the Republican National Committee replaced Sherman with Nicholas M. Butler. Republicans won only eight Electoral College votes during Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s landslide victory.

What if the president-elect dies before the Electoral College votes?

“It would still be theoretically in the hands of the national committees,” said Walter Berns, author of “After the People Vote,” a study of post-election issues.

Sherman’s bill recommends that the parties name stand-by candidates at their nominating conventions.

But members of the Electoral College are chosen by the parties, Berns said, and these “independent actors” may not like the replacement candidates.

Some scholars have theorized that electors could vote for a deceased candidate and thus immediately kick in succession laws, bumping the vice president into the presidency. But, in 1872, when a few electors cast votes for a dead candidate who had lost the popular vote, Congress declined to count those votes.

This period between Election Day and Inauguration Day is “an ambiguity in the succession law,” Baird said. At issue is whether a candidate becomes “president-elect” after the popular vote or after the Electoral College votes – Dec. 15 this year.

What if the president-elect dies after the Electoral College vote but before inauguration?

The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1933, is clear: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.”

What if the president and vice president die after taking the oaths of office on Inauguration Day?

Next in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House, then the President pro tempore of the Senate and Cabinet secretaries in this order: State, Treasury, Defense, and Attorney General, through Secretary of Homeland Security.

One problem: A new president usually does not have his Cabinet assembled until after the swearing in and outgoing Cabinet members often have resigned, leaving several positions in the line of succession vacant.

To remedy this, Sherman suggests an outgoing president consider acting on behalf of the next president and submit names to the Senate in December to get early confirmation of the new president’s Cabinet.

“We haven’t found any case of a person being confirmed before a president was sworn in,” said Donald A. Ritchie, associate Senate historian.

By keeping holdover Cabinet officials, a president can ensure there is someone to lead the government if the president, vice president, House Speaker and President pro tempore all die at the inaugural ceremony.

President George H.W. Bush was the last president to keep part of his predecessor’s Cabinet. Three of Ronald Reagan’s appointees stayed on in Bush’s Cabinet. Bush had been Reagan’s vice president.

The Senate has a track record of confirming the core Cabinet quickly. Except for Reagan, who had only his Defense secretary confirmed on Inauguration Day, each president since Jimmy Carter has had at least three Cabinet officials confirmed on Inauguration Day, according to the Senate historian’s office

Sherman’s bill would add five ambassadors to the line of succession – under the theory that they would be located safely outside the capital region in case of an attack on the United States. They are the ambassadors to the United Nations, Great Britain, Russia, China and France.

Hess called such legislation “bad policy” since ambassadors, often generous political donors and friends of the president, “haven’t been chosen for their executive skill.”

Sherman argued that a diplomat as president is better than no president at all. He said his legislation is needed to deal with crises that could befall the country.

“John Wilkes Booth not only assassinated (President) Lincoln. He had a plot to kill the vice president and secretary of state as well. I don’t think Bin Laden is any less ambitious,” Sherman said.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( Imprimis ) on November 12, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Poet - for a poet, you sure seem to be rude and ungentle.  But I appreciate your posts - I couldn’t come up with a better example if I tried of the kind of narrow-minded intolerance of other peoples’ views that you show, the very thing that “the other side” is concerned about happening. 

Move on if you like - we’ll be here, waiting for you when you come back around the other side of the circle. You’re well on your way - you’ve already got the “offensive, vulgar, and hateful language” part down pretty well!

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( poet ) on November 12, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Imprimis, I know you don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand this, but pretent I’m speaking very slowly.
I only responded to call you out. I don’t intend to have a running conversation with you because you are a low brow fool with no intent on being anything but a hate filled racist. Just as you’ve already done, I know all you will ever be capable of doing is repeating the same psychotic hate with no understanding of anything that doesn’t follow your hatered.
Just keep screeching long and loud, while you drown in your own stupidity.
I, like the vast majority of this country, am moving on. This will be the last waste of breath I’ll use on you.
Have fun posting all the ignorance you want.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Imprimis ) on November 12, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Come to think of it, poet, we HAVE come full circle.

Your rant sounds JUST like the “My Country, Right or Wrong” and “America: Love it or Leave it” rants that USED to be ascribed to redneck right-wingers.  No room for the dissenting opinion in your book; “Go to Russia, you commie!“ if you don’t love the President, God, and Country.  What a turnaround!

I love it!  The spit flying out of your mouth even looks like Archie Bunker’s.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Imprimis ) on November 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I love you anyway, poet.  But I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid with you, nor making the shrine pilgrimage.  You worship in your own way.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( poet ) on November 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Imprimis, that is just so outrageously ignorant its down right pathetic. Obama won by a unprecedented 361 electorial college votes and a 7% margin in popular vote. That’s how this country works. If you don’t like it take your psychotic hatred and ignorant butt somewhere else. Of course I know you won’t, because all you want to do is see this country fail because of your bilnd racism. You and your ilk are a dying breed, thank God, but I see you will go to your demise screeching and screaming outright ignorance to your last breath.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Imprimis ) on November 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm

“...I don’t think Bin Laden is any less ambitious…“

Why on earth does this Sherman think that Osama bin Laden is going to go after B. Hussein Obama with the intent to do harm?

This is the only chance he’s had yet to get what he wants without blowing anything up; Hussein O. is likely to just give it to him.

That’s assuming, of course, that OBL isn’t just some 7 year old DNA in the back of a Waziri cave with a Hellfire missile tucked in the front door.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement