Talk:Acting President of the United States

Impeachment
I think that we should at least discuss the restoration of impeachment. Certainly the impeachment of the President of the United States is considerably different than an ordinary criminal trial. While certainly the presumption of innoncence should apply, it is noteworthy that in several other nations with presidential systems the president is somewhat or completely constrained in his actions while under impeachment. The presence of these comments in the article is not necessarily an endorsment of this viewpoint but rather an acknowledgement that it definitely exists, and should not be so arbitrarily and capricously eliminated in my view. Rlquall 01:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the President's powers & duties aren't suspended, when the President is impeached. GoodDay 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The "West Wing" scenario
There is a huge difference between what happened on this fictional TV show and anything that is yet to occur in real life. On the show, the President announced his stepping aside in favor of the Speaker in a formal Cabinet meeting while his daughter had been kidnapped in a time of national crisis; the fictional Speaker/Acting President had to order a military attack in which the U.S. forces took casualties, and he served as President for several days before the President's daughter was recovered, not just for the duration of anesthesia for minor surgery. It seems fairly likely that such a person could be regarded as a former President; much less likely that the real-world Cheney would be seen as such, at least based on his career to date and laying aside the considerations that many make that he may already be President to a large extent on a day-to-day basis. A more interesting question the show raised in my opinion was whether a Speaker, President Pro Tem, or other such official would be expected to or likely to resign that previous position only to act as President for only a matter of hours or days as the West Wing character did. Rlquall 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Considering that, even though the show's priorities are drama and good storytelling, they do actually research constitutional law and have professional consultants fact-checking them, I'd like to see a little more discussion to the aspects of Acting Presidency that the West Wing episodes raised. No, it hasn't happened in real life, but especially considering some of the news stories on the First Family in recent years, it's closer to a possibility than anyone might like.  However, as it is fiction, I defer to others' judgement as to whether it should be expanded upon. Corgi 14:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note, an Acting President wouldn't take the presidential oath of office. GoodDay 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals
Should we have a section discussing fictional portrayals of the 25th Amendment coming into play? There have been several that I can think of - there is the West Wing example noted above, as well as two examples on 24. Possibly it happened in the film Air Force One, as well, although I don't remember the specifics. john k 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr.President?
Under the sub-section "Authorities", this article says an Acting President is even addressed as Mr.President. Was George H.W. Bush on July 13, 1985 or Dick Cheney on June 29, 2002 addressed as Mr.President? Not publicly and as for privately (no one knows). This "addressed as Mr.President" statement, seems unfounded. Also it would appear arrogant and insulting to the First Family. Mightberight/wrong 21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you consider the fact that traditionally (as far as I know), a person (in US) is addressed by the highest office they've held to date, for example Clinton would still be address as Mr. President if he's next to the current President as he's the 42nd President of the US, I don't see it as arrogant or insulting. It's probably argued that it is being respectful to address the Acting President as Mr. President, rather than insulting, as he (or she) would be carrying out the power and duties of the office of presidency. One's being respectful of the person, and the position. -- KTC 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Bill Clinton was President of the USA & all former President's of the USA (to date), are/were addressed as Mr.President. However an Acting President, is still the Vice President of the USA, an Acting President of the USA should still be adressed as Mr/Madam Vice President. If for example Cheney had to serve as Acting President for the rest of Bush's term, He's still Vice President and should be adressed as Mr. Vice President. GoodDay 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any (known) definite policy on this, but a Vice President, or anyone else serving as Acting President is the President at that particular time, so in my opinion should be addressed as Mr. / Madam President. Part of addressing someone as President is addressing the office in which the person holds (held), in this case it may be so that it's not permanent, but they are still holding / carrying out the power and duties of the office at the time. In a formal meeting, the chairperson would be address as such, this include the time when one have a acting chair because the normal chair is stepping aside temporarily or is unavailable. If VP Cheney is the Acting President when you meet him, he is the President of the USA at that particular time, even if at another time he would be rightfully only VP, so should be address as Mr. President (at that time). How an Ex-Acting President is address is probably a different question and depends on how long that person was AP, and how public it was when it occurs, whether it was the VP that was AP, or a resigned Speaker, President Pro. Temp. ... etc. -- KTC 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I still must disagree, as Acting President of the USA, one does not hold the office of President of the USA, but rather discharges the powers & duties of that office, while mantaining his/her current office (vice president). During the time Cheney would be Acting President, George W. Bush would still be President of the USA. There can't be 2 Presidents of the USA at the same time. The scenerio would be as follows: George W. Bush, President of the USA & Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the USA-Acting President of the USA. Although we disagree about this topic, I respect your views. GoodDay 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Six months after the above discussion, the disputed sentence remains in the article (&lsquo;Acting Presidents are addressed as "Mr. President" during their service&rsquo;). There are arguments pro and con addressing an Acting President as "Mr. [or Madam] President" but they are merely arguments so the Wikipedia article shouldn't make this statement as a fact. I have put in a "" designator but I doubt there is any authoritative source for this one way or another, and therefore the sentence should probably just be deleted. Alternatively, change it to &lsquo;It is not known whether Acting Presidents are addressed as "Mr./Madam President".&rsquo; If somebody really wants to research this, then why not make a phone call to the Vice President's press office and ask whether Cheney was addressed as Mr. President during the period in 2002 when the 25th Amendment was invoked for George W. Bush's surgery. Or contact the Dept of State protocol office. --Mathew5000 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the exchange in this transcript from June 29, 2002. Speaking about Mr. Cheney, Ari Fleischer says: "I'd have to ask his staff if they address him as Mr. Acting President. I don't think they did. It's a mouthful." --Mathew5000 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ari Fleischer suggested "Mr. Acting President" as one possibility. I believe that to be the correct form of adress, given that the 25th Amendment says that the Vice-President shall discharge the powers and duties of the office of President as Acting President. Thus, while the Vice-president remains Vice-president during his service in the temporary position of Acting President, Acting President is more than Vice-president, it is a temporary higher rank, in so far as the Acting President, although not being President, has the powers and duties of the president. And given that the text of the 25th Amendment gives a name to the position of the one who acts as President, stating that the Vice-president shall discharge the powers and duties of the presidency as Acting President, I believe that the correct form of adress would be Mr. Acting President. I agree, however, that my opinion, just as others opinions, is speculative, and as such should not be included in the article. Just as the title Mr. President developed out of a personal preference of George Washington, and just as President Tyler imposed his interpretation that the Vice-president should succeed to the title of the presidency upon the death of the elected President, an interpretation that was confirmed by section 1 of the 25th Amendment, only a real-case scenario of someone serving as Acting President for a longer time, and appearing in public while Acting President (something that neither George H.W. Bush nor Cheney did) would solve the question of how an Acting President is to be adressed. For the reasons stated above, it seems to me that Mr. Acting President would be the correct form. But that has no place in the article, as it is original research. --Antonio Basto 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Such speculation about how an Acting President is adressed is original research and personal opinion, insofar as we don't really know how George H.W. Bush and Cheney were adressed during the brief periods of service as Acting President. An encycopedic article is also not the place for speculation on how would an Acting President be adressed if one were to serve as such for a longer term, in a more high profile situation. The fact is that, so far, Acting Presidents have kept a low profile during the brief hours this office has been into existance, so nobody really knows the answer, and an encyclopedia is no place for personal opinion.--201.17.60.117 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Seal?
The article should have the Vice Presidential Seal, as the Acting President is still Vice President of the USA. GoodDay 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going based my answer on the above comment and what's been crossed-out and now removed about the seal. The seal is for the office of the President of the USA, not the person. So an Acting President would use the President Seal when he's acting as the President. It would be ridiculous for example, for an (Ex-)Speaker of the House as Acting President to be issuing Executive Order bearing the Seal of the Speaker. He or she would be issuing the order, signing off bills or whatever as the President, under the power of the office of the President, not the Speaker (or whatever) and so uses the Seal of the office. -- KTC 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's because of my 'pointing it out'. But, it's good to see the Presidential Seal image was removed. GoodDay 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Pres Clinton mention
Today there was an edit to the section "Other potential invocation situations" that addressed President Clinton. The edit is attempting to add balance to an otherwise absurd bullet point that suggests, without any foundation whatsoever, than an impeached President is or should be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office to which he was legitimately elected. While several U.S. states have provisions of their Constitutions or laws that prevented an impeached official from the exercise of the duties of his or her office, there is NO corresponding section or intrepretation in the U.S. Constitution.

The edit does a good job, but the fact remains that the inclusion of President Clinton in the "Other potential invocation situations" is improper as it relates to impeachment. The only inclusion of President Clinton in this Section that I would support would be information relating to when President Clinton hurt his knee and underwent repair surgey using local anesthetic.

I'd like to get other thoughts on the subject and inform everyone of my thoughts before I just remove the offending section. If there is a contrary opinion that would object to removing this section, please post here so we can discuss. If not, I will remove the section.JasonCNJ 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of discussion on this topic, I am going to remove the mention from President Clinton as indicated above. If someone notices the removal and objects, I can put it back while we discuss it on here. JasonCNJ 08:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the US Constitution doesn't suspend a President's powers & duties when he/she is impeached. Andrew Johnson & Bill Clinton governed thoughtout their respective Impeachment Trials. During the Clinton Impeachment Trial, I've never heard any calls for Clinton or Gore+Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. GoodDay 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Scenarios
Not that I am advocating this to be added, but what happens if the VP was named active president for a time and after the President says he can resume executing his duties, the VP refuses to hand over power? Arbiteroftruth 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the VP became "Acting President" under Section 3 of the 25th Amendment which permits the President to self-declare an incapacity, and then the President signs and transmits a letter to the Speaker and Pres Pro Tem of the Senate declaring the inability no longer exists, then the President automatically resumes his powers and duties - there is no capacity for the Vice President to "refuse" to hand over power...he simply doesn't have the power once the resumption letters are transmitted. Orders he gives to the military cannot be followed, orders he gives to the Cabinet secretaries cannot be followed, etc. He can still sit and say "I am Acting President; I refuse to hand over power." but no one will actually ...listen.


 * At all times, though, the Vice President can avail himself of the options in Section 4 of the Amendment. The Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can transmit a written declaration to the Speaker and the Pres Pro Tem that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office and, upon sending that letter, shall immediately execute the duties as "Acting President." The President can send a letter to Congress saying "I am able to exercise the powers and duties" and begin the resumption of his duties -- but the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can send another letter to those same officers declaring their belief that the President is wrong within four days. After receipt of the second letter from the VP and a majority of the Cabinet, Congress has 21 to determine, by a two-thirds vote, that the President is unable to discharge his powers and duties. If Congress does not determine that by a two-thirds vote within 21 days, or if Congress does not come into session within 21 days after getting the last letter, then the President automatically resumes the powers and duties of his office. If Congress, by a 2/3 vote of each House, does agree with the declaration of the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet, then the Vice President will continue as "Acting President."


 * Given the practice of how a Vice President is selected, a situation involving Section 4 would be somewhat difficult to imagine. The closest we ever came to that occurrance was when President Reagan was shot and was undergoing surgery. At that time, it was fairly clear that the President was incapacited and he was unable to transmit letters declaring so to the appropriate people prior to going under anesthesia. Then-Vice President Bush apparently refused to sign a letter declaring the President incapacited, fearing it would amount to a coup d` etat and be inappropriate. Then-Vice President Bush became de facto Acting President but did not have the powers and duties of the President and did not act as such.


 * Does that answer your question?JasonCNJ 08:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Completely so. The government will simply not listen to the VP's orders upon the President's resumption of duties. That answers my question. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now for another scenario. At some point there is no Vice-President. As there have not been recent elections there is no President-elect or Vice-President elect either. Not such an entirely bizarre state of affairs. Then the President dies. At that point the Speaker of the House becomes acting-President for the remainder of the term of the deceased President. He will, if I am correct, not become President, but merely act as President with full Constitutional powers for potentially a period of years! Isn't it a bit odd that under such a scenario this man will not actually become President but just act as such for a prolonged period? Couldn't they have made provisions for such an officer actually succeeding instead of just acting, in cases where there is no 'propper' President? That would be equivalent to the position of the VP, who actually becomes President when the President dies. Also, could such an acting-President as decribed above nominate a Vice-President, who would then take over his job by default the moment he was sworn in as Vice-President? Could the acting-President nominate himself as Vice-President and thereby become a 'propper' President? Or would the acting President perhaps be obliged to nominate a Vice-President (as per Section 2 that establishes a procedure for filling a Vice-Presidential vacancy)?Gerard von Hebel 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the Carl Albert article, on how he would have handled such similar situations. I'm with you, the Presidential Succession Act can potentially cause alot of headaches. It would be easier, to simply let the 'next-in-line' official (in the absence of a Vice President) become President. GoodDay 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Acting Vice President
Could someone take a look at this related article? Perhaps an Afd is in order. GoodDay 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted on that talk page. Someone just made that up. It's a pretty article; graphs, colors, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that someone just made up that information. JasonCNJ 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Ok... the president and VP die 2 weeks into the first term and the Speaker is made the acting President. The Speaker (now the acting POTUS) finishes out the term as the acting president and is elected to the next term as the president? Is this person elgable to be re-elected for another (3rd) term since they have only served one term as the actual presidnet?--Dr who1975 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No; the text of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically provides that if you have "acted as President" for more than two years of a term for which someone else was elected, then you yourself can be elected as president only once. --Mathew5000 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Speaker of the House would not become Acting President he would become THE PRESIDENT. -- Simmons 123456 05:20 31 July 2015

Simmons, the term "acting president" exists to describe someone in that speaker's position Snitch ninja (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Explaining Expiration of Term as Acting President
John L. Miller made the following addition to the article, which I have reverted: "The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 in Section (d) clause (2) specifically states 'An individual acting as President under this subsection shall act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list SHALL NOT TERMINATE HIS SERVICE.' (emphasis added) All officers beyond the President and Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1), therefore it must be concluded that no one beyond an individual qualifying as President or Vice President, or a current President or Vice President who's own disability has been removed, will terminate the service of an Acting President. Thus, there would be no string of Acting Presidents. If the Speaker, President Pro Tempore, and the Secretary of State fail to qualify as Acting President, the Secretary of the Treasury would be Acting President (should he/she qualify). The later meeting of Presidential qualifications by the said Speaker, President Pro Tempore, or Secretary of State would NOT end the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury. John L. Miller 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)"

BoiGayzer is incorrect and I have reverted his edit. He mentions, "All officers beyond the President or Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1)..." but he is incorrect.

3 USC 19 (a) involves the ascension of the Speaker of the House;

3 USC 19 (b) involves the ascension of the President pro tempore of the Senate;

3 USC 19 (c) says that someone acting under (a) or (b) continues to serve until the end of the current term unless a President-elect or Vice President-elect qualifies or the disability of the President and/or Vice President is removed.

3 USC 19 (d)(1) involves the ascension of members of the Cabinet to the Acting Presidency.

3 USC 19 (d)(2) says:


 * An individual acting as President under this subsection shall act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list SHALL NOT TERMINATE HIS SERVICE." (emphasis added)

That section - 3 USC 19 (d)(2) - limits itself specifically to this subsection -- thus, it limits itself to a Cabinet officer serving as Acting President. Such an Acting President will have his or her term of office terminated by a Speaker or President pro tempore who desires to serve as Acting President but not by a higher ranking Cabinet officer who becomes qualified to serve.

In the example mentioned in the now-reverted edit, the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury will be ended by a Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate who wishes to and is qualified to serve but will not be ended by the qualification/availability of the Secretary of State.

The law itself can be found at Cornell Law school.

Hope this explains my edit to the article. JasonCNJ 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Appointment of VP by Acting President?
The 25th amendment gives the President the power to appoint a new Vice-President in the case of a vacancy. It also states that, if there is no President, the VP becomes President. So, let's suppose a situation in which the President and VP simultaneously, or in short succession, die. The Speaker of hte House becomes Acting President. Now, as there is a vacancy in the office of Vice-President, does the Acting President have power to appoint a new Vice-President? If so, wouldn't the new Vice-President then become President? Nik42 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say "yes." From the text of the Succession Act and the 25th Amendment it appears that an Acting President of the United States (assuming office due to the death, resignation, or removal of the President & Vice President of the United States) does have the Constitutional and legal ability to nominate a Vice President of the United States, subject to the approval of Congress. Providing Congress consents to the nomination, the newly-confirmed Vice President would supercede the Acting President and be sworn into office as a full-fleged President of the United States. Of course, the standard disclaimer that "this-has-never-happened-so-who-really-knows?" applies. JasonCNJ 01:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct, the Vice President-nominee in such a situation (being nominated by the 'Acting President'), would (upon Congressional confirmation) automatically become President. GoodDay 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which begs the question: can a former Speaker of the House who is serving as Acting President due to the lack of both a President and a Vice-president, nominate himself to Congress for appointment as Vice-president under section 2 of the 25th amendment, thereby, upon confirmation and swearing-in, becoming President? Of course, due to the doubtful and speculative nature of such scenarios as far as the interpretation of Constitutional Law is concerned, I don't think they should be included in the article, as it would constitute original research.
 * I agree, there's no knowing of how such events would work out, since the Presidential succession has never gone beyond the Vice President. Trust me, if you check the Archives of this pages' 'talk page', you'll see that these are old debates. GoodDay 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What happens to the vice president's office?
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'm trying to find information and can't find it in this or any article.

If the president is temporarily incapacitated and the vice president becomes acting president, does someone in turn become acting vice president? Is the presidential line of succession invoked here? Or is the office just left empty? I would appreciate it if someone in the know added this information for other people, because all I can find about this topic is that the vice president becomes acting president. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no acting Vice President, as the Vice President has no duties which would need to be filled save presiding over the Senate, which is a role that the Senate already replaces him for most of the time, anyway. I'm not sure if the VP could, as acting president, also preside over the Senate - the Twenty-Fifth Amendment says nothing of the subject. I assume that's a question which will have to be resolved if it ever comes up. john k 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if the Senate were voting on a particular bill that the Acting-President-slash-Vice-President supports, it would seem that he could, in his role as V.P., cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. In the book/film Advise and Consent, the President dies just as the Senate deadlocks on his nominee for Secretary of State.  The Vice President announces that he will not be breaking the tie, reports the death of his predecessor and confides that he'd rather pick his own Secretary of State.  This shows newfound decisiveness in the man and provides an upbeat ending.  However, it begs the question: as he now has assumed the Presidency, could he have still voted in his former role? WHPratt (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the VP does not continue to preside over the senate when he is serving as acting president. The president pro tempore of the senate takes over that role. That's in Article 1 Section 3[5] of the Constitution. Curious georgianna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Harry S Truman or Harry S. Truman?
Yes, Harry Truman's middle name is "S"; so it is not necessary to add a period after the 'S'. However, it's not wrong, either. The first letter of his middle name is 'S"; it just happens to be the only letter of his middle name.

Truman himself approved of the use of "Harry S. Truman" during his lifetime. -- Terry Carroll 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vice President vs Speaker etc.
Is there any difference, at all, between a President (a Vice President who succeeds on the death of the President) and an Acting President (a Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore etc. who succeeds), other than semantics? There is obviously a difference between an Acting President who is serving temporarilly, while the President is incapacitated, in that, unlike a President, the Acting President can lose this office upon the Presidents resuming their duties. But what if the President is dead, or impeached etc. ? Is there a difference between holding the powers and duties of the Presidency, and actually being President, other than words? I'm thinking - could the Speaker/Acting President appoint themselves a Vice-President (it seems that, according to the above discussion, this would be a difference)? Could the Acting President be impeached? Would their time as Acting President (which, in theory, could be quite considerable), count with regards to the [22nd Amendment] which bars someone from serving more than two terms? If so, these things should be mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any answers? - 121.208.89.95 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars have been debating for years over how the Presidential Succession Act would be implemented. My guess is this: only until the Act is implemented (which hasn't happened yet), will we know how it will work out. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"To date no one other than a Vice President has acted as President."
What about Ford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.127.42 (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about him? He was Vice President prior to Nixon's resignation.  He'd acquired that position in an unusual manner, via the 25th amendment rather than an ordinary election, but he was still Vice President XinaNicole (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Compensation
Federal law states that a person acting as president shall be paid the presidential salary. Does anyone know if Dick Cheney got a bump in pay the two times he was Acting President? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.49.51 (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Article 1 Text & Pro Temp Assumptions
The "Origin of the Position" section, misinterprets the text of The Article 1 Section 3, which has nothing to do with succession to the presidency. It addresses the role of the the Vice President IN THE SENATE and the role of the pro temp to act (as president of the senate) in the vice president's absence including when the vice president is unavailable because he is acting in the president's stead.

This misinterpretation seems to have driven some of the other analysis throughout this section, mostly in that it assumes that the pro temp had a constitutionally authorized place in the line of succession even before the succession act. For example, the "presidential disability before 1967" subsection refers to the succession rights of D.R. Atchison, B.F. Wade, etc. This stuff needs to be supported by some kind of scholarly authority.

Speaking of supporting notes, this entire "Origins" section needs a LOT more. It makes a number of claims about "disagreements" and "arguments" without identifying the parties to these disputes and without citing sources. Curious georgianna (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed a large part of the Designated survivor section
I removed a large part of the Designated survivor section that was incorrect.

", in which President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) or Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) was also a designated survivor – he or she would become the Acting President of the United States rather than the surviving Cabinet member. However it is unclear whether another legislator could do so without first being elected to that leadership position by a quorum of their respective house. To date, no one other than a Vice President has acted as President."

This paragraph is incorrect. The 25th Amendment states very clearly that only a Vice President can become President.

See below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#/media/File:25th_Amendment_Pg1of2_AC.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#/media/File:25th_Amendment_Pg2of2_AC.jpg

Simmons123456 5:57 31/7/2015
 * I restored that material, but also clarified it so it now clearly states that the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Cabinet officers can only become Acting President. SMP0328. (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Acting President during impeachment discussed when George W. Bush results in FL were in doubt
I remember that when the Supreme Ct. was considering FL, it was suggested that both Bush and his VP should be impeached for sending it to the Ct. improperly, and that if they were, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would become Acting President during the impeachment, as they would be unable to carry out their duties, thus immediately becoming the first woman to hold Presidential powers. Could someone sufficiently knowledgeable comment on this? 24.90.104.148 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Acting President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120512003207/http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social/families-children-marriage/815661-1.html to http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social/families-children-marriage/815661-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What about 20th Amendment?
This article starts out with "The Acting President of the United States is a post that was created after the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...". However, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, section 3, contains:

"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

It seems to me that this provides for two cases where someone can be Acting President (though these cases have never happened), and this existed before the 25th Amendment. --4.28.172.154 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. The article has been updated to take into account the 20th Amendment. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photos
User:Carlbergman added an infobox to the article, which I think is a good thing, but the photo treatment of the Bush and Cheney images appears ragged and sloppy. They're different sizes, for one thing, and stacked vertically, at least in desktop view. I changed it to use the multiple image template, which is exactly what that template is for, and I think is a big improvement. Carlbergman reverted, with the comment "That looks so much worse".

In the spirit of WP:BRD, having been Bold and been Reverted, I now Discuss. Which is the preferred layout?


 * without the multiple image template (desktop)
 * without the multiple image template (mobile)


 * with the multiple image template (desktop)
 * with the multiple image template (mobile)

This seems to be exactly why we have the multiple image template. if the width parameters need to be tuned, I would certainly be okay with that, of course.

BTW, Carlbergman, when I was trying to copy your edit summary, I accidentally hit "revert" as the still-loading page was shifted under my mouse pointer. I quickly re-reverted myself, but I don't want you to think I was intentionally reverting you there. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No response in three weeks, so I am restoring the infobox edit. TJRC (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Acting President Recognized in Infoboxes
The two individuals listed on this page served as Acting President. Shouldn't that be reflected in the infobox on those respective pages? This is a request for consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Serving in the most important office under the U.S. Constitution, however brief, should be reflected in the infobox. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * this isn't the proper place for your request, as it does not pertain to improving this article. Please post your idea at Talk:George H. W. Bush and Talk:Dick Cheney. There it will get on-topic attention. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the proper place for my request, IMO. It is a question of how we infobox this particular office. It's not really about the individuals who have held the position. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither held any position at that time, other then the vice presidency. What the did was hold the powers and duties of the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the names of G.H.W.B. & D.C. do not belong in this article's infobox. The template on this page is about the post, rather than the two persons who have briefly acted as president of the United States. Both men are mentioned at the end of the introduction, and are featured prominently in the body of the article. Drdpw (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Acting President should be clarified
The Acting President section for Cheney should be clarified to make it clear it was two separate terms and not one full duration. Dogblock (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the table to make it more clear that Cheney was acting president on two separate occasions. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Examples of vice president incapable
"The Article II succession clause authorizes Congress to designate which federal officeholders would accede to the presidency in the event that the vice president were unable to do so, a situation which has occurred on three occasions." could we have some sources or just general info on when this happened? or am I misunderstanding. Sure more than 3 presidents have been removed / left / shot early, but has the speaker or other successions even happened? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyplane2247 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out this statement, which was inaccurate, and which has been corrected –such a situation has never arisen. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pointless table
Why do we need a big table with big photos for three instances? Why not just "George H W Bush served as Acting President on while Reagan was undergoing colon cancer surgery. Cheney served as AP twice, first on, second on , while Pres. Bush underwent colonoscopies under sedation." --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with removing the table. The information in its "Date (time) and reason" column could be put into paragraph form with images of Bush and Cheney positioned to one side or centered below. Drdpw (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've no objections to deletion, since Bush & Cheney (twice) had very brief tenures as acting president. We can always add this back in the future, if a vice president assuming the role of acting president for at least multiple days. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Qualifications
Should we mention the qualifications for the presidency & vice presidency are exactly the 'same'? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, as the qualifications for the vice presidency, even though exactly the 'same', are tangential here. Stating "and of the vice presidency" is unnecessary. It enough that the article mentions the qualifications for the presidency. Drdpw (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One exception, only the veep succeeds to the presidency & only the veep can assume presidential powers & duties under Sections 3 & 4 of the 25th amendment. As for the 1947 succession act? Nobody 'truly' knows how it'll be invoked, as the presidential powers & duties have 'never' devolved beyond the vice president. Though rare, it's possible that 'nobody' could be eligible to assume the presidential powers & duties, under the 1947 Act. Indeed, scholars have found many contradictions in the 1947 Act. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the paragraph you edited was about the qualifications stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which addresses the office of the presidency only. It is the XXII Amendment which provides that no individual constitutionally ineligible to the office of president would be eligible to serve as vice president. Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still say we should include the vice presidency. But, have it your way. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then add an additional sentence to the paragraph stating something like: "The Vice President, by virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, is already held to these eligibility requirements." Drdpw (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do as you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

David Rice Atcheson
He was acting President for a day, although this is controversial. Shouldn't this be mentioned?Notwisconsin (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No, as there is no truth to the idea that Atchison was the nation's acting president for a day. Though a persistent tale, this myth has been thoroughly debunked by scholars.

"In 1925 historian George Haynes—an authority on the Senate—dismissed the claims of Atchison’s presidency. The clearest indication that Atchison was not president, he noted, was the fact that Atchison’s existing term as senator and, more importantly, as president pro tempore, had ended at noon on March 4. The position of president pro tempore was, in fact, vacant. Atchison was not elected to the position again until the Senate's special session convened at noon on March 5. Minutes later the president and vice president took their oaths. "David Rice Atchison: (Not) President for a Day" November 13, 2020. By Senate Historical Office."


 * It's arguably worth a "see also" entry, though: David Rice Atchison, sometimes claimed to have been acting president for one day. TJRC (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope. Besides, oath or no oath, Taylor & Fillmore became president & vice president at Noon EST, on 4 March 1849 anyway. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are looking at the situation through a 20th/21st century lens. The fact that the issue (regarding whether Atchison had been the nation's acting president on March 4–5, 1849) arose at all demonstrates that legal and procedural precedents concerning when persons actually cease-to-be and actually become POTUS or VPOTUS were not yet firmly established – wording in the Constitution and in federal law was not so clear-cut. Drdpw (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The presidency has never been vacant. Either wise, we'd be reflecting the opposite, every time a re-elected president took his oath of office minutes after Noon EST on inauguration day. Anyways, Atchison wasn't even president pro tempore of the US Senate during the roughly 24 hr window, from when Taylor's & Fillmore's terms began, until when they both took office. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any 19th century assertions to the contrary, Atchison was never the nation's acting president. therefore, a link to his bio article is not really warranted. Drdpw (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Table vs. narrative
For the examples of post-25th Amendment invocations of section 3, it seems far more sensible to have a table than a verbal narrative with separate image gallery. Neutralitytalk 03:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a table prior to August 2020. It was deleted after a brief discussion (see it up-page). I'm fine with the current layout, and see no reason to add the table back until a vice president assumes the role of acting president for at least multiple days. Drdpw (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Need I point out that "we" (by which I mean: not I) should coordinate with Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, eliminating duplication? EEng 04:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to be a little more specific here, as some duplication of material between the two articles is inevitable. Drdpw (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Invocations of 25A Section 3 are a special case of this article's topic, so all the material there on Section 3 should be merged here, leaving just a pointer behind. EEng 14:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That conversation is off-topic here in this thread, but sounds like a worthwhile subject for a wp:RFC; non-invocations of the amendment and times when it's invocation has been called for would as well. Drdpw (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not off topic. When the material here's being reworked, that's a great time to do a related task. Unless someone sees a problem with it, what would we need an RfC for? It's not a big deal. Finally, what do you mean by non-invocations of the amendment and times when it's invocation has been called for would as well? EEng 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the several instances (listed in that article's Section 4 subsection) where invoking the Amendment was contemplated or suggested but not carried out, and Trump's apparent avoidance of invoking Section 3 in 2019. Drdpw (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That stuff would remain over there, along with a link saying to come here to find all the instances of actual acting-ness. It makes little sense to have that stuff there and here as well. But having said that... looking now at this article, after you discount the stuff which is really about 25A and its invocations there's really very little left -- just a paragraph about 20A plus the subsection Acting_president_of_the_United_States. So I'm wondering if I have it backwards: perhaps this article should be merged into a combined 25A-and-Acting-President article, with an integrated presentation. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * EEng, a combined presentation (merge/redirect) seems like a good idea to me. As for the table vs. narrative question, it seems bizarre to me to have a WP:PROSELINE style textual summary, plus a random image gallery (both of which are discouraged) rather than a clean, integrated table. Neutralitytalk 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * how about this for a clean, integrated table? It puts the bulleted prose paragraphs into table format without the table looking like a standard "list of" table for people who were sworn into a government position; it also eliminates the random/hanging gallery.
 * how about this for a clean, integrated table? It puts the bulleted prose paragraphs into table format without the table looking like a standard "list of" table for people who were sworn into a government position; it also eliminates the random/hanging gallery.

Three vice presidents have served as acting president while the president underwent a medical procedure. Drdpw (talk) 17.05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not really a table; it's just a bullet list with lines drawn around each entry. I'm thinking something more like this.

Vice presidents have served as acting president on four occasions, in each case while the president was under sedation or anesthesia for medical procedures: I've left out the images because they're overused in such stuff. This is just a table of facts. I've also omitted re Harris being the first woman etc etc, because that belongs in her article; there are lots of firsts I suppose we could point out but don't.

The more I look at it, the more apparent it is that almost everything here is already in the 25A article, and what little isn't can be quite comfortably integrated there, leaving this page a redirect. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a concise "just the facts" table. Regarding the future of the page itself, lead section material from this article could easily be integrated into the 'Vacancies and succession' section of the POTUS article with the acting president page redirecting there. That is possibly a more apropos redirect target – an issue that can be hashed-out in a move/merge discussion. Drdpw (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there's the 25A article; the POTUS article section you mention; Presidential Succession Act, and United States presidential line of succession. I'm not exactly sure of the right relationship among all those, but I'm sure this article can be dispensed with, and merging it into 25A seems the best way to do that, subject to later adjustment with respect to those other articles. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is alright as is. Let's not attempt to fix something, that isn't broken. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I like your table. Agree that the photos can be dispensed with. Neutralitytalk 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A table is probably the best alternative for replacing the current (and discouraged) proseline text, and as there appears to agreement for table formatting and for doing away with the photo gallery, I have gone ahead and put the information, minus the pictures, into table format. Drdpw (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess I've been outvoted on this one. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)