Talk:United States presidential line of succession/Archive 2

Robert Gates
Robert Gates should be listed as an independent. He has said many times he is not a member of the Republican Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.40.210 (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. I have changed it to Republican and added a reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. He is independent.
 * That isn't exactly a convincing argument, and the source states otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, both points are extremely valid. Ultimately, if he's not registered as a Republican, I have to say he needs to be portrayed in accordance to his legal registration status. That's independent. However, I believe the citation should remain on the grounds that it is declarative (i.e. Gates has said he's a Republican.) Counter to that argument, there is evidence that Gates is not a Democrat and there's evidence that Gates is not a Republican. But its important to represent the facts and ideology is not grounds, necessarily for fact. Please change it to 'independent'. --Samfisch (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He self-identifies as Republican. I'm not going to say he's wrong.  We should follow whatever is used at his article, Robert Gates, which is also Republican.  It was discussed, there, too.  See Talk:Robert_Gates/Archive_1.  If you want to change the party affiliation, start over there. Personally, I think the footnoted explanation on both pages makes it very clear: "Gates is not registered with any political party, but considers himself Republican."  TJRC (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Robert Gates is not legally registered with any political party, he is, by American law, an Independent which means that his affiliation is and ought to be "independent." However, the citation is extremely relevant. Therefore, the gray shading has been placed there whilst the citation shall stay. Fair is fair. Necropirate (talk) 12:05 26 January 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Pelosi and Byrd
Term of the 110th Congress expired today, so aren't Pelosi and Reid formally out of the offices of Speaker and President pro tem until January 6, when the new Congress convence, and thus out of the line for this time, or they retains these positions for few days without Congress? Darth Kalwejt (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House because the 110th Congress expired at noon on January 3. If both the President and Vice President were to die prior to the organization of the 111th Congress, Ms. Pelosi could not act as President. She is out of the line unless and until the 111th Congress re-elects her as Speaker of the House.
 * The Senate, unlike the House, is a continuous body and the president pro tempore retain his position as long as he is still a Senator. Thus, President pro tempore Byrd (not Harry Reid, the Majority Leader) is still in the line of succession for President.
 * I will not make these changes on the page because I don't really think it's that big a deal, though. We'll have Pelosi again as Speaker in two days. JasonCNJ (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened to 16 & 17?
If we are including the numbers for individuals that are not yet confirmed, then why does Shinseki (born in Hawaii territory, part of the US) and Napolitano (born in New York) listed as #17 and #18? user:mnw2000

Difference
Why are in the de wiki version some names different within the list of the current presidential line of succession from this en wiki? Thank you. --83.208.117.159 (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to me like the german version has not updated and removed the people that filled positions in Bush's cabinet that have not been had a new person confirmed in Obama's cabinet. I believe the German version is incorrect, those people are not in Obama's cabinet even though they haven't been replaced yet.  A new name 2008 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a quick answer, I was wondering about designation of some new members administration as well. Yesterday, I updated the czech version of page, so I wanted to be affirmed with information. --83.208.117.159 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

President Pro Tempore (Conflicting information in article)
Is it true that Robert Gates is an independent? I thought it was said there are two republicans in the cabinet  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Number of gunshots"
Is "number of gunshots" a bit crude? Even number of deaths is less crude. LizzieHarrison 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was vandalism. It's supposed to be just "#", the order number of succession.  I've reverted the vandalism. TJRC (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Party Affiliation
Changed Robert Gates' affiliation color-code to independent. Secretary Gates is a registered independent. He may have conservative leanings, but he is NOT a registered Republican, nor has he ever identified himself as such. More importantly, prominent Democrats also recognize that he is an independent as evidenced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's quote in the following: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/11/09/does_bob_gates_count_as_a_republican SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed it to Republican, added reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Acting cabinet members
If there's an acting deputy or an unconfirmed out-of-session appointee in a cabinet spot, do they get passed over in the line of succession or do they have a legally defensible claim to the office? MrZaius talk  09:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Acting is not in line for succession and is usually highlighted in this article in "italics". The same is true for cabinet members that are not eligible to be President such as being born outside US jurisdiction. However, if former President Clinton or Bush II were to be a cabinet member, would they be in the line of succession. Is the restriction in the 25th Amendment only on RUNNING for President? user:mnw2000 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No Acting Secretary or unconfirmed nominee has any legitimate claim to the office of Acting President. The restriction in the 22nd Amendment refers only to those seeking election to the Office of President; if President Clinton or President Bush or the other President Bush or President Carter were to become Cabinet officers or otherwise end up in the line of succession and the opportunity to become Acting President fell upon them, they would have no Constitutional or legal prohibition on taking office as Acting President of the United States. JasonCNJ (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Carter and Bush 41 would also have no legal prohibition on being elected president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.54.110 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold-over cabinet members - Early in a Presidential term, while the new cabinet has not all been confirmed, are the cabinet members from the previous administration in the line of succession? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.105.72.67 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Holdover cabinet members remain in the line of succession for as long as they remain in office. Acting cabinet secretaries might also be in the line of succession, according to the Continuity of Government Commission, who I have quoted in the article under "Notes." Richard75 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Acting officials? might be, isn't good enough. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied in the "Acting Secretaries" section below. Richard75 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cabinet member becoming President situation
I disagree that there would be a constitutional crisis in a situation where a Cabinet member becomes the President. Electing a new Speaker of the House would not cause a power struggle. The series of events I see are as follows:

1. The President through the President of the Senate die simultaneously or almost.

2. The Secretary of State, the highest in the line of succession, is sworn in as the new President and resigns their old office simultaneously.

3. Since they are now the President, electing a new Speaker does nothing.

The only situation where there could be a crisis would be so rare it is improbable that it would happen. There would have to be an event to cause a Cabinet member to be next in line for the Presidency, for the event to become knowledgeable during a time when Congress to be convened, and for them to have an election for Speaker before the acting President could be sworn in. In that case the newly-elected Speaker of the House would technically be next in line to the Presidency, but Congress would have to act so quick elect a new one I doubt that situation would ever happen.

I propose removing issue 6 from the Constitutional concerns list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.44.98 (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer is in subsection (d)(2) of 3 USC 19:
 * "An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act..."
 * The Speaker (assuming he is qualified) is a prior-entitled individual in the line of succession, so he replaces a cabinet secretary as president. Richard75 (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The confusion here often centers on "prior-entitled." In this context this legal term does not mean a person who was entitled to the office prior to the succession.  Instead, it means an individual whose position comes "prior" to the Cabinet officer's position on the succession list - a position, in other words, of higher rank on the succession list.Professor Storyteller (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Air force One Technicality
This is definitely a minor technicality, however the picture of LBJ being sworn in is incorrectly captioned as, "New President Lyndon Johnson is sworn in aboard Air Force One, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963". At the time the picture was taken, there technically was no President, as JFK had passed away, and LBJ was just being sworn in. The caption conflicts with the definition of Air Force One, in accordance with the Air Force One article. I don't think it matters all that much, however it does imply that Air Force One is an aircraft for the President as opposed to any aircraft the President is on. I'm not going to change it, just pointing it out for discussion. Ryan Gittins (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Johnson became president as soon as Kennedy died. His term of office did not begin when he was sworn in, he was already president. The Constitution only requires that he be sworn before he enters on the execution of his office. Richard75 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Republican Link
I noticed that this link was not working:


 * {{Party shading/Republica

}|Republican

This seems stange to me. Shouldn't it link to the Republican Party?

I adding this to the Discussion because I really don't know how edit on Wikipedia and don't want to mess thing up.

Poorlittlerobin (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Inouye ineligible to be potus
hawaii was not part of usa until 1954.he was born in 1924 so he cannot serve to be potus.plz shade his color to something else

manchurian candidate 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii was a US territory since the 1890s, and a state since 1959. Do you have a reliable source saying people born in US territories are ineligible to be President? They are US citizens, the same as someone born in a US state. Inouye is eligible to be president. 12:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

McCain was eligible and he wasn't born in a state of the US. Therefore, if Hawaii was under US administration in 1924, I would argue that he would be eligible. However, his age may make it unlikely he would accept in the tragic situation where the Prez, the VP and the Speaker were all not able to take office. I think his listing is more honorary than actual. But since Hawaii was a US Territory in 1924, the he is eligible. user:mnw2000 15:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Barry Goldwater had been born in the territory of Arizona prior to its becoming a state; yet, his eligibility for the G.O.P. nomination for President in 1964 was not seriously contested. WHPratt (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the citizenship status of a person born in a foreign land, but then that land get annexed by the US? Take Texas for example.  Would a Texan born before 1845 be considered natural-born since he was born in the United States, he was just born before that land was part of the United States.  Emperor001 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Constitution itself offers very little guidance on what constitutes a "natural born" citizen, but 8 USC 1401 covers the issue of "citizens of the United States at birth," who are considered under law to be natural-born citizens. This includes subsection (c), which states in part that citizens of the United States at birth include "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."  Given this language, anyone born outside of American territory whose parents are US citizens and at least one parent lived on American territory before the birth of the person in question is a natural-born citizen.  Actually being on American territory is not a requirement.


 * For people who did not have parents who are US citizens residing on American territory prior to the birth of the people in question, the issue of a territory acquired becomes extremely specific under other sections of 8 USC, which deal individually with Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands. In most cases a date after which point birth on that territory constituted natural-born citizenship status is specified - although in some cases the law had retroactive effect.


 * Incidentally, there is one case where being born on American territory does not confer citizenship, natural-born or otherwise - that being anyone born on American territory who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This is in the language of the 14th Amendment, and applies most often to children born on American territory to parents who are citizens of another nation and hold diplomatic immunity.


 * A good and reliable guide to these issues can be found at http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html - which is the source of the extracts I've posted here.


 * I hope this helps! It is a complex but thoroughly legislated topic.Professor Storyteller (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When did the secretary of Homeland Security join the line of succession?
According to the article, Janet Napolitano is #17 in line to act as President. As far as I can tell, though, section 3 of the U.S. Code makes no mention of anybody beyond the Secretary of Veteran's affairs.

Was the law changed by Congress? And if so, when? Pine (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One would presume that the same legislation which create the department would have addressed the secretary's place in the line of succession. In any case, this copy of the code shows the current line of succession, including the DHS.   Will Beback    talk    22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked in the "notes" section, which says it was changed in 2006 pursuant to Public Law 109-177.   Will Beback    talk    22:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate
On the US Senate website, the following information on the term of the president pro tempore of the US Senate: "The first sentence of Rule I of today's standing rules of the Senate provides that the president pro tempore shall hold the office 'during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires.'" Source - http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/President_Pro_Tempore.htm In short, this means that if a Senator is elected president pro tempore of the Senate, he or she holds that position as long as their term lasts, unless the Senate choses someone else. Unlike the House, whose members terms all expire every two years in unison, the Senate has staggered term expiration for groups of roughly one third. As a result, in the time between sessions of the US Congress, roughly two-thirds of the Senators are still sworn members of the Senate. If the president pro tempore is among them, he or she is still president pro tempore in the intervening time. If not, then the position stands vacant, unless the Senate chooses a different president pro tempore on the final day of the session as they once routinely did in the 19th century.

I hope this helps!Professor Storyteller (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm maybe you're right. I read in several articles that they had to elect him again in the 112th congress but the AP can be wrong... Um okay well why does it say that Robert Byrd served until January 3, 2007 and then again from January 3, 2007 until his death. I mean idk it just seemed to suggest that he is re-elected. Its hard to find when the votes were b/c they are not usually roll call votes. --Fshoutofdawater (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's because it lists them Congress by Congress rather than just a straight list of presidents, otherwise Byrd would be listed as just the one term. Richard75 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Richard75 is correct - everything else about the legislative branch is broken out Congress by Congress, so the charts usually just alter the president pro tempore's term to match for ease and convenience. The Senate president pro tem is different as a result of presidential succession.  In the 19th century, president pro tem was ahead of the Speaker of the House, and Congress did not stay in session anywhere near as long as they have in more recent times.  With the Congress out of session for months, the Senate did not want the position vacant in the event presidential succession might require it.  Thus, in the 19th century when vice presidents were a fixture in the Senate chamber, they would have the vice president step away from the chamber on the last day of the session and name a president pro tempore with the stipulation I quoted above, leaving the position filled during the recess in the event it was needed.


 * Later, in the 20th century, vice presidents shifted to other duties and ceased being a permanent presence in the Senate chamber, allowing standing presidents pro tempore, but the practice of keeping the position filled across terms was retained for reasons of presidential succession. Even when the position became ceremonial and its older duties were replaced by the position of Senate majority leader, and even when the Speaker of the House replaced president pro tem behind the vice president, the Senate has retained this practice, perhaps to ensure the position retains additional gravitas and dignity for the member they chose to honor with this title. Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the Constitution (or an applicable law) state that a Vice President assuming the presidency gives up the Vice Presidential powers?

In the book/film Advise and Consent, the President dies while his nomination for a new Secretary of State is being voted upon. The Vice President, at the moment presiding over the Senate, is made aware of this. The vote is tied. Everybody expects the V.P. (considered a vapid yes-man) to cast his tie-breaking vote in favor of the presidential designate. Instead, he declines to break the tie, and breaks instead the news of the President's demise. He says that he'll be picking his own Secretary of State, and goes off to his new duties as President. This is commendable, of course, as it shows he'll be "his own man," is no longer a flunky.

No question here that the nomination fails with only a tie vote. However this raises the question as to whether the ascending V.P. really had an option. Could he have cast a "yea" vote on the nomination in his role as V.P. presiding over the Senate, when he's in fact already become President? Remember, the oath of office is a formality: he already holds the higher office.

I'd guess "no," as it would be highly improper for a promoted President to revert, from time to time, to V.P. status to meddle in Senate votes, in effect running both the Executive and the Legislative Branches. Exactly how is this prevented?

WHPratt (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's clear you can't be president and vice president at the same time. So it couldn't happen if the president dies. Not sure about an acting president, but I think it's probably speculation and so we can't use it. Richard75 (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection
Perhaps the page should be protected or at the very least semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.75.232 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Eric Shinseki
Uh, why is Eric Shinseki labeled as a Democrat? Has he self-identified as one? Zzsignup (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I searched through the Proquest newspaper archive, and through his online bios, and I couldn't find any source for his party affiliation. It's better to leave it blank then get it wrong. I'll remove it. Anyone who can find a source can add it back.   Will Beback    talk    21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Acting President vs Actual President
From this article: however, there is also much evidence to the contrary, the most compelling of which is Article I, section 3, of the Constitution itself, the relevant text of which reads: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

I'm confused. How does that establish that the VP becomes President? To me it sounds like the exact opposite, that it's a clear statement that the VP merely becomes Acting President. If the VP became President, then that situation would be included under "absence of the Vice President" since there would no longer be a VP. Am I missing something that should be obvious? XinaNicole (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. To "exercise" an office is not necessarily the same as to actually hold the office. Unless someone provides another interpretation soon I will delete that part. A Wikipedia article isn't really the place to discuss hypothetical legal arguments anyway, it should be confined to describing what actually happened. It is enough to say that there was a difference of opinion which was eventually settled by Tyler in 1841 and then codified in the 25th Amendment. Richard75 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

After the Cabinet, then what
If the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore and the whole cabinet are all unavailable, who becomes President? Nikofeelan (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one. Richard75 (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The presiding officer of the first house of Congress to elect one. In the truly catastrophic scenario where Congress and the Cabinet are all gone, that would almost certainly be the Senate, since enough states allow governors to appoint replacement senators to get a quorum pretty quickly. The House would take weeks to get back up and running unless we decided to ignore the Constitution and appoint temporary reps until full timers could be elected. -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Acting Secretaries
I don't believe that a 'non-partisan think tank', gets to dictate the 1947 Presidential Succession Act. According to the 1947 Act, Acting cabinet heads are not in the line of succession. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "According to the Act..." By whose interpretation of the Act? I have provided a source which indicates that there are two ways of reading the Act, and which contrasts the 1947 Act with the different and less ambiguous wording of the 1886 Act, its predecessor. What have you cited? Oh wait, it's just your personal opinion. I don't want to start some edit war, so please change your edit back to the non-POV version of the article which I inserted, which notified the reader that there were two interpretations of the issue, as opposed to your "my way is the only way" version. Richard75 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it's obvious the Act covers Secretaries (including AG) & not Acting Secretaries. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think that since you have left in the footnote about acting secretaries your edit might not be as POV as I first thought, apologies. I think it's ok as it is. Richard75 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Acting Secretary of Commerce
Although it may be correct to say that the office of Secretary of Commerce is vacant, since currently Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank is acting as secretary, this does not necessarily mean that she is not in the line of succession. This article explains that one interpretation of the law is that such officers are in the line of succession, and that in the past some such individuals have been told that they were. It would be best to leave Blank in, with a note alerting readers to the section of the article I have mentioned, rather than to leave her out altogether, which creates a false impression of the situation. Richard75 (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Until the situation arises to prove otherwise, we can't assume she's in the line-of-succession, as she's merely performing the duties of an cabinet member. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't assume the contrary either. What we can no is try to be neutral and avoid POV. Richard75 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But we can assume the contrary. NPoV - calls for leaving the Acting Secretary of Commerce on the list, but bypassing it in the numbering of the line-up. Remember, she's still Deputy Secretary of Commerce. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, in D-1 of the 1947 Act, there's no listing of Acting officials as being in the line of succeeding to the powers & duties of the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection
These seems to be more vandalism than usual on this article recently, for some reason. Can somebody semi-protect it for a couple of weeks? Richard75 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Kerry not in line until February 1st when he takes office
Isn't Clinton still Secretary of State until Friday, February 1st? user:mnw2000 22:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Service Secretaries
I see the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force are not in the line-up. Is that right? 72.86.42.38 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Only cabinet-level secretaries are included. Richard75 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection again
Again, this has got out of hand. Can we please semi-protect this article, or else block the people that have been vandalising it over the last couple of days? Richard75 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

chart notes - a, b or 1, 2?
The ineligible people on the current order list-chart are marked with a and b. But underneath the chart, the chart footnotes show up as 1 and 2. I could not figure out how to fix this to a and b. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The table needed a template at the end, which I added. Regards,  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sally Jewell
Unless at least one of her parents was a United States citizen, then she is not eligble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States Wikieditor101 (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is correct according to the key she should be colored clear as she is not eligible. The key above the list says Red Republican, Blue Democrat, Yellow Independent, and Clear Not Eligible.  Therefore someone needs to remove the color from her name.  I need someone else who is experienced with this type of table coloring to do so for me because I'm afraid I'll mess the table up.   Etineskid  (talk)  00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I'll see if I can make this change. Snowsuit Wearer (talk&#124;contribs) 09:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Haig quote not properly explained
Haig's statement "Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of State in that order..." is presented as an an accurate, but misinterpreted, comment.

The article says elsewhere that the Secretary of State does not immediately follow the Vice President in the order.

Therefore, Haig was incorrectly to put himself immediately after the Vice President, when the Speaker of the House was actually next in line after the Vice President.

This needs to be presented more accurately.71.109.152.159 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Medved - Successions beyond Vice President
Having found this interesting titbit (tidbit?) in Michael Medved's book on Presidential aides, about the Wilson plan for handing over to Charles Evans Hughes straight after the election instead of waiting till March 4, I added it to the article in a relatively neutral way. Now someone has expanded that, stating "Conservative talk show host and film critic Michael Medved claims that..." I believe this unnecessarily loads the incident with controversy, and with the idea that it's some kind of unfounded allegation. First of all, the book was written in the 1970s, long before Medved was notable for being a Conservative commentator. I also feel that his political color is irrelevant. Secondly, Medved wasn't making this "claim" as the centrepiece of an outré character assassination or conspiracy theory, he simply recorded some facts which he had presumably found in correspondance within the Wilson papers. Silas Maxfield (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out. Richard75 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That was (a bit) quick! I've since found out that it was Textorus who made the change, and in their edit comment they stated that "the author of this dubious claim should be identified". I'm going to reword it again, putting in Medved's name, and some context, but not in a way that might possibly be emotive. Silas Maxfield (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

David Rice Atchison
I have no problem with cutting down the length of what until recently was the paragraph about Atchison, or with removing words like "dubious" and so on. However in its current form (compare versions here) it suggests that taking the oath is necessary to become president (as opposed to entering on the execution of the office), nor does it fully explain the reason why some people claimed that Atchison was president in the first place. I propose that we have a shorter version of the old paragraph, without the value-laden words. Also we probably don't need the sentence in brackets. Perhaps this: "On March 4, 1849, James K. Polk's presidency ended on a Sunday. President-elect Zachary Taylor declined to be sworn in on a Sunday, citing religious beliefs. Senate President pro tempore David Rice Atchison's tombstone states that he was President for the day. However, this claim is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Atchison took no oath of office to the presidency either. (Several others have taken the required oath minutes or hours after their term of office as President began at noon.)" Or without the last sentence. Richard75 (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The trick here, I think, is separating out the claims that appear reproduced in reliable sources, from those that appear in none. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would at least cut out "this claim is difficult to reconcile with the fact that" because it looks like a red flag for SYNTH or some kind of original deduction, and just say plainly "However, Atchison took no"... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've done that (with some other rewording), and added these two sources: US Senate website: "President for a Day" Snopes.com: "President for a Day" Richard75 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I have no problem calling the claim "dubious". The Senate reference uses the word "shaky" ("Unfortunately for Atchison's shaky claim..."); I submit that "dubious" is just a more encylopediacally toned version of "shaky".  In fact, the Senate actually uses the word "dubious" on another page ("Senator David Rice Atchison maintained a dubious claim..."). TJRC (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Times of Occrance
Okay so I am rather ill today, and maybe I just missed it, but why is there no chart showing the times any of this has been acted upon? Would that chart be to long? Is there already one on a different page? The only thing that makes me bring this up is because I remember reading a story how when little Bush was in office, he had to go under for surgery, and he handed off official duties of the President for the time being to Chaney, who for a brief time was acting President (while Bush was under). What about some kind of chart showing situations when the Vice-President, or anyone else, became President for a brief period. Again, rather sick so if this exists, point the way for me. Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Opps I see it now...Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Order of succession of cabinet officers
It's always been my understanding (I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so) that the order of succession of cabinet officers is based on when the office (or its progenitor) was created. This is why the Secretary of State comes first Treasury second and Defense (War) third because that reflects the chronological order of the creation of those departments and secretaryships. Health and Human Services reflects the creation date of HEW (Health, Education, and Welfare) the progenitor of HHS; Education was spun off later and the Secretary of Education thus is further down the list, and so on.

I think it's important to know this, otherwise the reader is left puzzling over the order -- why Treasury before Justice, why Interior so high on the list, etc. -- and wondering if it's just random or changes with each administration or each time they change the law or what.

However, I don't have a ref for this. It's not exactly codified in any law I don't think -- e.g. here is the law giving the order of succession but doesn't explain the reason. It's more of thing which is codified in law by tradition I think, which doesn't make it any less real. Anyway, would be a service to to reader to dig up some explanation of this and present it. Herostratus (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a note to the effect that the cabinet officers are in line according to the date of the creation of their departments. We don't need a ref for this since it's self-evidently true and can be checked by checking the dates of creation of the departments. What we don't have is a ref saying that Congress intended to do this -- the current act, and all previous ones, could have listed the cabinet officers in this order by random coincidence -- and although of course it didn't, I don't have a ref for what Congress was thinking and so I didn't state anything beyond the bare fact. Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility misunderstood
The article takes "eligibility" to mean that someone is capable of *serving* as President. But the word actually means capable of being *elected* President. Even someone who can't be elected can serve, if he or she succeeds to the office. Frjwoolley (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. Otherwise, former Presidents would be barred from accepting Cabinet appointments, or from running for House or Senate seats (or at least from becoming Speaker or President-Pro-Tem), as this could place them in the line of succession. Yet they aren't so barred. However, the public might respond adversely to a plot to get a third term in this manner. WHPratt (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. People often become cabinet secretaries and so in even though they are not eligible to be president. Like Henry Kissinger. It doesn't mean they are in the line of succession to the presidency. This is why we don't allow original research at Wikipedia. Richard75 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, one doesn't follow from the other. The real constitutional test would be when (if ever) the succession falls upon a two-term former President who happens to be serving as Vice President, Speaker, Secretary of State, etc. WHPratt (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oath of Office Constitutes Resignation
This article notes the following: "Under the principle of separation of powers, the Constitution specifically disallows legislative officials from also serving in the executive branch. For the Speaker or the Senate President pro tempore to become Acting President, they must resign their position, at which point they are no longer in the line of succession. This is seen by some to form a constitutional paradox. However, the current Act specifies that taking the oath of office of the President of the United States constitutes automatic resignation from Congress, allowing for a seamless transition."

From my reading of the Act and the article "Acting President of the United States", it seems to state that having the Presidential Oath of Office apply as one's resignation only applies to members of the Cabinet, and not to the Speaker of the House or the President pro tempore of the Senate (neither of which, as an interesting side note, are required to be members of Congress, but I digress). Therefore, it would seem that the note "However, the current Act specifies that taking the oath of office of the President of the United States constitutes automatic resignation from Congress, allowing for a seamless transition." is false, though I would love some discussion on this because I may be wrong. 74.37.201.203 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Act says "If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President." Richard75 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but the sentence within this article that states that taking the Presidential Oath of Office constitutes a member of Congress' resignation is false; taking the Presidential Oath only constitutes the resignation of a Cabinet member, not of a member of Congress. The member of Congress would still have to resign before taking the oath of office (and yes, this is the same person--too lazy to log in right now.) 50.111.192.80 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, I misunderstood you. I'll look into rephrasing the article. Richard75 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; the edit looks good and makes sense. Thanks! 50.111.192.80 (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dick Cheney was an Acting President
He was not mentioned as such in this article. I found another Wikipedia post where this information is discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney "On the morning of June 29, 2002, Cheney served as Acting President of the United States under the terms of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, while Bush was undergoing a colonoscopy. Cheney acted as President from 11:09 UTC that day until Bush resumed the powers of the presidency at 13:24 UTC.[79][80]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.45.205 (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in detail at Acting President of the United States, which is noted on this page. It's not necessary to note every instance of acting here as this article is about the line of succession. - the WOLF  child  13:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"who could in effect remove the Cabinet member..."
"The fact that, should a Cabinet member begin to act as President, the law allows the House to elect a new Speaker (or the Senate, a new President pro tempore), who could in effect remove the Cabinet member and assume the office themselves at any time."

Is this referring to removal upon impeachment? Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President (which if they are acting as President would be themselves) and are subject to removal upon impeachment by, the House and Senate. Not by the Speaker and President Pro Tempore who by themselves cannot remove an official. The current wording suggest that the Speaker and Pro Temp can impeach and convict officers by themselves which, unless I missed something the Presidential Succession Act does not change this nor would federal law be able to this would require a constitutional amendment. If this is referring to impeachment than it needs to read,

"The Constitution allows Congress to remove cabinet members through conviction upon impeachment, including when that cabinet member may be acting as President, thus allowing a newly elected Speaker or President Pro Tempore to act as President presenting a conflict of interest."

Then there is the issue of whether the Congress would be impeaching the Acting President which the Chief Justice would have to preside, who would also likely be dead or disabled. The Constitution does not say who may act in the Chief Justice's place in the event that he is absent during the President's impeachment trial. Making the trial of the Acting President at best difficult, at worst impossible.

If the text is referring to Congress impeaching and trialing the official as a cabinet member than the Vice President, who would also be dead leaving the presiding duties up to the Pro Temp who the Senate may or may not have elected at the time leaving no one with the legal authority to preside. In addition the Presidential Succession Act says "and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon them." This leads be to believe that as long as impeachment charges are filed after the cabinet officers becomes Acting President than he is eligible to serve as Acting President, but then there is the additional issue of what exactly "not under impeachment" means is this strictly from the time that the House votes to impeach and until the Senate votes on the matter? If they as Acting POTUS are convicted does this period end? If so then does that allow the cabinet officer to simply step back into that role as Acting President because he would be technically eligible (Again impeached and convicted from the Acting President position not from the cabinet position).

In summary the wording needs to be cleaned up and clearer, but I am not sure of the original intent and would like some discussion over what others think.Simmons123456 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The context is not impeachment, but rather a major disaster that takes out muvh of the statutory line of succession until it gets down to a cabinet member; in particular at the inauguration. The text in the cited source is:
 * Congress has been annihilated as well, with only a few members who did not attend the ceremony remaining. It  will  be  many  months before Congress can function. Our Constitution requires a majority of each house of Congress to constitute a quorum to do business, and no such majority of the House or Senate exists. In addition, because of a series of past parliamentary rulings, there is confusion about whether there are enough members to proceed. The House’s official interpretation  of  the  quorum  requirement  is  a  majority  of the  living members,  a  proposition  that  scholars have  questioned.  Under  this  interpretation,  if only  five  House  members  survive,  a  group  of three  might  proceed  with  business  and  elect  a new Speaker who would become president of the United States, bumping any cabinet member who had  assumed  the  presidency  and  remaining  in office for the rest of the four-year term.
 * TJRC (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is Number Four?
I was having an argument with someone who claimed that since the Speaker of the House is Number 3 in the line of succession, the president protempore of the Senate would actually be 439th because if the Speaker were assassinated on the same day as the President and the Vice President, the House would elect a new Speaker, and they could do that more than 400 times before they ran out of members to elect. What do you think? -ErinHowarth (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The President pro tem would become POTUS upon the Speaker's death. JTRH (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link to the WikipArticle on the U.S. Constitution is broken. Instead, it points to THIS article.2604:2000:C682:2D00:DD8D:843A:22B7:6BEF (talk)Christopher L. Simpson

miscalculation
this line is wrong "when President William Henry Harrison died in office, only 31 days into his term" it uses age in days|Mar 4, 1841|Apr 4, 1841 but that is wrong because it was the 32nd day of his presidency i would like to change that to "when President William Henry Harrison died in office, on the 32nd day of his term" עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "A month" is precise enough. JTRH (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it doesn't come out to a month it calculates 31 days עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * March 4 to April 4 is a month. JTRH (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * as written now it says 31 days i want to correct it to 32nd day עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording is not wrong, WHH did die 31 days into his presidency. The wording in this article is consistent with the wording in WHH's bio article and is consistent with similar wording in other articles where length of time in office is noted. Though it may seem incorrect to you, it's not. Drdpw (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Had Harrison died on March 4, 1842, it would make a lot more sense to say that he died "after having served a year in office" rather than saying "in his second year in office." Similarly, we say that Harrison was sworn in as president "when he was 69 years old," not "when he was in his 70th year."  The correct way to express the time elapsed before Harrison's death is "31 days into his term."  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * when you talk about years or months you are correct but when it's days it should be different and since we aren't saying "only a month into his term" which would be consistent with year we should count all the days he was in office which is 32 עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI - At a glance, there appear to be a lot of reliable sources, including the White House and major news outlets, that state either "32nd day" or "32 days". Just sayin' - wolf  19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, President Harrison died in the wee early morning hours of April 4, 1841. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * yes but still on his 32nd day in office עם ישראל חי (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions & Questions
The primary reference for the succession chart should be a law school or other authority that explains 3 U.S. Code § 19 plainly (e.g., US House Gov website, Cornell LII, GPO via GOVinfo). Current citation is from CNN "Fast Facts" report produced in 2013, ret 2018. Nothing against CNN, but can we do better and go to the source instead? Supplying links that I believe qualify as alternatives for CNN. MUnderwood 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) From U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Code: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section19&num=0&edition=prelim
 * 2) From Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/19
 * 3) From Government Publishing Office/GOVinfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title3/pdf/USCODE-2011-title3-chap1-sec19.pdf


 * I concur, and will add one of the above suggested references to the CNN reference in the "Current order" section. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

opening lead
The opening sentences should tell readers what they want to know--just what the line of succession is. The legal justification can came later. Major web services like Google, Siri, Alexa use the first couple sentences of Wikipedia articles to answer millions of searches every day. Rjensen (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences appear are in reverse order, as we need to understand what a line of succession is before telling who fills it. I recommend this replacement:


 * Should the president of the United States become incapacitated, die, resign, or be removed from office, the powers and duties of the office are passed to other individuals in the United States presidential line of succession. The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if no vice president is available, the powers and duties pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives, president pro tempore of the Senate, and then Cabinet secretaries, depending on eligibility. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I'd missed that the current version is something you had just plopped in. So I'm just going to alter your change with this, since I'm not disrupting some consensus status quo. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the earlier status quo first sentence. I do thank you Rjensen, for moving the “order” sentence to the lead. Drdpw (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility of Vice-President who has already served as President
The following question has arisen in social media (e.g. Quora): what would happen if Joe Biden is elected president, Barack Obama is his vice-president and Joe Biden becomes incapacitated midterm? Obama has already served two full terms and is not eligible for President. The Constitution, however, allows an individual to serve up to 10 years as President if up to 2 years are served as acting president (precedents are available). Would he serve up to two years more or would he be skipped? If he does serve with more than two years remaining til the end of the term, would there be out-of-order elections for POTUS or the next in line would step in after Obama's two years pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazibara (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting point, and one we should include into the article. Simply put, there's no definite answer to this question and no possible court precedent since this hasn't ever happened. Legal arguments for vs. against could be an interesting section. Eliaszjm (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The 22nd Amendment explicitly prohibits election to the presidency more than twice. The two years is before you're elected president, not after. There is no provision whatever for a time limit within a presidential term. Obama could not only be acting president, he could succeed for the remainder of the term if something happened to Biden. The only thing he couldn't do is run for another full term as president. JTRH (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's your analysis, not a matter of consensus, court ruling, nor indisputable legal precedent. The section should explore the question through its diverse points of view. Those cited in the below references could be good starting blocks. Eliaszjm (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Though there is neither court ruling nor indisputable legal precedent to back this up ... Obama is, according to the 12th Amendment, eligible to serve as vice president and again as president or as acting president (in accordance with the 25th Amendment). However, as JTRH stated, he is not, according to the 22nd Amendment, eligible to be elected again as president. All that said, while interesting, this speculative future-gazing (which came up in 2008 and 2016 about a theoretical Clinton–Clinton ticket) does not belong in the article. Drdpw (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "my analysis," it's a matter of the text of the Constitution. There is no court case and no legal precedent because there has not been an actual situation where the matter had to be ruled on, nor will there be until a former two-term president actually seeks to become VP. So, as Drdpw points out, it's inherently speculative even to discuss it. While I haven't researched this extensively, the only places I've seen the argument made that it couldn't happen are one law review article (by Akhil Reed Amar, if I remember correctly) and one National Review opinion piece in the late 1990's which was specifically directed against Bill Clinton during his second term as president. The rest of the scholarship that I'm aware of agrees that a prohibition on election to a third term as president is only that, a prohibition on election and not a prohibition on succession by other means, whether election as VP, appointment as VP under the 25th Amendment, or accession from another point in the statutory line of succession such as being Speaker of the House or Secretary of State. Two disagreements from what is otherwise a consensus don't qualify as "diverse points of view." JTRH (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this is definitely an open question, with good arguments both ways that I won't go into further, and one that won't be resolved unless it were to come up, which itself is highly unlikely. (I will point out, though, that the courts would likely stay out of it (political question doctrine) and leave it to Congress to accept/reject the VP electoral votes or consent to the nomination or not in the case of the 25th am.) There is already significant discussion of this topic at Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and at Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. At best, I would support a brief statement pointing to those discussions, if there is an appropriate location for such a sentence to be installed. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Why only acting president? for those below the vice presidency.
Wait a sec, if the Speaker or the President pro temp, or any other lower in the line official, assumes the presidential powers & duties (not the office). Why then do they have to resign their offices? Is this a confusion in the article? or a scholarly confusion, over a situation that's never occurred? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They indeed must resign their House/Senate office AND their House/Senate seat before assuming the powers and duties of the presidency. Movies and television depictions of such temporary transfers always seem to miss this detail. It all has to do with the Separation of Powers doctrine. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * eg: The West Wing (fyi) - wolf 18:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While there are a lot of problems with The West Wing's interpretation of presidential succession, when the Speaker of the House becomes acting president at the end of season 4 (episode Twenty Five), the speaker does resign before becoming acting president. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I mentioned The West Wing and specifically linked to that episode. - wolf 22:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone cannot simultaneously serve in the legislative and executive branches. JTRH (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As per the Ineligibility Clause (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2) of the US Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But once when they resign, wouldn't that automatically 'remove them' from the line of succession? This wouldn't be the case if they succeeded to the presidency, which they apparently don't. If this is already under dispute among scholars, then, I won't push it any further. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In some article on WP there is/was discussion of this point, that it is a sort of "constitutional paradox". It is debated by scholars, and is one of many reasons why some argue the presidential succession act has unconstitutional provisions and needs reform. As for why all lower officers are just acting president even if the president dies/resigns/is removed, that derives from Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, which gives Congress the authority to specify who past the VP may act as president. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 3 U.S. Code § 19: If [etc etc] there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President (and similarly for the Senate Pres P.T.). However, that doesn't rule out the possibility of doubt about the constitutionality of such provisions. The Fordham article (p943ff) accepts 3USC19 on its face, but does no analysis of its validity, and Fordham is, after all, only a law review article. So I think we should probably cite and quote 3USC19, and mention that Fordham takes it as valid, but leave it at that -- not assert it as flat fact unless we have a very authoritative source (e.g. a constitutional scholar, specializing in the area, writing under his own name) giving an affirmative endorsement of its validity.  EEng 19:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd Austin and Merrick Garland party affiliations
lists both as Independents, which may be accurate, but I can't find any references as to their party affiliations. Some US officers are not even registered to vote, and many decline to do so to avoid being partisan; the same with some judges. As far as I'm aware, one can register as "no affiliation" in some places, in addition to Democrat, Independent, or Republican.

So maybe it would be best to leave the party slot empty for them unless more information could be gathered. In case Independent were to remain I'd suggest linking it to Independent voter instead of Independent politician as neither is what we traditionally understand a politician to be. == Peter NYC (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the input. I did not consider the independent voter and no affiliation side of the independent "coin" in this situation, and I agree due to a lack of political information on Garland and Austin. --Mortifeye (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Independent politician is what has been used in the past and is more apropos than Independent voter. An independent politician is, in this context, one who does not belong to the Democratic (or any other) organized political party; voter registration is not really relevant here. Drdpw (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure that I agree. In another article that includes officers appointed by the president, List of United States political appointments across party lines, the party affiliation--and, often, the party registration--of the officer in question is what determines whether non-politicians such as, say, Michael Flynn and Christopher Wray are considered Democrats or Republicans.  And while Flynn and Wray were/are not in the line of succession, William Bennett and Lauro Cavazos were both Secretaries of Education under President Reagan and are listed as Democrats, based on their self-identification and voter registration, and not because they had ever run for office as Democrats (in fact, neither one had ever run for office at all, as is the case for Austin and Garland).  So if Garland says that he is a Democrat or that he is a registered Democrat, then there should be no problem listing him as a Democrat despite him not being a "Democratic politician"--or a "politician" of any stripe, for that matter.  Why should not running for office mean that one is an "Independent politician"? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You make the point here: Bennet and Cavazos identified with a party and registered as voters. We don't know anything about Austin and Garland. == Peter NYC (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we don't know anything at all about Austin's and Garland's respective party affiliations, then we should just put "N/A." If they haven't said anything about their party affiliations, then saying that they are Independents is just as speculative as it would be to assume that they belong to a particular party.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As we do not know their party affiliations for Austin, Garland and Mayorkas, changed the wording to unknown. Drdpw (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that's the right call until we find a reliable source as to their party preference.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This "Unknown" stuff is incorrect. Frankly, it is BULLSHIT.
 * Rather than "Unknown" they SHOULD BE designated non-political appointments. (NP is the official designation used on ballots by most if not all states for judiciary positions.) Though in reality one in the position MAY have a problem setting aside their personal bias, both the Judiciary and the Military go to GREAT ENDS to be perceived as NON-POLITCAL.  The fact we, as Americans, seem to have lost sight of this FACT -- is part of the PROBLEM. Symmerhill (a.k.a. Summerhill) (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Short description
Per WP:SDSHORT, a Short description should be short. The current SD – Order by which officers of the U.S. federal government fill the vacant office of president of the U.S. – is 102 characters, which is way too long. I tried Sequence for replacing the U.S. president which is just OK at 41 characters, but it was rejected as an inaccurate descriptioin. Any thoughts on how best to reduce the SD while still being correct? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening a discussion on this. What do you think of: ? Drdpw (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions should also be accurate
We've got one editor who keeps reverting the description to
 * Order in which government officers fill a U.S. presidential vacancy

which restates the common misapprehension that these officials (other than the vice-president) actually fill a vacancy in the presidency by becoming president. A correct description is
 * Order in which U.S. officials assume the presidency or duties of the presidency.

If that's too long, then
 * Order in which U.S. officials assume the duties of the presidency

is also correct, because any of the officers discussed, should their turn come, do assume the duties of the presidency (though in the case of the vice-president, and only in that case, does he or she do that by filling the vacancy in the presidency). It is flatly false to state, as a generality, that these officers "fill a U.S. presidential vacancy." EEng 02:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "Order in which U.S. officials assume the presidency or duties of the presidency." But please note that when there are permanent vacancies in both the presidency and the vice presidency (i.e., because of death, resignation or removal), and not merely a case of inability to perform the duties of the office (or, at the begining of a term, failure of the House to elect a president when a contingent election was mandated, or if the president-elect has not qualified yet), then the next officer in line becomes president and does not merely act as president.  True, Article II refers to which officer shall act as president, but that is because the clause speaks not only about cases of death, resignation or removal of both the president and vice president, but also cases of inability to perform the duties of the offices.  That death or other permanent disability were meant to be treated differently than was disability is proven by the Tyler precedent, much later enshrined in Section 1 of the 25th Anendment but which had been accepted for over a century, that, when the president dies (and not merely is unable to perform the duties of the office), the vice president becomes president, and not merely acting president.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but everything you say starting with your second sentence is flatly incorrect. In particular, your reasoning from 25A is backwards: 25A clarifies the Tyler precedent by affirming that the VP becomes president; its omission to say that anyone else does implies very strongly that no one else can. I challenge you to cite any scholarly source (i.e. not news sources speaking loosely) supporting what you say. EEng 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggested wording——sounds accurate, and so works for me. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is 79 characters long, so we need something much shorter. is still too long at 51. "None" is probably the best option — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What's our limit -- 10 characters? E<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about Order in which officials assume presidential duties? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The most brief description that I come up with is: Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess if we allow ourselves a very broad interpretation of succession. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice one. You could even drop the leading US, as that is more or less part of the article name. = 32. We could also afford  which is less of a tongue twister  — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the 1947 Act (like the 1792 & 1886 Acts) was never invoked, we'll never truly know what will happen. In writing it's suggests that only the vice president can become president upon the president's death, resignation or removal from office (via impeachment conviction). It's also explained that the vice president has to contact the House speaker & Senate president pro temp, when he or she assumes the presidential powers & duties, due to the president's inability. Yet, officials below the vice president in the succession don't have to contact anybody, when they assume presidential powers and duties. Not overly concerned about how we right this all up. Just be sure to point out these oddities & that presidential succession has never gone beyond the vice president. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Options
We do seem ready to close this. Drdpw suggested a viable alternative route by using the word "protocol", which leads to some options: Could we then chose which we prefer — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC) No comments for a while, so gone with "none" — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Presidential succession protocol (32)
 * 2) Protocol for presidential succession (36)
 * 3) Protocol for succession to the presidency (41)
 * 4) Protocol for the presidential succession (40)
 * Absolutely not 3, which takes us back to the original problem. 2 and 4 are wordy. 1 is fine, except if a short desc doesn't say anything more than the article title, aren't we supposed to dispense with it? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 5 "None" is probably the best option — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)