What if terrorists detonate a nuke in DC...

[J. J.]

This is a scary scenario.

Yes, but we should prepare for the possibility.

Personally, that consists of praying to God for salvation.

The Lord helps those who help themselves.

[Bogart]

I believe most states allow their governor to temporarily fill vacant Senate seats. This would allow the Senate to be reconstituted in order to elect president pro tempore. Isn't this individual in the line of succession?

[J. J.]

I believe most states allow their governor to temporarily fill vacant Senate seats. This would allow the Senate to be reconstituted in order to elect president pro tempore. Isn't this individual in the line of succession?

Yes, but after the Speaker.  One member could elect a Speaker.

[A18]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

[J. J.]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

[Bogart]

Yes, but after the Speaker.  One member could elect a Speaker.

True enough. I was simply thinking that the quickest way would be through the Senate if both Houses were completely wiped out.

[ATFFL]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

If Congress is in session and the President does not sign a law for ten days, it becomes law without his signature.

[Bogart]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

If Congress is in session and the President does not sign a law for ten days, it becomes law without his signature.

Actually, if the president doesn't sign, but doesn't veto, it is considered a "pocket veto."

[ATFFL]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

If Congress is in session and the President does not sign a law for ten days, it becomes law without his signature.

Actually, if the president doesn't sign, but doesn't veto, it is considered a "pocket veto."

Only if Congress is not in session.

Pocket Veto

[Bogart]

My mistake. You are correct.

[J. J.]

Even if it wasn't in the line of succession, Congress could just make a law putting him in the line of succession, and he could act as president.

You'd need both houses to pass the law; it would be delayed because no president could sign it.

If Congress is in session and the President does not sign a law for ten days, it becomes law without his signature.

The ten day delay is the problem.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's obvious what would happen. Governors would appoint Senators. The Senate would choose a Pro Tem leader.  The Pro Tem leader would swear in as President.

[A18]

The Congress should just make a law that says if the line of succession is exhausted, the House and Senate pick the president jointly.

I do not believe it is constitutional to put the Speaker or PPT in the line of succession.

That said, I am not convinced it would be constitutional to put governors in the line of succession either.

[Bogart]

It's obvious what would happen. Governors would appoint Senators. The Senate would choose a Pro Tem leader.  The Pro Tem leader would swear in as President.

Seems the quickest and most likely option to me, too.

[J. J.]

It's obvious what would happen. Governors would appoint Senators. The Senate would choose a Pro Tem leader.  The Pro Tem leader would swear in as President.

Seems the quickest and most likely option to me, too.

You have to make an assumption that every member of the House has been killed.  There usually is someone out of town.

[Bogart]

True, but that was the scenario given.

[7,052,770]

I do not believe it is constitutional to put the Speaker or PPT in the line of succession.

Since it's in the 25th amendment, it is constitutional.

Though the governors appointing senators thing works, who would be around to enforce this?  Just a few governors step up and do it and others follow suit?

[AuH2O]

In the past I heard that Governors already were sort of in line; if everyone in the federal government died, the Governors would succeed as President on the basis of the order they entered the Union, at least until they were able to swear in the Senators they appointed.

[J. J.]

In the past I heard that Governors already were sort of in line; if everyone in the federal government died, the Governors would succeed as President on the basis of the order they entered the Union, at least until they were able to swear in the Senators they appointed.

I have heard that, but it isn't correct from everything I've read.

[The Duke]

Given that the situation that would bring this about is almost certainly a military one, it seems more prudent to have the line of succession run through the military than through Governors.  Begin with the JCS Chair, then Vice Chair, then the Service Chiefs, then the Theater Commanders in the order in which those positions were established.

If there is an insistence on Governors, choosing the Governor of the larggest state seems arbitrary to me.  After Schwarzenegger, Rick Perry is next in line.  Is that the best we can do?

[nini2287]

The Congress should just make a law that says if the line of succession is exhausted, the House and Senate pick the president jointly.

I do not believe it is constitutional to put the Speaker or PPT in the line of succession.

That said, I am not convinced it would be constitutional to put governors in the line of succession either.

Is it constituational to have cabinet members in the line of succession since the Constitution says nothing about their existence?

[??????????]

Given that the situation that would bring this about is almost certainly a military one, it seems more prudent to have the line of succession run through the military than through Governors.  Begin with the JCS Chair, then Vice Chair, then the Service Chiefs, then the Theater Commanders in the order in which those positions were established.

That would be a very very very dangerous idea.

[The Duke]

Given that the situation that would bring this about is almost certainly a military one, it seems more prudent to have the line of succession run through the military than through Governors.  Begin with the JCS Chair, then Vice Chair, then the Service Chiefs, then the Theater Commanders in the order in which those positions were established.

That would be a very very very dangerous idea.

It seems to me that the situation is already a disaster no matter who takes over.  I'd at least like experts to be in charge.  Why exactly is it a bad idea?  We elect Generals to the Presidency all the time.

[J. J.]

Given that the situation that would bring this about is almost certainly a military one, it seems more prudent to have the line of succession run through the military than through Governors.  Begin with the JCS Chair, then Vice Chair, then the Service Chiefs, then the Theater Commanders in the order in which those positions were established.

That would be a very very very dangerous idea.

It seems to me that the situation is already a disaster no matter who takes over.  I'd at least like experts to be in charge.  Why exactly is it a bad idea?  We elect Generals to the Presidency all the time.

We have elected exactly one ex-general in the last 100 years; that is hardly "all the time." 

[The Duke]

We have elected many men on the basis of their military experience in the last 100 years, and before your selectively chosen time period, we elected many Generals too.