What if terrorists detonate a nuke in DC...

[A18]

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.

What? It's not in the 25th amendment.

[J. J.]

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.

We have elected precisely one in the last 100 years that held either the rank of general or held a "major" command.  Other than Eisenhower, there wasn't a general officer since Garfield.  Even Hayes never got his star.  In Hayes's case, I wouldn't classify a regiment as a "major command."

Even in Eisenhower's case, he headed Columbia University prior to the presidency.

We have elected very few men based solely on their military experience to the presidency, perhaps the last one being U. S. Grant.   While I honor the military service of such presidents as Turman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush, none of these guys were elected office because of an outstanding military record.

 At best, it played a role in  T. Roosevelt's selection as Vice President, but certainly it was not the cause of his 1904 victory.  Even here, it was not because of his command of a large force.

[The Duke]

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, US Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, and Dwight Eisenhower were all elected president after being a General (Not counting T. Roosevelt).  Thats eight Generals to the White House, more than one in six Presidents.

Compare eight Generals to eight Senators being elevated to the Prersidency by election (Van buren, Jackson, Pierce, Fillmore, B. Harrison, Harding, Kennedy, Nixon).  A General is just as likely to be elevated to the White House as a Senator.  I think that's a high ratio of military commanders, and throw on top of that the men who've been war heroes of some sort who became President and you see why I said what I did.

I suppose this is where you make the irrelevant point that Eisenhower is the only recent General for the third time in as many posts, right?  The fact remains though, the US has frequently elected Generals thorughout its history, and therefore we had ought not worry about including the Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders in the line of succession in a catastrophic event, which in case you hadn't noticed is the actual subject of this thread: Line of succession, not when the last General elected president was.

[J. J.]

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, US Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, and Dwight Eisenhower were all elected president after being a General (Not counting T. Roosevelt).  Thats eight Generals to the White House, more than one in six Presidents.

I suppose this is where you make the irrelevant point that Eisenhower is the only recent General for the third time in as many posts, right?  The fact remains though, the US has frequently elected Generals thorughout its history, and therefore we had ought not worry about including the Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders in the line of succession in a catastrophic event, which in case you hadn't noticed is the actual subject of this thread: Line of succession, not when the last General elected president was.

Using your "logic," since nine of the Presidents were born British subjects, we should include British subjects in the line succession.  :-)

Here we are looking at a situation not where was a general at some point in their lives and later became President, but one where someone goes from general to president is a very short time and, as is the case today, spent their adult life in uniform.  On that list, we have,  Zachary Taylor, US Grant, and you could argue Dwight Eisenhower.

Let's take a look at the rest of the list. 

George Washington, not career military, served as a militia commander in the French and Indian War (1755-1763), planter, member of the House of Burgessed, delegate to the Continental Congress prior to his appointment a commander of the Continental Army.  Delegate and President of the Constitutional Convention.

Andrew Jackson, attorney at age 20, procecutor for Nashville, member of both the House and Senate prior to military command.

William Henry Harrison:  Secretary of the Northeast Territories, member of the US House, Governor of the Indians Territory for 12 years.  Left government service from 1813 until 1840.

Rutherford B. Hayes:  City solictor of Cincinnatti prior to military service.  Served two terms in the US House and three terms as Ohio Governor prior to being elected.

James Garfield:  Member of the Ohio House prior to the war; left the army to run for the US House.  Was Senator-elect from OH when nominated for president.

Even with the "career" officers, Grant left the Army for 6 years prior to the Civil War and Eisenhower left for 2 years.

We have only had two "Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders" in the last 35 years that had substancial non-military experience.  Alexander Haig, who was White House chief of staff prior to becoming Supreme Commander of NATO and Collin Powell, who was National Security Advisor prior to becoming Chairman of the JCS.  The military leaders of today, with these few exceptions, even though well educated and well trained as military leaders, lack the broadness of non-military experience of a Hayes or a Garfield.  Certainly, most lack the governmental experience of these people.

The world has changed a lot since the last time someone went, almost immediately, from the millitary to the presidency.   Today, all "Service Chiefs and Theater Commaders" have there positions because they have served in the military for 25-30 years.  When you use that as a model, you will find only two presidents Taylor and Eisenhower that meet that model; the latter also had a two year break. 

[Cubby]

As odd as it sounds, I agree with States Rights, having the military in charge would be a bad idea. None of those presidents with former military experience were actively in the military when elected president (although I could be wrong). Having the military run the government is a characteristic of Third World countries. Although on the other hand if they only took over for a month or so to restore a sense of order and then backed off, it might be okay.

So the choice comes down to Ruth Ann Miner or Rick Perry for President. Seems not to different from the last election, except Frankenstein is replaced with Grandma Walton. (Sorry John )

[Jake]

Best line of succession IMO is:

President
Vice President
Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General

Then continue with the remaining cabinet secretaries from their and then the senior military commanders with the Governors meeting at the first possible time to select the new President by 2/3rds majority from their ranks. Those listed above would stay on until the next scheduled election.

[Platypus]

wow, that's an awful list.

CJ of the Supreme Court should NEVER be in the line of succession, but if it is, it should be right down near the bottom.

[Jake]

wow, that's an awful list.

CJ of the Supreme Court should NEVER be in the line of succession, but if it is, it should be right down near the bottom.

Yet we put even worse people in the line of succession including the longest serving Senator from the majority party.

[12th Doctor]

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up or not, but the line of sucession extends much further than what we usually think of it being.  If all the federal officials were dead, it would then go to the governor of the largest state.  Since Arnold is an immigrant, it would then fall onto Rick Perry.  If something happened to him, George Pataki would then become President.

[Citizen James]

Well, there's the infamous 'shadow government' that got kicked around a few years ago. 

As the  someone in the line is always out of town as a security precaution, I consider this unlikely, but I'll play along anyway - multiple attacks perhaps, or the aforementioned assasination squad.

In the short term I think most of the bueracracies would run under their usual methods.   The highest ranking surviving member of the millitary would probably assume command of the armed forces until continuty could be restored,   while the Governors of the various states would handle in-state matters.   From there we probably have a constitutional crisis to be handled by the lawyers and state goverments - though it probably wouldn't take much to reconstitute the Senate at the least.  Deciding on a meeting place that isn't radioactive might be another matter, but I suspect that would be resolved quickly in the name of expediency.

I the medium to long term, a lot of special elections, a lot of investigating of what happened and who exactly did it along with the coresponding strong response.

[12th Doctor]

Well, there's the infamous 'shadow government' that got kicked around a few years ago. 

Oh, you mean the one that Democratic leaders raised a huge stick about, only for us to discover that many of these people (Dacshle and Kennedy mainly) had acctually been to a couple of these facilities after the "shaddow government" idea had been proposed?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

[2952-0-0]

Who's that?

[ATFFL]

Who's that?

President Laura Roslin of the Twelve Colonies of Man.  Formerly the Secretary of Education.  Got promoted when she was the only survivng cabinet member after a Cylon nuclear attack.

[GOP = Terrorists]

The military should not be in the line of presidential succession.  Governors are even worse.  It should probably be:

POTUS
VP
Speaker
Majority Leader of the Senate
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Homeland Security

[J. J.]

The military should not be in the line of presidential succession.  Governors are even worse. 

Why do think including the Governors is a bad idea?

[GOP = Terrorists]

Why do think including the Governors is a bad idea?

Because you are essentially turning over the entire union in the most extreme state of war to the leader of a single state.  Even in the hands of a good leader who wont take advantage of this it still creates the perception of one state ruling the entire country.

[J. J.]

Why do think including the Governors is a bad idea?

Because you are essentially turning over the entire union in the most extreme state of war to the leader of a single state.  Even in the hands of a good leader who wont take advantage of this it still creates the perception of one state ruling the entire country.

You mean like Florida in 2000, impression wise?

[GOP = Terrorists]

You mean like Florida in 2000, impression wise?

Not even close.  You essentially have the leadership of one state taking over the government completely during the worst constitutional crisis in our history.

[12th Doctor]

But... ever since Cater, all of our Presidents, except one, have been governors.

Oddly enough, in this senario, the governor of the largest state could not be President, thus the Presidency would pass to the governor of the second largest state... making Rick Perry POTUS.

[12th Doctor]

Personally, if I were to construct a line of succession, I would lay it out like this...

POTUS
VP
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Treasury
Att. General
Sec. of Homeland Security
Speaker of the House
Then all the other Departments is order of creation....
PPT of the Senate
Governors of the Five Most Populous States
Highest Ranking Remaining Senator (by senority and committee assignment)
Highest Ranking Remaining House Member (by senority and committee assignment)
Governors by population of state....
Most recent, living Former President

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, on second thought, the most recent serving, living former President should be closer to the top.  Maybe after the five governors are exhusted.

Because, I can honestly say that, if there were a crisis, I would much rather have Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, or even Jimmy Carter as President, over Ted Kennedy.

And, to clearify, it would be a limited term of only two years, as the Constitution already allows a President to serve for up to 10 years.