Suppose no 25th Amendment, what would happen in 1976?

[DWPerry]

Supposing the 25th Amendment is never ratified, leaving the Vice-Presidency vacant when Nixon resigns, Democrat Carl Albert becomes President. What happens in 1976?
Would Albert be the Dem candidate instead of Carter? Would Dole have been the Rep candidate?

[True Democrat]

I believe Albert, IRL, only wanted to be President until he could appoint a Republican VP for him to become President.  However, with no 25th amendment, I see it unlikely that Albert would run in his own right.

[DWPerry]

But, with no 25th Amendment, he could not appoint anyone to be VP, thus being an incumbent in 1976.

[True Democrat]

But, with no 25th Amendment, he could not appoint anyone to be VP, thus being an incumbent in 1976.

I already answered.  I said:

However, with no 25th amendment, I see it unlikely that Albert would run in his own right.

[DWPerry]

But, with no 25th Amendment, he could not appoint anyone to be VP, thus being an incumbent in 1976.

I already answered.  I said:

However, with no 25th amendment, I see it unlikely that Albert would run in his own right.

sorry, I misread your reply. Who gets the Dem nod? Is it Still Carter?

[Lincoln Republican]

TD is correct in that Albert would only serve as President until a new, Republican, Vice President was chosen, then sworn in as President.  Albert himself expressed public concerns about a Democrat replacing an elected Republican as President.

However, as in your scenario, with no 25th amendment yet on the books, I believe, as does TD, that Carl Albert would clearly serve as President in the interim, but not seek a term as President in his own right. 

Albert loved the House, and besides, in 1976, he was 68 years old.  Those are simply peripheral reasons, but I do not believe Albert would have run.

The next question to be answered after Carl Albert assumes the Presidency on August 9, 1974, upon the resignation of Richard Nixon, is how long President Albert would in fact be serving as President.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 specifies that folowing the Vice President, the succession goes to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and then to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  This remained in effect until 1886 when Congress replaced the President Pro Tempore and the Speaker with the members of the President's cabinet, then followed by the President Tempore and the Speaker.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 put the President Por Tempore and the Speaker back into the succession ahead of the cabinet, but this time put the Speaker ahead of the President Pro Tempore.

There is a provision in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 stating that should there be a dual vacancy, President and Vice President, those next in line, which would now be the Speaker then the President Pro Tempore, would act as President until the disability (of the President) is removed or until a President is elected.

The act called for a special election to be held in November of the year in which dual vacancies occurred (unless the vacancies occurred after the first Wednesday in October, in which case the election would occur the following year, or unless the vacancies occured within the last year of the Pesidential term, in which case the next election would take place as regularly scheduled).

As far as I know, this particular provision of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 is still in effect.  Other aspects of this act have, of course, been updated and changed, but I believe this provision still stands.

Going by this provision, therefore, with the resignation of Nixon taking place on August 9, 1974, there would have been a special Presidential election in November of 1974, in which a new President and Vice President would be elected, and presumably sworn into office January, 1975.

Therefore, Albert would have served as "Acting President" from August, 1974 to January, 1975, and he would not have run for President in his own right in the special Presidential election of November, 1974.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're both neglectling the fact that without the 25th amendment, Nixon would not have been likely to resign unless both Speaker Albert and President pro tem Eastland indicated that they would not accept the office (under the Presidential Succession Act, they have to resign their current office to take the Presidency).  So either we would have had a full impeachment trial or a President Simon.

[Lincoln Republican]

You're both neglectling the fact that without the 25th amendment, Nixon would not have been likely to resign unless both Speaker Albert and President pro tem Eastland indicated that they would not accept the office (under the Presidential Succession Act, they have to resign their current office to take the Presidency).  So either we would have had a full impeachment trial or a President Simon.

You have raised an interesting point.

This thread, however, is about a scenario only, and DW's scenario clearly states that Nixon resigns and Albert becomes President.  That is the issue that both of us have addressed.

Both TD and I have answered that in 1976 President Albert would not have run for a Presidential term in his own right.

Whether Nixon would have been likely to resign or not because there was no 25th amendment is not the question or the issue raised by the author.

However, the point you raise is certainly valid and of interest.

Would Nixon hold onto the Presidency if Albert said he would resign as Speaker and accept the Presidency?  Would Nixon hold on if Albert said no and Eastland said he would resign and accept the Presidency?

Or would Nixon resign only if both Albert and Eastland said no, and the Presidency was accepted by Republican Treasury Secretary William Simon?

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

Personally, I do not believe, when it came right down to it, that Nixon would go so far as to face an impeachment trial.  He would have resigned the Presidency, and would have accepted the fact that the new President, Carl Albert, who would be serving for only a short period of time, was a man of upstanding honor and integrity, and a man who loved his country, and a man who would serve his country well.

I firmly believe that Albert would in fact have accepted the Presidency in the interim, out of a sense of duty, and that President Albert would have used his brief time in office in working to heal the wounds in a divided America.

There is no way Nixon would have faced an impeachment trial that he knew he would lose.  By 1974, the situation for Nixon had become so deteriorated that even Republicans were calling for his resignation.

Nixon resigns and Albert becomes President for the interim, and serves his nation well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is a provision in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 stating that should there be a dual vacancy, President and Vice President, those next in line, which would now be the Speaker then the President Pro Tempore, would act as President until the disability (of the President) is removed or until a President is elected.

The act called for a special election to be held in November of the year in which dual vacancies occurred (unless the vacancies occurred after the first Wednesday in October, in which case the election would occur the following year, or unless the vacancies occured within the last year of the Pesidential term, in which case the next election would take place as regularly scheduled).

As far as I know, this particular provision of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 is still in effect.  Other aspects of this act have, of course, been updated and changed, but I believe this provision still stands.

Nope.  The 1886 Act made the calling of a special election in such a case optional at the discretion of Congress and the 1947 Act removed the special election proviso entirely.

[Lincoln Republican]

Now, as to the questions raised by DW

Would Albert be the Democratic nominee instead of Carter?  As I have stated, in my view, no.  Albert serves in the interim only.  

Carter may be the Democratic nominee, but to make things interesting, I'm going to say, under these new circumstances, Senator Henry Jackson of Washington wins the Democratic nomination, and picks former North Carolina Governor, and current Duke University President, Terry Sanford, for Vice President.

In this scenario, of course, we have no new Republican President running.  Therefore, I will say that Governor Ronald Reagan of California, who of course actually did seek the nomination in 1976, wins the Republican nomination.  (There would, of course, be no President Gerald Ford running for the GOP nomination).  As he actually did, Reagan picks the more moderate Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania for Vice President.

So the 1976 race is between

Republican
Governor Ronald Reagan (CA)/Senator Richard Schweiker (PA)

Democrat
Senator Henry Jackson (WA)/Former Governor Terry Sanford (NC)

[Lincoln Republican]

There is a provision in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 stating that should there be a dual vacancy, President and Vice President, those next in line, which would now be the Speaker then the President Pro Tempore, would act as President until the disability (of the President) is removed or until a President is elected.

The act called for a special election to be held in November of the year in which dual vacancies occurred (unless the vacancies occurred after the first Wednesday in October, in which case the election would occur the following year, or unless the vacancies occured within the last year of the Pesidential term, in which case the next election would take place as regularly scheduled).

As far as I know, this particular provision of the Presidential Succession Act of 1792 is still in effect.  Other aspects of this act have, of course, been updated and changed, but I believe this provision still stands.

Nope.  The 1886 Act made the calling of a special election in such a case optional at the discretion of Congress and the 1947 Act removed the special election proviso entirely.

OK.  Good to know.  Makes more sense anyway.  That way, the President at the time serves until the next Presidential election and until the new President is sworn into office. 

[DWPerry]

So the 1976 race is between

Republican
Governor Ronald Reagan (CA)/Senator Richard Schweiker (PA)

Democrat
Senator Henry Jackson (WA)/Former Governor Terry Sanford (NC)

Interesting scenario, so Reagan gets elected 4 years earlier, Schweiker seeks the Presidency in '84 (not Bush '88)

Schweiker/Bush in '84 vs.
Mondale/Dukasis?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nope.  The 1886 Act made the calling of a special election in such a case optional at the discretion of Congress and the 1947 Act removed the special election proviso entirely.

OK.  Good to know.  Makes more sense anyway.  That way, the President at the time serves until the next Presidential election and until the new President is sworn into office. 

Actually, under the 1792 Act if a special election were held, the winner would get a full four years with the interval reset.  So if we had had a special elction in 1974, then the next regular Presidential election would have been 1978.

[DWPerry]

Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (d) (2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term

Meaning no sepcial election, no changing of the Presidential election years. Albert would have served the full remaining term through the 1976 election.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

I think Nixon would have at least attempted to play political hardball to get Simon to be his successor instead of a Democrat, perhaps with a return to the provisions of the 1886 Act.  Frankly, I think having the Speaker and the President pro tem in the line of secession is a bad thing.

[Lincoln Republican]

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

I think Nixon would have at least attempted to play political hardball to get Simon to be his successor instead of a Democrat, perhaps with a return to the provisions of the 1886 Act.  Frankly, I think having the Speaker and the President pro tem in the line of secession is a bad thing.

But Ernest, the reason the Speaker and the President Pro Tem are the first 2 in succession after the Vice President, is because they are elected.  The cabinet secretaries of course are not elected, but nominated and appointed.  The drafters of the legislation, in their wisdom, wanted to see elected officials have precedence over non-elected officials.  It makes sense, therefore, that the replacement for an elected official, the President, should be another elected official.   

[Lincoln Republican]

So the 1976 race is between

Republican
Governor Ronald Reagan (CA)/Senator Richard Schweiker (PA)

Democrat
Senator Henry Jackson (WA)/Former Governor Terry Sanford (NC)

Interesting scenario, so Reagan gets elected 4 years earlier, Schweiker seeks the Presidency in '84 (not Bush '88)

Schweiker/Bush in '84 vs.
Mondale/Dukasis?

Senator Henry Jackson defeats Governor Ronald Reagan in a close election.

Jackson/Sanford                277
Reagan/Schweiker             261

A note, Ronald Reagan, no longer Governor of California, wins the Republican nomination in 1980 and picks Tennessee Senator Howard Baker for Vice President. With the economy tanking, inflation rising, and the nation facing a crisis in Iran, Reagan and Baker go on to defeat President Henry Jackson and Vice President Terry Sanford in the 1980 election.   

1976 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Richard Schweiker does okay, as Reagan appoints him Secretary of State.

[DWPerry]

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

I think Nixon would have at least attempted to play political hardball to get Simon to be his successor instead of a Democrat, perhaps with a return to the provisions of the 1886 Act.  Frankly, I think having the Speaker and the President pro tem in the line of secession is a bad thing.

But Ernest, the reason the Speaker and the President Pro Tem are the first 2 in succession after the Vice President, is because they are elected.  The cabinet secretaries of course are not elected, but nominated and appointed.  The drafters of the legislation, in their wisdom, wanted to see elected officials have precedence over non-elected officials.  It makes sense, therefore, that the replacement for an elected official, the President, should be another elected official.   

But, until the passage of the 17th Amendment (which I know was before the 1947 Act) Senators were appointed by their respective States. Which, I believe was a good thing and the 17th needs repealled. However, the original Succession Act listed the Senate President Pro Tem 1st, then Speaker of the House; I like that set up better because the Pro Tem is basically the "back-up" for the VP. Also would not mind seeing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court added to the list, possibly before the Cabinet members. Then add the rest of the Justices after the Cabinet based on seniority (term-of-service)

[Lincoln Republican]

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

I think Nixon would have at least attempted to play political hardball to get Simon to be his successor instead of a Democrat, perhaps with a return to the provisions of the 1886 Act.  Frankly, I think having the Speaker and the President pro tem in the line of secession is a bad thing.

But Ernest, the reason the Speaker and the President Pro Tem are the first 2 in succession after the Vice President, is because they are elected.  The cabinet secretaries of course are not elected, but nominated and appointed.  The drafters of the legislation, in their wisdom, wanted to see elected officials have precedence over non-elected officials.  It makes sense, therefore, that the replacement for an elected official, the President, should be another elected official.   

But, until the passage of the 17th Amendment (which I know was before the 1947 Act) Senators were appointed by their respective States. Which, I believe was a good thing and the 17th needs repealled. However, the original Succession Act listed the Senate President Pro Tem 1st, then Speaker of the House; I like that set up better because the Pro Tem is basically the "back-up" for the VP. Also would not mind seeing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court added to the list, possibly before the Cabinet members. Then add the rest of the Justices after the Cabinet based on seniority (term-of-service)

By the time a Senator reaches the position of President Pro Tem, they are normally quite elderly.  The reason the members of the U.S. Supreme Court are not in line of succession is because of the conflict that would arise as there is a distinct division of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and that division must be respected and upheld at all times.

[DWPerry]

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

I think Nixon would have at least attempted to play political hardball to get Simon to be his successor instead of a Democrat, perhaps with a return to the provisions of the 1886 Act.  Frankly, I think having the Speaker and the President pro tem in the line of secession is a bad thing.

But Ernest, the reason the Speaker and the President Pro Tem are the first 2 in succession after the Vice President, is because they are elected.  The cabinet secretaries of course are not elected, but nominated and appointed.  The drafters of the legislation, in their wisdom, wanted to see elected officials have precedence over non-elected officials.  It makes sense, therefore, that the replacement for an elected official, the President, should be another elected official.   

But, until the passage of the 17th Amendment (which I know was before the 1947 Act) Senators were appointed by their respective States. Which, I believe was a good thing and the 17th needs repealled. However, the original Succession Act listed the Senate President Pro Tem 1st, then Speaker of the House; I like that set up better because the Pro Tem is basically the "back-up" for the VP. Also would not mind seeing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court added to the list, possibly before the Cabinet members. Then add the rest of the Justices after the Cabinet based on seniority (term-of-service)

By the time a Senator reaches the position of President Pro Tem, they are normally quite elderly.  The reason the members of the U.S. Supreme Court are not in line of succession is because of the conflict that would arise as there is a distinct division of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and that division must be respected and upheld at all times.

But the Legislative & Executive are two separate branches of the Federal Government as well, although the lines have sort of blurred and most people think the Legislature "works for the Executive".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would Nixon actually rather face a full fledged impeachment trial, which he was sure to lose, and put the nation through a few more months of crisis rather than resign and have Albert become President?

I think Nixon would have at least attempted to play political hardball to get Simon to be his successor instead of a Democrat, perhaps with a return to the provisions of the 1886 Act.  Frankly, I think having the Speaker and the President pro tem in the line of secession is a bad thing.

But Ernest, the reason the Speaker and the President Pro Tem are the first 2 in succession after the Vice President, is because they are elected.  The cabinet secretaries of course are not elected, but nominated and appointed.  The drafters of the legislation, in their wisdom, wanted to see elected officials have precedence over non-elected officials.  It makes sense, therefore, that the replacement for an elected official, the President, should be another elected official.   

But the reason that the 1886 Act removed the President pro tem and the Speaker from the succession is for precisely the reason that could have caused a problem in 1974, that the party in charge of the White House could change as a result.  They authors of that Act wanted to remove that potential additional motivation for people to attempt to remove a President for political reasons (whether by impeachment as was the case in 1868 or by an assassin's bullet as was the case in 1881).

Also the separation of powers argument is compelling.  Indeed, in order to avoid violating it, the 1947 Act has provisions that practically assure that should we ever need a temporary Acting President at a time when no Vice President was available to fill the role, no sane Speaker or President pro tem will resign his current post to take the temporary post, thus leaving the Secretary of State as the true emergency next in line (a la Al Haig).  The only reason to include the Speaker and PPT is provide for succession even if the entire list gets blown away, but it would be better to extend the list of officals in the line, starting by adding the various Deputy Secretaries.

[DWPerry]

Also the separation of powers argument is compelling.  Indeed, in order to avoid violating it, the 1947 Act has provisions that practically assure that should we ever need a temporary Acting President at a time when no Vice President was available to fill the role, no sane Speaker or President pro tem will resign his current post to take the temporary post, thus leaving the Secretary of State as the true emergency next in line (a la Al Haig).  The only reason to include the Speaker and PPT is provide for succession even if the entire list gets blown away, but it would be better to extend the list of officals in the line, starting by adding the various Deputy Secretaries.

I just find it odd that the Separation of Powers is given as a reason not to include the Chief Justice, but it's "ok" to have members of Congress. If you include one, include both; but, don't give me this crap about Separation of Powers - it's fuzzy logic.

[Lincoln Republican]

Ernest, in your previous post, you state

"the 1947 act has provisions that practically assure that should we ever need a temporary Acting President at a time when no Vice President was available to fill the role, no sane Speaker or President pro tem will resign his current post to take the temporary post"

Do you know what these provisions are, and why they practically assure that no Speaker or President pro tem would resign their posts to become  President?

Do you think that if, Heaven forbid, President Bush were to die in 2006, then Vice President Cheney becomes President, then Cheney dies, say, within one week, before he has made a nomination for a new Vice President, that House Speaker Dennis Hastert would refuse to resign as Speaker in order to become President, and serve as President until Jan/09?

Clearly, in the U.S. system, there is the possibility that the Speaker and or the PPT will be of a different party than the President from time to time.   

I believe that Hastert would resign the Speakership out of a sense of duty to his country, and would accept the Presidency, and would serve faithfully and to the best of his ability until after the 2008 election and until the new President is sworn in in Jan/09.

It is not only Hastert's constitutional right but it is his constitutional duty and responsibility to do so.

Besides, how many people can say that they have served as President of the United States?  Not many.   

[Lincoln Republican]

Also the separation of powers argument is compelling.  Indeed, in order to avoid violating it, the 1947 Act has provisions that practically assure that should we ever need a temporary Acting President at a time when no Vice President was available to fill the role, no sane Speaker or President pro tem will resign his current post to take the temporary post, thus leaving the Secretary of State as the true emergency next in line (a la Al Haig).  The only reason to include the Speaker and PPT is provide for succession even if the entire list gets blown away, but it would be better to extend the list of officals in the line, starting by adding the various Deputy Secretaries.

I just find it odd that the Separation of Powers is given as a reason not to include the Chief Justice, but it's "ok" to have members of Congress. If you include one, include both; but, don't give me this crap about Separation of Powers - it's fuzzy logic.

DW, separation of powers is fundamental to the operation of government, and in the succession to the Presidency, it is very legitimate.

It is vital the judiciary remains completely independent of the executive and the legislative.

Ask any constitutional authority.

[DWPerry]

It is vital the judiciary remains completely independent of the executive and the legislative.

Ask any constitutional authority.

That is my point, It is also important for the Legislative & Executive to remain separate! If you exclude one, exclude both; or if you include one, include both - either way. But to say that we must exclude the Judicial because of Separation of Powers, but it's ok to allow the Legislative to be included in something involving the Executive is fuzzy logic.

Three Separate Branches
Executive
Legislative
Judicial

not two
Executive/Legislative
Judicial