This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
I think that we should at least discuss the restoration of impeachment. Certainly the impeachment of the President of the United States is considerably different than an ordinary criminal trial. While certainly the presumption of innoncence should apply, it is noteworthy that in several other nations with presidential systems the president is somewhat or completely constrained in his actions while under impeachment. The presence of these comments in the article is not necessarily an endorsment of this viewpoint but rather an acknowledgement that it definitely exists, and should not be so arbitrarily and capricously eliminated in my view. Rlquall 01:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between what happened on this fictional TV show and anything that is yet to occur in real life. On the show, the President announced his stepping aside in favor of the Speaker in a formal Cabinet meeting while his daughter had been kidnapped in a time of national crisis; the fictional Speaker/Acting President had to order a military attack in which the U.S. forces took casualties, and he served as President for several days before the President's daughter was recovered, not just for the duration of anesthesia for minor surgery. It seems fairly likely that such a person could be regarded as a former President; much less likely that the real-world Cheney would be seen as such, at least based on his career to date and laying aside the considerations that many make that he may already be President to a large extent on a day-to-day basis. A more interesting question the show raised in my opinion was whether a Speaker, President Pro Tem, or other such official would be expected to or likely to resign that previous position only to act as President for only a matter of hours or days as the West Wing character did. Rlquall 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should we have a section discussing fictional portrayals of the 25th Amendment coming into play? There have been several that I can think of - there is the West Wing example noted above, as well as two examples on 24. Possibly it happened in the film Air Force One, as well, although I don't remember the specifics. john k 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Under the sub-section "Authorities" , this article says an Acting President is even addressed as Mr.President. Was George H.W. Bush on July 13, 1985 or Dick Cheney on June 29, 2002 addressed as Mr.President? Not publicly and as for privately (no one knows). This "addressed as Mr.President" statement, seems unfounded. Also it would appear arrogant and insulting to the First Family. Mightberight/wrong 21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The article should have the Vice Presidential Seal, as the Acting President is still Vice President of the USA. GoodDay 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Today there was an edit to the section "Other potential invocation situations" that addressed President Clinton. The edit is attempting to add balance to an otherwise absurd bullet point that suggests, without any foundation whatsoever, than an impeached President is or should be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office to which he was legitimately elected. While several U.S. states have provisions of their Constitutions or laws that prevented an impeached official from the exercise of the duties of his or her office, there is NO corresponding section or intrepretation in the U.S. Constitution.
The edit does a good job, but the fact remains that the inclusion of President Clinton in the "Other potential invocation situations" is improper as it relates to impeachment. The only inclusion of President Clinton in this Section that I would support would be information relating to when President Clinton hurt his knee and underwent repair surgey using local anesthetic.
I'd like to get other thoughts on the subject and inform everyone of my thoughts before I just remove the offending section. If there is a contrary opinion that would object to removing this section, please post here so we can discuss. If not, I will remove the section. JasonCNJ 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I am advocating this to be added, but what happens if the VP was named active president for a time and after the President says he can resume executing his duties, the VP refuses to hand over power? Arbiteroftruth 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Now for another scenario. At some point there is no Vice-President. As there have not been recent elections there is no President-elect or Vice-President elect either. Not such an entirely bizarre state of affairs. Then the President dies. At that point the Speaker of the House becomes acting-President for the remainder of the term of the deceased President. He will, if I am correct, not become President, but merely act as President with full Constitutional powers for potentially a period of years! Isn't it a bit odd that under such a scenario this man will not actually become President but just act as such for a prolonged period? Couldn't they have made provisions for such an officer actually succeeding instead of just acting, in cases where there is no 'propper' President? That would be equivalent to the position of the VP, who actually becomes President when the President dies. Also, could such an acting-President as decribed above nominate a Vice-President, who would then take over his job by default the moment he was sworn in as Vice-President? Could the acting-President nominate himself as Vice-President and thereby become a 'propper' President? Or would the acting President perhaps be obliged to nominate a Vice-President (as per Section 2 that establishes a procedure for filling a Vice-Presidential vacancy)? Gerard von Hebel 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this related article? Perhaps an Afd is in order. GoodDay 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok... the president and VP die 2 weeks into the first term and the Speaker is made the acting President. The Speaker (now the acting POTUS) finishes out the term as the acting president and is elected to the next term as the president? Is this person elgable to be re-elected for another (3rd) term since they have only served one term as the actual presidnet?-- Dr who1975 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Simmons, the term "acting president" exists to describe someone in that speaker's position Snitch ninja ( talk) 07:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
John L. Miller made the following addition to the article, which I have reverted:
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 in Section (d) clause (2) specifically states "An individual acting as President under this subsection shall act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list SHALL NOT TERMINATE HIS SERVICE." (emphasis added) All officers beyond the President and Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1), therefore it must be concluded that no one beyond an individual qualifying as President or Vice President, or a current President or Vice President who's own disability has been removed, will terminate the service of an Acting President. Thus, there would be no string of Acting Presidents. If the Speaker, President Pro Tempore, and the Secretary of State fail to qualify as Acting President, the Secretary of the Treasury would be Acting President (should he/she qualify). The later meeting of Presidential qualifications by the said Speaker, President Pro Tempore, or Secretary of State would NOT end the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury. John L. Miller 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
BoiGayzer is incorrect and I have reverted his edit. He mentions, "All officers beyond the President or Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1)..." but he is incorrect.
3 USC 19 (a) involves the ascension of the Speaker of the House;
3 USC 19 (b) involves the ascension of the President pro tempore of the Senate;
3 USC 19 (c) says that someone acting under (a) or (b) continues to serve until the end of the current term unless a President-elect or Vice President-elect qualifies or the disability of the President and/or Vice President is removed.
3 USC 19 (d)(1) involves the ascension of members of the Cabinet to the Acting Presidency.
3 USC 19 (d)(2) says:
That section - 3 USC 19 (d)(2) - limits itself specifically to this subsection -- thus, it limits itself to a Cabinet officer serving as Acting President. Such an Acting President will have his or her term of office terminated by a Speaker or President pro tempore who desires to serve as Acting President but not by a higher ranking Cabinet officer who becomes qualified to serve.
In the example mentioned in the now-reverted edit, the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury will be ended by a Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate who wishes to and is qualified to serve but will not be ended by the qualification/availability of the Secretary of State.
The law itself can be found at Cornell Law school.
Hope this explains my edit to the article. JasonCNJ 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The 25th amendment gives the President the power to appoint a new Vice-President in the case of a vacancy. It also states that, if there is no President, the VP becomes President. So, let's suppose a situation in which the President and VP simultaneously, or in short succession, die. The Speaker of hte House becomes Acting President. Now, as there is a vacancy in the office of Vice-President, does the Acting President have power to appoint a new Vice-President? If so, wouldn't the new Vice-President then become President? Nik42 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'm trying to find information and can't find it in this or any article.
If the president is temporarily incapacitated and the vice president becomes acting president, does someone in turn become acting vice president? Is the presidential line of succession invoked here? Or is the office just left empty? I would appreciate it if someone in the know added this information for other people, because all I can find about this topic is that the vice president becomes acting president. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no acting Vice President, as the Vice President has no duties which would need to be filled save presiding over the Senate, which is a role that the Senate already replaces him for most of the time, anyway. I'm not sure if the VP could, as acting president, also preside over the Senate - the Twenty-Fifth Amendment says nothing of the subject. I assume that's a question which will have to be resolved if it ever comes up. john k 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the VP does not continue to preside over the senate when he is serving as acting president. The president pro tempore of the senate takes over that role. That's in Article 1 Section 3[5] of the Constitution. Curious georgianna ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
Yes, Harry Truman's middle name is "S"; so it is not necessary to add a period after the 'S'. However, it's not wrong, either. The first letter of his middle name is 'S"; it just happens to be the only letter of his middle name.
Truman himself approved of the use of "Harry S. Truman" during his lifetime. -- Terry Carroll 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any difference, at all, between a President (a Vice President who succeeds on the death of the President) and an Acting President (a Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore etc. who succeeds), other than semantics? There is obviously a difference between an Acting President who is serving temporarilly, while the President is incapacitated, in that, unlike a President, the Acting President can lose this office upon the Presidents resuming their duties. But what if the President is dead, or impeached etc. ? Is there a difference between holding the powers and duties of the Presidency, and actually being President, other than words? I'm thinking - could the Speaker/Acting President appoint themselves a Vice-President (it seems that, according to the above discussion, this would be a difference)? Could the Acting President be impeached? Would their time as Acting President (which, in theory, could be quite considerable), count with regards to the [22nd Amendment] which bars someone from serving more than two terms? If so, these things should be mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any answers? - 121.208.89.95 ( talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What about Ford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.127.42 ( talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Federal law states that a person acting as president shall be paid the presidential salary. Does anyone know if Dick Cheney got a bump in pay the two times he was Acting President? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.49.51 ( talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Origin of the Position" section, misinterprets the text of The Article 1 Section 3, which has nothing to do with succession to the presidency. It addresses the role of the the Vice President IN THE SENATE and the role of the pro temp to act (as president of the senate) in the vice president's absence including when the vice president is unavailable because he is acting in the president's stead.
This misinterpretation seems to have driven some of the other analysis throughout this section, mostly in that it assumes that the pro temp had a constitutionally authorized place in the line of succession even before the succession act. For example, the "presidential disability before 1967" subsection refers to the succession rights of D.R. Atchison, B.F. Wade, etc. This stuff needs to be supported by some kind of scholarly authority.
Speaking of supporting notes, this entire "Origins" section needs a LOT more. It makes a number of claims about "disagreements" and "arguments" without identifying the parties to these disputes and without citing sources. Curious georgianna ( talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed a large part of the Designated survivor section that was incorrect.
", in which President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) or Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) was also a designated survivor – he or she would become the Acting President of the United States rather than the surviving Cabinet member. However it is unclear whether another legislator could do so without first being elected to that leadership position by a quorum of their respective house. To date, no one other than a Vice President has acted as President."
This paragraph is incorrect. The 25th Amendment states very clearly that only a Vice President can become President.
See below:
Simmons123456 5:57 31/7/2015
I remember that when the Supreme Ct. was considering FL, it was suggested that both Bush and his VP should be impeached for sending it to the Ct. improperly, and that if they were, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would become Acting President during the impeachment, as they would be unable to carry out their duties, thus immediately becoming the first woman to hold Presidential powers. Could someone sufficiently knowledgeable comment on this? 24.90.104.148 ( talk) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Acting President of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This article starts out with "The Acting President of the United States is a post that was created after the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...". However, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, section 3, contains:
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
It seems to me that this provides for two cases where someone can be Acting President (though these cases have never happened), and this existed before the 25th Amendment. -- 4.28.172.154 ( talk) 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Carlbergman added an infobox to the article, which I think is a good thing, but the photo treatment of the Bush and Cheney images appears ragged and sloppy. They're different sizes, for one thing, and stacked vertically, at least in desktop view. I changed it to use the {{ multiple image}} template, which is exactly what that template is for, and I think is a big improvement. Carlbergman reverted, with the comment "That looks so much worse".
In the spirit of WP:BRD, having been Bold and been Reverted, I now Discuss. Which is the preferred layout?
This seems to be exactly why we have the multiple image template. if the width parameters need to be tuned, I would certainly be okay with that, of course.
BTW, Carlbergman, when I was trying to copy your edit summary, I accidentally hit "revert" as the still-loading page was shifted under my mouse pointer. I quickly re-reverted myself, but I don't want you to think I was intentionally reverting you there. TJRC ( talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The two individuals listed on this page served as Acting President. Shouldn't that be reflected in the infobox on those respective pages? This is a request for consensus. -- Sleyece ( talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The Acting President section for Cheney should be clarified to make it clear it was two separate terms and not one full duration. Dogblock ( talk) 23:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"The Article II succession clause authorizes Congress to designate which federal officeholders would accede to the presidency in the event that the vice president were unable to do so, a situation which has occurred on three occasions." could we have some sources or just general info on when this happened? or am I misunderstanding. Sure more than 3 presidents have been removed / left / shot early, but has the speaker or other successions even happened? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyplane2247 ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do we need a big table with big photos for three instances? Why not just "George H W Bush served as Acting President on <date> while Reagan was undergoing colon cancer surgery. Cheney served as AP twice, first on <date>, second on <date>, while Pres. Bush underwent colonoscopies under sedation." --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Should we mention the qualifications for the presidency & vice presidency are exactly the 'same'? GoodDay ( talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
He was acting President for a day, although this is controversial. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Notwisconsin ( talk) 17:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
In 1925 historian George Haynes—an authority on the Senate—dismissed the claims of Atchison’s presidency. The clearest indication that Atchison was not president, he noted, was the fact that Atchison’s existing term as senator and, more importantly, as president pro tempore, had ended at noon on March 4. The position of president pro tempore was, in fact, vacant. Atchison was not elected to the position again until the Senate's special session convened at noon on March 5. Minutes later the president and vice president took their oaths.
"David Rice Atchison: (Not) President for a Day" November 13, 2020. By Senate Historical Office.
For the examples of post-25th Amendment invocations of section 3, it seems far more sensible to have a table than a verbal narrative with separate image gallery. Neutrality talk 03:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
non-invocations of the amendment and times when it's invocation has been called for would as well? E Eng 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Three vice presidents have served as acting president while the president underwent a medical procedure.
Drdpw ( talk) 17.05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Vice presidents have served as acting president on four occasions, in each case while the president was under sedation or anesthesia for medical procedures:
July 13, 1985 | 11:28 am – 7:22 pm EDT | George H. W. Bush | Ronald Reagan | colon cancer surgery |
June 29, 2002 | 7:09 am – 9:24 am EDT | Dick Cheney | George W. Bush | colonoscopy |
July 21, 2007 | 7:16 am – 9:21 am EDT | |||
November 19, 2021 | 10:10 am – 11:35 am EST | Kamala Harris | Joe Biden | colonoscopy |
I've left out the images because they're overused in such stuff. This is just a table of facts. I've also omitted re Harris being the first woman etc etc, because that belongs in her article; there are lots of firsts I suppose we could point out but don't.
The more I look at it, the more apparent it is that almost everything here is already in the 25A article, and what little isn't can be quite comfortably integrated there, leaving this page a redirect. E Eng 00:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess I've been outvoted on this one. Oh well. GoodDay ( talk) 17:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
I think that we should at least discuss the restoration of impeachment. Certainly the impeachment of the President of the United States is considerably different than an ordinary criminal trial. While certainly the presumption of innoncence should apply, it is noteworthy that in several other nations with presidential systems the president is somewhat or completely constrained in his actions while under impeachment. The presence of these comments in the article is not necessarily an endorsment of this viewpoint but rather an acknowledgement that it definitely exists, and should not be so arbitrarily and capricously eliminated in my view. Rlquall 01:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between what happened on this fictional TV show and anything that is yet to occur in real life. On the show, the President announced his stepping aside in favor of the Speaker in a formal Cabinet meeting while his daughter had been kidnapped in a time of national crisis; the fictional Speaker/Acting President had to order a military attack in which the U.S. forces took casualties, and he served as President for several days before the President's daughter was recovered, not just for the duration of anesthesia for minor surgery. It seems fairly likely that such a person could be regarded as a former President; much less likely that the real-world Cheney would be seen as such, at least based on his career to date and laying aside the considerations that many make that he may already be President to a large extent on a day-to-day basis. A more interesting question the show raised in my opinion was whether a Speaker, President Pro Tem, or other such official would be expected to or likely to resign that previous position only to act as President for only a matter of hours or days as the West Wing character did. Rlquall 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should we have a section discussing fictional portrayals of the 25th Amendment coming into play? There have been several that I can think of - there is the West Wing example noted above, as well as two examples on 24. Possibly it happened in the film Air Force One, as well, although I don't remember the specifics. john k 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Under the sub-section "Authorities" , this article says an Acting President is even addressed as Mr.President. Was George H.W. Bush on July 13, 1985 or Dick Cheney on June 29, 2002 addressed as Mr.President? Not publicly and as for privately (no one knows). This "addressed as Mr.President" statement, seems unfounded. Also it would appear arrogant and insulting to the First Family. Mightberight/wrong 21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The article should have the Vice Presidential Seal, as the Acting President is still Vice President of the USA. GoodDay 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Today there was an edit to the section "Other potential invocation situations" that addressed President Clinton. The edit is attempting to add balance to an otherwise absurd bullet point that suggests, without any foundation whatsoever, than an impeached President is or should be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office to which he was legitimately elected. While several U.S. states have provisions of their Constitutions or laws that prevented an impeached official from the exercise of the duties of his or her office, there is NO corresponding section or intrepretation in the U.S. Constitution.
The edit does a good job, but the fact remains that the inclusion of President Clinton in the "Other potential invocation situations" is improper as it relates to impeachment. The only inclusion of President Clinton in this Section that I would support would be information relating to when President Clinton hurt his knee and underwent repair surgey using local anesthetic.
I'd like to get other thoughts on the subject and inform everyone of my thoughts before I just remove the offending section. If there is a contrary opinion that would object to removing this section, please post here so we can discuss. If not, I will remove the section. JasonCNJ 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I am advocating this to be added, but what happens if the VP was named active president for a time and after the President says he can resume executing his duties, the VP refuses to hand over power? Arbiteroftruth 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Now for another scenario. At some point there is no Vice-President. As there have not been recent elections there is no President-elect or Vice-President elect either. Not such an entirely bizarre state of affairs. Then the President dies. At that point the Speaker of the House becomes acting-President for the remainder of the term of the deceased President. He will, if I am correct, not become President, but merely act as President with full Constitutional powers for potentially a period of years! Isn't it a bit odd that under such a scenario this man will not actually become President but just act as such for a prolonged period? Couldn't they have made provisions for such an officer actually succeeding instead of just acting, in cases where there is no 'propper' President? That would be equivalent to the position of the VP, who actually becomes President when the President dies. Also, could such an acting-President as decribed above nominate a Vice-President, who would then take over his job by default the moment he was sworn in as Vice-President? Could the acting-President nominate himself as Vice-President and thereby become a 'propper' President? Or would the acting President perhaps be obliged to nominate a Vice-President (as per Section 2 that establishes a procedure for filling a Vice-Presidential vacancy)? Gerard von Hebel 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this related article? Perhaps an Afd is in order. GoodDay 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok... the president and VP die 2 weeks into the first term and the Speaker is made the acting President. The Speaker (now the acting POTUS) finishes out the term as the acting president and is elected to the next term as the president? Is this person elgable to be re-elected for another (3rd) term since they have only served one term as the actual presidnet?-- Dr who1975 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Simmons, the term "acting president" exists to describe someone in that speaker's position Snitch ninja ( talk) 07:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
John L. Miller made the following addition to the article, which I have reverted:
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 in Section (d) clause (2) specifically states "An individual acting as President under this subsection shall act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list SHALL NOT TERMINATE HIS SERVICE." (emphasis added) All officers beyond the President and Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1), therefore it must be concluded that no one beyond an individual qualifying as President or Vice President, or a current President or Vice President who's own disability has been removed, will terminate the service of an Acting President. Thus, there would be no string of Acting Presidents. If the Speaker, President Pro Tempore, and the Secretary of State fail to qualify as Acting President, the Secretary of the Treasury would be Acting President (should he/she qualify). The later meeting of Presidential qualifications by the said Speaker, President Pro Tempore, or Secretary of State would NOT end the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury. John L. Miller 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
BoiGayzer is incorrect and I have reverted his edit. He mentions, "All officers beyond the President or Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1)..." but he is incorrect.
3 USC 19 (a) involves the ascension of the Speaker of the House;
3 USC 19 (b) involves the ascension of the President pro tempore of the Senate;
3 USC 19 (c) says that someone acting under (a) or (b) continues to serve until the end of the current term unless a President-elect or Vice President-elect qualifies or the disability of the President and/or Vice President is removed.
3 USC 19 (d)(1) involves the ascension of members of the Cabinet to the Acting Presidency.
3 USC 19 (d)(2) says:
That section - 3 USC 19 (d)(2) - limits itself specifically to this subsection -- thus, it limits itself to a Cabinet officer serving as Acting President. Such an Acting President will have his or her term of office terminated by a Speaker or President pro tempore who desires to serve as Acting President but not by a higher ranking Cabinet officer who becomes qualified to serve.
In the example mentioned in the now-reverted edit, the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury will be ended by a Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate who wishes to and is qualified to serve but will not be ended by the qualification/availability of the Secretary of State.
The law itself can be found at Cornell Law school.
Hope this explains my edit to the article. JasonCNJ 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The 25th amendment gives the President the power to appoint a new Vice-President in the case of a vacancy. It also states that, if there is no President, the VP becomes President. So, let's suppose a situation in which the President and VP simultaneously, or in short succession, die. The Speaker of hte House becomes Acting President. Now, as there is a vacancy in the office of Vice-President, does the Acting President have power to appoint a new Vice-President? If so, wouldn't the new Vice-President then become President? Nik42 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'm trying to find information and can't find it in this or any article.
If the president is temporarily incapacitated and the vice president becomes acting president, does someone in turn become acting vice president? Is the presidential line of succession invoked here? Or is the office just left empty? I would appreciate it if someone in the know added this information for other people, because all I can find about this topic is that the vice president becomes acting president. Äþelwulf See my contributions. 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no acting Vice President, as the Vice President has no duties which would need to be filled save presiding over the Senate, which is a role that the Senate already replaces him for most of the time, anyway. I'm not sure if the VP could, as acting president, also preside over the Senate - the Twenty-Fifth Amendment says nothing of the subject. I assume that's a question which will have to be resolved if it ever comes up. john k 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the VP does not continue to preside over the senate when he is serving as acting president. The president pro tempore of the senate takes over that role. That's in Article 1 Section 3[5] of the Constitution. Curious georgianna ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC).
Yes, Harry Truman's middle name is "S"; so it is not necessary to add a period after the 'S'. However, it's not wrong, either. The first letter of his middle name is 'S"; it just happens to be the only letter of his middle name.
Truman himself approved of the use of "Harry S. Truman" during his lifetime. -- Terry Carroll 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any difference, at all, between a President (a Vice President who succeeds on the death of the President) and an Acting President (a Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore etc. who succeeds), other than semantics? There is obviously a difference between an Acting President who is serving temporarilly, while the President is incapacitated, in that, unlike a President, the Acting President can lose this office upon the Presidents resuming their duties. But what if the President is dead, or impeached etc. ? Is there a difference between holding the powers and duties of the Presidency, and actually being President, other than words? I'm thinking - could the Speaker/Acting President appoint themselves a Vice-President (it seems that, according to the above discussion, this would be a difference)? Could the Acting President be impeached? Would their time as Acting President (which, in theory, could be quite considerable), count with regards to the [22nd Amendment] which bars someone from serving more than two terms? If so, these things should be mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any answers? - 121.208.89.95 ( talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What about Ford? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.127.42 ( talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Federal law states that a person acting as president shall be paid the presidential salary. Does anyone know if Dick Cheney got a bump in pay the two times he was Acting President? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.49.51 ( talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Origin of the Position" section, misinterprets the text of The Article 1 Section 3, which has nothing to do with succession to the presidency. It addresses the role of the the Vice President IN THE SENATE and the role of the pro temp to act (as president of the senate) in the vice president's absence including when the vice president is unavailable because he is acting in the president's stead.
This misinterpretation seems to have driven some of the other analysis throughout this section, mostly in that it assumes that the pro temp had a constitutionally authorized place in the line of succession even before the succession act. For example, the "presidential disability before 1967" subsection refers to the succession rights of D.R. Atchison, B.F. Wade, etc. This stuff needs to be supported by some kind of scholarly authority.
Speaking of supporting notes, this entire "Origins" section needs a LOT more. It makes a number of claims about "disagreements" and "arguments" without identifying the parties to these disputes and without citing sources. Curious georgianna ( talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed a large part of the Designated survivor section that was incorrect.
", in which President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) or Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) was also a designated survivor – he or she would become the Acting President of the United States rather than the surviving Cabinet member. However it is unclear whether another legislator could do so without first being elected to that leadership position by a quorum of their respective house. To date, no one other than a Vice President has acted as President."
This paragraph is incorrect. The 25th Amendment states very clearly that only a Vice President can become President.
See below:
Simmons123456 5:57 31/7/2015
I remember that when the Supreme Ct. was considering FL, it was suggested that both Bush and his VP should be impeached for sending it to the Ct. improperly, and that if they were, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would become Acting President during the impeachment, as they would be unable to carry out their duties, thus immediately becoming the first woman to hold Presidential powers. Could someone sufficiently knowledgeable comment on this? 24.90.104.148 ( talk) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Acting President of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This article starts out with "The Acting President of the United States is a post that was created after the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...". However, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, section 3, contains:
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
It seems to me that this provides for two cases where someone can be Acting President (though these cases have never happened), and this existed before the 25th Amendment. -- 4.28.172.154 ( talk) 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Carlbergman added an infobox to the article, which I think is a good thing, but the photo treatment of the Bush and Cheney images appears ragged and sloppy. They're different sizes, for one thing, and stacked vertically, at least in desktop view. I changed it to use the {{ multiple image}} template, which is exactly what that template is for, and I think is a big improvement. Carlbergman reverted, with the comment "That looks so much worse".
In the spirit of WP:BRD, having been Bold and been Reverted, I now Discuss. Which is the preferred layout?
This seems to be exactly why we have the multiple image template. if the width parameters need to be tuned, I would certainly be okay with that, of course.
BTW, Carlbergman, when I was trying to copy your edit summary, I accidentally hit "revert" as the still-loading page was shifted under my mouse pointer. I quickly re-reverted myself, but I don't want you to think I was intentionally reverting you there. TJRC ( talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The two individuals listed on this page served as Acting President. Shouldn't that be reflected in the infobox on those respective pages? This is a request for consensus. -- Sleyece ( talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The Acting President section for Cheney should be clarified to make it clear it was two separate terms and not one full duration. Dogblock ( talk) 23:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"The Article II succession clause authorizes Congress to designate which federal officeholders would accede to the presidency in the event that the vice president were unable to do so, a situation which has occurred on three occasions." could we have some sources or just general info on when this happened? or am I misunderstanding. Sure more than 3 presidents have been removed / left / shot early, but has the speaker or other successions even happened? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyplane2247 ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do we need a big table with big photos for three instances? Why not just "George H W Bush served as Acting President on <date> while Reagan was undergoing colon cancer surgery. Cheney served as AP twice, first on <date>, second on <date>, while Pres. Bush underwent colonoscopies under sedation." --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Should we mention the qualifications for the presidency & vice presidency are exactly the 'same'? GoodDay ( talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
He was acting President for a day, although this is controversial. Shouldn't this be mentioned? Notwisconsin ( talk) 17:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
In 1925 historian George Haynes—an authority on the Senate—dismissed the claims of Atchison’s presidency. The clearest indication that Atchison was not president, he noted, was the fact that Atchison’s existing term as senator and, more importantly, as president pro tempore, had ended at noon on March 4. The position of president pro tempore was, in fact, vacant. Atchison was not elected to the position again until the Senate's special session convened at noon on March 5. Minutes later the president and vice president took their oaths.
"David Rice Atchison: (Not) President for a Day" November 13, 2020. By Senate Historical Office.
For the examples of post-25th Amendment invocations of section 3, it seems far more sensible to have a table than a verbal narrative with separate image gallery. Neutrality talk 03:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
non-invocations of the amendment and times when it's invocation has been called for would as well? E Eng 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Three vice presidents have served as acting president while the president underwent a medical procedure.
Drdpw ( talk) 17.05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Vice presidents have served as acting president on four occasions, in each case while the president was under sedation or anesthesia for medical procedures:
July 13, 1985 | 11:28 am – 7:22 pm EDT | George H. W. Bush | Ronald Reagan | colon cancer surgery |
June 29, 2002 | 7:09 am – 9:24 am EDT | Dick Cheney | George W. Bush | colonoscopy |
July 21, 2007 | 7:16 am – 9:21 am EDT | |||
November 19, 2021 | 10:10 am – 11:35 am EST | Kamala Harris | Joe Biden | colonoscopy |
I've left out the images because they're overused in such stuff. This is just a table of facts. I've also omitted re Harris being the first woman etc etc, because that belongs in her article; there are lots of firsts I suppose we could point out but don't.
The more I look at it, the more apparent it is that almost everything here is already in the 25A article, and what little isn't can be quite comfortably integrated there, leaving this page a redirect. E Eng 00:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess I've been outvoted on this one. Oh well. GoodDay ( talk) 17:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)