![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What would occur if a president-elect died before taking office? Example....Let us say that Kerry won the election but died or was removed before Jan 8, 2005. Would the Vice President elect be put into office as President, would Bush remain in office or???
Would this be constitutional? The Constitution authorizes Congress to determine what "Officer" shall act if both the President and Vice President have died, been removed, resigned, or have an "inability" [to act]. As far as I know, Officer as used in the Constitution has always been construed to mean an Officer of the U.S. Government. Since State Governors are not officers of the U.S. Government, I don't see how they could be put in the line of succession without a Constitutional amendment authorizing such.
According to this Act, If the President & Vice President died/resigned were or removed from office? the USA wouldn't have a President & Vice President for part of the terms. That doesn't seem correct.
GoodDay 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the 1947 Act have been passed by the Republican Congress elected in 1946? And wouldn't that mean that Joe Martin, not Truman's friend Sam Rayburn, would have been Speaker of the House at the time? Also, the article gives no sense as to why Truman desired a change in the law. john k 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section to this article dealing the questioning of the Constitutionality of this Act. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 refers to an "officer" becoming Acting President when no Vice President can so become. Many Constitutional scholars believe, and have written, about how the Constitution does not consider the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to be "officers" regarding Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. There are also other provisions of this Act that have questioned Constitutionality. This issue should be in this article.-- SMP0328. ( talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone dig out the actual enacted statute and confirm its date and title? Not the codification in the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. § 19); the actual Act as passed by Congress, usually found in Statutes At Large.
In The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, prepared by Congressional Research Service (a branch of the Library of Congress), in its discussion of the 20th Amendment, it is referred to as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1948". See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/ . The cite given for this is "Ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672, as amended, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 19."
Likewise, the Legal Information Institute copy of 3 U.S.C. § 19 provides this history: (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 677; ...) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-notes.html
On the other hand, the section "Constitutionality of 1947 Act" just added by SMP0328 cites two online sources, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19776,filter.all/pub_detail.asp and http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/pdfs/091603MillerTestimony.pdf, each of which refer to it as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947."
I see JasonCNJ's emphatic comment above that "The 1947 Act was signed into law by President Truman on July 18, 1947." Jason, if you're reading this, can you confirm that, and provide a cite?
I no longer have ready access to a law library, or other library with a copy of Statutes at Large, or I'd try to check this out myself. -- TJRC ( talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a general observation. Until the case of the Vice Presidency being vacant upon the resignation, death or removal from office of the President, occurs - We're left in the fog, as to whether the Speaker (or who's ever next in line at that moment of double vacancy) becomes President or just Acting President. We'll just have to wait & see, before we can complete this article. GoodDay ( talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: See anon's question at Acting President of the United States article. GoodDay ( talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course there's always the chance a House Speaker (or who ever is next in line) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which hasn't occurred yet). GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved all material regarding the current succession act into a single section (Current Act), except for original research (all of which I've removed) and for the line of succession list (no change). This will allow for all such material to be easily found, especially for those curious about the current Presidential line of succession. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we have some errors on statutory citations. Until a few moments ago, the 1792 Act was cited as Pub. L. 1-240. Congress didn't start using the Public Law numbering until the 57th Congress in 1901. Also, the first number in the Public Law designation is the enacting Congress, and the 1st Congress sat from 1789-1791; the 1792 Act was enacted by the 2nd Congress. Even if the Pub.L. designations had been in place then, the first number would have been a 2, not a 1.
It's apparent that someone is confusing the statutes-at-large numbering with the public-law numbering. The 1792 Act is at 1 Stat 239 (Statutes at Large, volume 1, page 239), with the succession provision at page 240. I've added a link to the SAL version, and deleted the erroneous reference to Pub. L. 1-240.
But the 1886 Act has the same issue. It's footnoted as Pub. L. 24-1. That can't be right; 24th Congress was 1835-1837, and again, the public law scheme didn't start until 1901. I'm guessing that's also supposed to be 24 Stat. 1. Unfortunately, the Library of Congress Statutes at Large pages only includes the first 43 Congresses, 1789-1875, and I don't have ready access to a hardcopy, so I can't look. If any editor has access to the complete Statutes at Large, will you please look up 24 Stat 1, and see if that's the statute? TJRC ( talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this information is easily available elsewhere on wikipedia, but mightn't it be useful just to list the current incumbents in the offices in the line of succession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13djb13 ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The list here was moved from Acting Vice President, and so includes only those who were next in line to the presidency without simultaneously being the VP—that is, when the vice presidency was vacant. At the same time, the header "Next in line" implies that it should include also the VPs; and quite to the contrary, the introduction to the list seems to imply that it should include all those next in line after any serving VP. I don't mind much which list we go for, but it seems inconsistent as it is... — JAO • T • C 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
During the time that the 25th amendment's disability section was in force -1985, 2002 & 2007-, the Vice Presidency wasn't vacant nor was the Vice President unable to assumes the presidential powers & duties as Acting President. Therefore, the Speaker of the House (during the 3 incidences) was not next in line. GoodDay ( talk) 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
SMP, I think it would help, if you'd respect BRD - by joining this discussion.
GoodDay (
talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The section on constitutionality if the Act refers to some people claiming that the Incompatibility Clause renders it unconstitutional. Since the citation is a book rather than a link, could somebody who has access to the book give further context to clarify that argument? As it stands, that part of the article just doesn't make sense. The Incompatibility Clause says that members of Congress can't be appointed to offices that were created during their current term, but that's inapplicable to this subject on both counts. Presidential succession isn't an appointment, and the office of the Presidency was created in 1788. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 08:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering what is the reason for the 8-year gap in the next in line -section conserning the 1792 act? The Civil War could be the reason for the years 1861-1865, but still there is a gap of four years (1857-1861). I`ve checked and there was a President pro tempore of the senate during the missing years. 101090ABC ( talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've looked at the brief discussion in the archives ( Talk:Presidential Succession Act/Archive 1#Presidential Succession Act of 1947? or 1948?) but I'm still confused. The printed text in the statute book indicates the date as June 25, 1948 [2] (warning: that's a very long PDF, it will take a while to load; scroll to page 695 of the PDF which is page 672 in the printed book). It says nothing about 1947. The Wikipedia article 80th United States Congress confirms June 25, 1948 as the date. There are various sources indicating that Truman signed the law on July 18, 1947 (e.g. [3]) but then why is that date not printed in the statute book? There might be a simple explanation for this, but I am confused. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The very last table in the article could use a few words saying why the 25th amendment was invoked (e.g. a three-hour medical procedure in 2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkarapin ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Again my edit to this subsection has been reverted. The 1792 Act did not require a person to be eligible to be President for that person to become Acting President (the 1886 and 1947 Acts did so require). If there is neither President nor a Vice President, the successor becomes Acting President. An Acting President is not a President (just ask Dick Cheney, who served as Acting President twice without ever being President). Because an Acting President is not an occupant of the Office of President, it is unclear whether the qualifications for the office apply to a person who is Acting President. From 1792 to 1886 this issue remained unresolved. So it is unclear whether a Speaker of the House or a President pro tempore of the Senate could have been Acting President without being eligible to be President. To give a definitive answer in the article is synthesis. My edit should be restored, because there is no authoritative source saying whether Howell Cobb could have been Acting President. SMP0328. ( talk) 01:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article is majorly flawed. I hoped to fix this in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmons123456 ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about whether the sub-section on invocations of the 25th Amendment should be titled with just the first letter of the first part of "twenty-fifth" capitalized (i.e., "Twenty-fifth") as opposed to with the first letter of both parts of the hyphenated word capitalized (i.e., "Twenty-Fifth"), but I wanted to note that the Chicago Manual of Style now prefers placing the first letter of both parts of the hyphenated number in uppercase when writing titles. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/about16_rules.html This is different from the case of the capitalization of a hyphenated number at the beginning of a sentence, where obviously only the first letter is capitalized. But if, unbeknownst to me, the general rule on Wikipedia is not to capitalize the first letter of the second part of a hyphenated word (including a hyphenated number) when writing a title, then I apologize for my ignorance and for my edit. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Under 2.1 Presidential Succession Act of 1792, 2.1.2 Potential implementation, I changed "President John Tyler narrowly missed being killed (along with Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur, and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Walker Gilmer)" to "President John Tyler narrowly missed being killed (as were Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur, and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Walker Gilmer)." My edit was quickly reverted.
As I read it, "along with" seems to indicate that Upshur and Gilmer also narrowly missed being killed, whereas "as were" indicates that Upshur and Gilmer were in fact killed, which is the case.
I certainly don't want to start an edit war. But this is how I read it. Grammarian3.14159265359 ( talk) 19:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The text in this section is identical to a 2016 book found online: https://books.google.com/books?id=epHiDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false While the Wiki text existed before the book, the section should be rewritten and re-referenced. RM2KX ( talk) 13:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Presidential Succession Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Much of this article is directly taken, without attribution, from Douglas E. Campbell, Continuity of Government: How the U.S. Government Functions After All Hell Breaks Loose, Syneca Research Group, Inc., 2016. I have no idea whether this source is a reliable one. JTRH ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I wish to move the "Next in line" section tables from this article to United States presidential line of succession. IMO the "Potential implementations" subsection for each Succession Act renders the tables redundant (or the tables render the subsections redundant). I also would like to see the tables included there rather then a listing of potential successions to the presidency mirroring what's already here in this article. Does anyone have any serious objections to moving the tables? Drdpw ( talk) 00:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
What was the point of this page move? There was no other similar article to disambiguate it from, and the original article is just a redirect to here, not a new disambiguation page. Richard75 ( talk) 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes there are. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What would occur if a president-elect died before taking office? Example....Let us say that Kerry won the election but died or was removed before Jan 8, 2005. Would the Vice President elect be put into office as President, would Bush remain in office or???
Would this be constitutional? The Constitution authorizes Congress to determine what "Officer" shall act if both the President and Vice President have died, been removed, resigned, or have an "inability" [to act]. As far as I know, Officer as used in the Constitution has always been construed to mean an Officer of the U.S. Government. Since State Governors are not officers of the U.S. Government, I don't see how they could be put in the line of succession without a Constitutional amendment authorizing such.
According to this Act, If the President & Vice President died/resigned were or removed from office? the USA wouldn't have a President & Vice President for part of the terms. That doesn't seem correct.
GoodDay 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the 1947 Act have been passed by the Republican Congress elected in 1946? And wouldn't that mean that Joe Martin, not Truman's friend Sam Rayburn, would have been Speaker of the House at the time? Also, the article gives no sense as to why Truman desired a change in the law. john k 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section to this article dealing the questioning of the Constitutionality of this Act. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 refers to an "officer" becoming Acting President when no Vice President can so become. Many Constitutional scholars believe, and have written, about how the Constitution does not consider the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to be "officers" regarding Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. There are also other provisions of this Act that have questioned Constitutionality. This issue should be in this article.-- SMP0328. ( talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone dig out the actual enacted statute and confirm its date and title? Not the codification in the U.S. Code (3 U.S.C. § 19); the actual Act as passed by Congress, usually found in Statutes At Large.
In The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, prepared by Congressional Research Service (a branch of the Library of Congress), in its discussion of the 20th Amendment, it is referred to as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1948". See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment20/ . The cite given for this is "Ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672, as amended, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 19."
Likewise, the Legal Information Institute copy of 3 U.S.C. § 19 provides this history: (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 677; ...) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-notes.html
On the other hand, the section "Constitutionality of 1947 Act" just added by SMP0328 cites two online sources, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19776,filter.all/pub_detail.asp and http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/pdfs/091603MillerTestimony.pdf, each of which refer to it as the "Presidential Succession Act of 1947."
I see JasonCNJ's emphatic comment above that "The 1947 Act was signed into law by President Truman on July 18, 1947." Jason, if you're reading this, can you confirm that, and provide a cite?
I no longer have ready access to a law library, or other library with a copy of Statutes at Large, or I'd try to check this out myself. -- TJRC ( talk) 02:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a general observation. Until the case of the Vice Presidency being vacant upon the resignation, death or removal from office of the President, occurs - We're left in the fog, as to whether the Speaker (or who's ever next in line at that moment of double vacancy) becomes President or just Acting President. We'll just have to wait & see, before we can complete this article. GoodDay ( talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: See anon's question at Acting President of the United States article. GoodDay ( talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course there's always the chance a House Speaker (or who ever is next in line) could claim the Presidency, in a Tyleristic move. A big part of it falls under implementation (which hasn't occurred yet). GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved all material regarding the current succession act into a single section (Current Act), except for original research (all of which I've removed) and for the line of succession list (no change). This will allow for all such material to be easily found, especially for those curious about the current Presidential line of succession. -- SMP0328. ( talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we have some errors on statutory citations. Until a few moments ago, the 1792 Act was cited as Pub. L. 1-240. Congress didn't start using the Public Law numbering until the 57th Congress in 1901. Also, the first number in the Public Law designation is the enacting Congress, and the 1st Congress sat from 1789-1791; the 1792 Act was enacted by the 2nd Congress. Even if the Pub.L. designations had been in place then, the first number would have been a 2, not a 1.
It's apparent that someone is confusing the statutes-at-large numbering with the public-law numbering. The 1792 Act is at 1 Stat 239 (Statutes at Large, volume 1, page 239), with the succession provision at page 240. I've added a link to the SAL version, and deleted the erroneous reference to Pub. L. 1-240.
But the 1886 Act has the same issue. It's footnoted as Pub. L. 24-1. That can't be right; 24th Congress was 1835-1837, and again, the public law scheme didn't start until 1901. I'm guessing that's also supposed to be 24 Stat. 1. Unfortunately, the Library of Congress Statutes at Large pages only includes the first 43 Congresses, 1789-1875, and I don't have ready access to a hardcopy, so I can't look. If any editor has access to the complete Statutes at Large, will you please look up 24 Stat 1, and see if that's the statute? TJRC ( talk) 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this information is easily available elsewhere on wikipedia, but mightn't it be useful just to list the current incumbents in the offices in the line of succession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13djb13 ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The list here was moved from Acting Vice President, and so includes only those who were next in line to the presidency without simultaneously being the VP—that is, when the vice presidency was vacant. At the same time, the header "Next in line" implies that it should include also the VPs; and quite to the contrary, the introduction to the list seems to imply that it should include all those next in line after any serving VP. I don't mind much which list we go for, but it seems inconsistent as it is... — JAO • T • C 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
During the time that the 25th amendment's disability section was in force -1985, 2002 & 2007-, the Vice Presidency wasn't vacant nor was the Vice President unable to assumes the presidential powers & duties as Acting President. Therefore, the Speaker of the House (during the 3 incidences) was not next in line. GoodDay ( talk) 01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
SMP, I think it would help, if you'd respect BRD - by joining this discussion.
GoodDay (
talk) 01:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The section on constitutionality if the Act refers to some people claiming that the Incompatibility Clause renders it unconstitutional. Since the citation is a book rather than a link, could somebody who has access to the book give further context to clarify that argument? As it stands, that part of the article just doesn't make sense. The Incompatibility Clause says that members of Congress can't be appointed to offices that were created during their current term, but that's inapplicable to this subject on both counts. Presidential succession isn't an appointment, and the office of the Presidency was created in 1788. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 08:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering what is the reason for the 8-year gap in the next in line -section conserning the 1792 act? The Civil War could be the reason for the years 1861-1865, but still there is a gap of four years (1857-1861). I`ve checked and there was a President pro tempore of the senate during the missing years. 101090ABC ( talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've looked at the brief discussion in the archives ( Talk:Presidential Succession Act/Archive 1#Presidential Succession Act of 1947? or 1948?) but I'm still confused. The printed text in the statute book indicates the date as June 25, 1948 [2] (warning: that's a very long PDF, it will take a while to load; scroll to page 695 of the PDF which is page 672 in the printed book). It says nothing about 1947. The Wikipedia article 80th United States Congress confirms June 25, 1948 as the date. There are various sources indicating that Truman signed the law on July 18, 1947 (e.g. [3]) but then why is that date not printed in the statute book? There might be a simple explanation for this, but I am confused. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The very last table in the article could use a few words saying why the 25th amendment was invoked (e.g. a three-hour medical procedure in 2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkarapin ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Again my edit to this subsection has been reverted. The 1792 Act did not require a person to be eligible to be President for that person to become Acting President (the 1886 and 1947 Acts did so require). If there is neither President nor a Vice President, the successor becomes Acting President. An Acting President is not a President (just ask Dick Cheney, who served as Acting President twice without ever being President). Because an Acting President is not an occupant of the Office of President, it is unclear whether the qualifications for the office apply to a person who is Acting President. From 1792 to 1886 this issue remained unresolved. So it is unclear whether a Speaker of the House or a President pro tempore of the Senate could have been Acting President without being eligible to be President. To give a definitive answer in the article is synthesis. My edit should be restored, because there is no authoritative source saying whether Howell Cobb could have been Acting President. SMP0328. ( talk) 01:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article is majorly flawed. I hoped to fix this in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmons123456 ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about whether the sub-section on invocations of the 25th Amendment should be titled with just the first letter of the first part of "twenty-fifth" capitalized (i.e., "Twenty-fifth") as opposed to with the first letter of both parts of the hyphenated word capitalized (i.e., "Twenty-Fifth"), but I wanted to note that the Chicago Manual of Style now prefers placing the first letter of both parts of the hyphenated number in uppercase when writing titles. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/about16_rules.html This is different from the case of the capitalization of a hyphenated number at the beginning of a sentence, where obviously only the first letter is capitalized. But if, unbeknownst to me, the general rule on Wikipedia is not to capitalize the first letter of the second part of a hyphenated word (including a hyphenated number) when writing a title, then I apologize for my ignorance and for my edit. AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 21:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Under 2.1 Presidential Succession Act of 1792, 2.1.2 Potential implementation, I changed "President John Tyler narrowly missed being killed (along with Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur, and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Walker Gilmer)" to "President John Tyler narrowly missed being killed (as were Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur, and Secretary of the Navy Thomas Walker Gilmer)." My edit was quickly reverted.
As I read it, "along with" seems to indicate that Upshur and Gilmer also narrowly missed being killed, whereas "as were" indicates that Upshur and Gilmer were in fact killed, which is the case.
I certainly don't want to start an edit war. But this is how I read it. Grammarian3.14159265359 ( talk) 19:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The text in this section is identical to a 2016 book found online: https://books.google.com/books?id=epHiDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false While the Wiki text existed before the book, the section should be rewritten and re-referenced. RM2KX ( talk) 13:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Presidential Succession Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Much of this article is directly taken, without attribution, from Douglas E. Campbell, Continuity of Government: How the U.S. Government Functions After All Hell Breaks Loose, Syneca Research Group, Inc., 2016. I have no idea whether this source is a reliable one. JTRH ( talk) 13:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I wish to move the "Next in line" section tables from this article to United States presidential line of succession. IMO the "Potential implementations" subsection for each Succession Act renders the tables redundant (or the tables render the subsections redundant). I also would like to see the tables included there rather then a listing of potential successions to the presidency mirroring what's already here in this article. Does anyone have any serious objections to moving the tables? Drdpw ( talk) 00:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
What was the point of this page move? There was no other similar article to disambiguate it from, and the original article is just a redirect to here, not a new disambiguation page. Richard75 ( talk) 14:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes there are. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)