No 25th Amendment?

POD: After Kennedy is assassinated, no-one sees any need to change the rules for the Presidential succession, as 8 Presidents have died in office and been replaced by their VPs, and the country has managed perfectly well with no Vice-President.
As in OTL, Johnson serves out Kennedy's term with no Vice-President, then is re-elected with Humphrey. Nixon still wins the next election, and Agnew resigns as IOTL. Watergate happens as IOTL. Things then get interesting...

With no Vice-President, the next person in line is the Speaker of the House, Rep. Carl Albert of Oklahoma. Albert, however, could have become Acting President IOTL had Nixon been impeached before he picked Ford as VP- but he said that, as a Democrat, he had no right to the Presidency because the people had elected a Republican. Here, however, he cannot nominate a Republican Vice-President and then resign (which he said he would do). Next in line after him is the Democratic President pro tempore of the Senate, James Eastland- surely Albert wouldn't resign in favour of another Democrat, unless he could be sure that Eastland had the same scruples and would himself resign. Eastland himself was known for his strong opposition to the Civil Rights movement, and by 1974 is 70 years old and about to retire. Next in line after Eastland is Henry Kissinger (ineligible for the Presidency), and then Treasury Secretary William E. Simon.

Any of these three could have ended up as President- especially since Albert could still be implicated in the Tongsun Park bribery scandal, which forced him out of Congress before his Presidential term would have ended. What would an Albert, Eastland or Simon administration have been like?
 
If there were no 25th Amendment or the Amendment had not included the provison for appointing a VP I am certain that Congress would have changed the law, a simple statute, on Presidential succession. I would guess they would go for a Cabinet line of succession beyond the VP.

I also wonder whether a provision for a special Presidential election might also have been introduced.

By the way deleting the Speaker and the President Pro Tem from the succession would be a good idea. The thought of the Presidency at some future date changing party hands because of 2 quick succession murders is rather alarming
 
By the way deleting the Speaker and the President Pro Tem from the succession would be a good idea. The thought of the Presidency at some future date changing party hands because of 2 quick succession murders is rather alarming

With regard to the Speaker of the House, we must remember this person has a demonstrated role of leadership over an assembly that is re-elected by the people every two years. The framers of the amendment felt that a congress elected every two years is responsive to the issues of the day and its leader should logically be in line for the presidency, party affiliation notwithstanding.

With regard to the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the constitution does not require the position to go to the most senior member of the majority party; it is merely a custom to do so. At any time, the Senate can elect a different person to that office.

We must consider the circumstances under which the amendment was written. The cold war was in full swing and the whole succession system was set up at a time when there was fear Washington DC could be nuked, leaving behind only a patchwork of elected officials.

Unlike the House, the Senate can be filled by appointment by the state governors or legislatures. In other words, the Senate can quickly be filled in the worst of circumstances. The Senate approves the President's appointments. This body of 100 can effectively re-construct the government if necessary.
 
A way around Carl Albert s problem would be if he step down as speaker and a Republican was elected. Then the Republican could take the post as President and the House of Representives could elect a new Speaker. It must also be noted that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Speaker of the House needs to be a member of that Body.
 
While the issue of succession was obviously important, it was one of a number of considerations that went into the 25th Amendment. Foremost among those was a definition of the process involved in determining presidential disability. Removing the President for disability had previously been contemplated (by the original language) but never defined. Because Kennedy lingered for some time after being shot (amazingly) there was great concern about the chain of command if the President were, say, in a coma for a great length of time. As previously stated the issue was all the more pressing because the Cold War perversely gave the President vastly more operational responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief (i.e. nuclear launch codes) than he had previously held.
 
A way around Carl Albert s problem would be if he step down as speaker and a Republican was elected. Then the Republican could take the post as President and the House of Representives could elect a new Speaker. It must also be noted that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Speaker of the House needs to be a member of that Body.

While the constitution may not require the Speaker to be an elected member of congress, the Presidential Succession Act clearly implies that the Speaker must resign from the House before becoming president:

Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.

(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.

As for Carl Albert, it was his prerogative to say he would nominate a republican replacement to maintain the best continuity in government. At that time there the parties were not divided by emotionally-charged issues and Albert was sort of a Dixiecrat anyway.

I am sure we would agree that if the Speaker was faced with the succession in 1996 (Newt Gingrich) or 2008 (Nancy Pelosi), he/she would maintain the presidency within his/her own party.
 
If Albert had become president, would he have been required to complete Nixon's term with the cabinet that Nixon appointed? Would probably have been difficult for Albert if the presidential cabinet opposed him. If so, you can't blame Albert for not wanting to walk into the Lion's Den.
 
If Albert had become president, would he have been required to complete Nixon's term with the cabinet that Nixon appointed? Would probably have been difficult for Albert if the presidential cabinet opposed him. If so, you can't blame Albert for not wanting to walk into the Lion's Den.

Albert would be completing Nixon's second term, ending January 20, 1977. The Cabinet serves at the President's discretion so Albert could fire them if he so chose; however, there would be no small amount of political backlash, since Albert would be taking power as a democrat just two years after a Republican landslide.
 
If Albert had become president, would he have been required to complete Nixon's term with the cabinet that Nixon appointed? Would probably have been difficult for Albert if the presidential cabinet opposed him. If so, you can't blame Albert for not wanting to walk into the Lion's Den.

Without the 25th, Albert can not nominate a VP. But the Senate can choose a different President Pro Tem, one both parties might deem more acceptable than George Eastland. Then Albert resigns and hands over control.
 
Top