The presidency of Dennis Hastert

GW Bush and Saakashvili get blown up on May 10, 2005.
Dick Cheney is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. However, the London terror attacks and hurricane Katrina prove too much for his fragile heart. He dies 4 months into his presidency, without having had the time to propose a VP.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (IL-14) then ascends to the presidency, a first in the history of the US. From there, you've got two (mutually-exclusive) routes to further trouble:
1) At about that time IOTL, famed whistleblower Sibel Edmonds levelled accusation of bribery against Hastert. If more comes out (which is a very distinct possibility, as the fact that he is president ITTL will attract a lot more attention to the case), and with general trend of dissatisfaction with the Republican administration, that would make for nice Articles of Impeachment...
2) The Sibel Edmonds-thing is butterflied away, the Democrats still regain control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the shit hits the fan in January 2007 when the House elects a Democratic Speaker, because neither the Constitution nor the Presidential Succession Act 1947 state whether someone who ascended to the presidency as speaker remains president after the end of his speakership.

So what do you think about my little scenario?
 
Last edited:
Well, couldn't Hastert just nominate a VP? Even if your scenario is correct, his GOP VP would assume office as next in line, right?

And given Cheney's death prior to nominating a VP, there is no way in hell the Democrats could hold up a Hastert nomination - it would probably be the quickest confirmation in history.
 
Pretty sure Hastert would have to resign as Speaker before becoming President, so no impact from 2006 mid-terms on his position as President.

Also pretty sure it would take quicker than four months for Cheney to propose a vice president and get them confirmed.
 
A 4 month delay in nominating a VP following a President's murder seems implausable to me.

Cheney having a heart attack and dying has to be a physiological possibiity.

Actually Cheney doing that in weeks before a murder of GW Bush more easily creats an issue
 
GW Bush and Saakashvili get blown up on May 10, 2005.
Dick Cheney is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. However, the London terror attacks and hurricane Katrina prove too much for his fragile heart. He dies 4 months into his presidency, without having had the time to propose a VP.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (IL-14) then ascends to the presidency, a first in the history of the US. From there, you've got two (mutually-exclusive) routes to further trouble:
1) At about that time IOTL, famed whistleblower Sibel Edmonds levelled accusation of bribery against Hastert. If more comes out (which is a very distinct possibility, as the fact that he is president ITTL will attract a lot more attention to the case), and with general trend of dissatisfaction with the Republican administration, that would make for nice Articles of Impeachment...
2) The Sibel Edmonds-thing is butterflied away, the Democrats still regain control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the shit hits the fan in January 2007 when the House elects a Democratic Speaker, because neither the Constitution nor the Presidential Succession Act 1947 state whether someone who ascended to the presidency as speaker remains president after the end of his speakership.

So what do you think about my little scenario?

I doubt that Cheney would wait more then 4 months before making a VP nomination. More likely, a nomination would be made within a week and, depending on who the nominee was, would likely be confirmed as VP within 3 to 4 months.

If Cheney were to die while his VP nominee were under consideration, then that person would be next in line - but not yet qualified - to become President. In this case, Hastert would assume the office of the presidency until that person became qualified. (1947 Presidential Succession Act c-1) Now, if Cheney were to die w/o making a VP nomination, then Hastert would assume the presidency and serve until January 20, 1989. (1947 Presidential Succession Act c) In both cases, Hastert would have to resign as Speaker and from Congress before assuming the presidency (1947 Presidential Succession Act a-1)

Regarding Sibel Edmonds' accusations - During this trying and traumatic era they become lost in the mists of time.

Now if you want an interesting scenario, perhaps Hastert becomes President but some group mounts a challenge to his presidency on Constitutional grounds. "There are concerns regarding the constitutionality of having members of Congress in the line of succession. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution specifies that only an "Officer" of the United States may be designated as a Presidential successor. Constitutional scholars from James Madison to the present day have argued that the term "Officer" excludes members of Congress." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act)
 
I have not read the 1947 Presidential Succession Act but it was passed twenty years before the 25th Amendment was ratified. I assume whomever Cheney nominated could not take over and you would get President Hastert until January 20, 2009. I assuming he loses in 2008, if he runs which I assume he would. The economy is tanking and if voters blamed McCain they would blame the incumbent.

If Cheney were to die while his VP nominee were under consideration, then that person would be next in line - but not yet qualified - to become President. In this case, Hastert would assume the office of the presidency until that person became qualified. (1947 Presidential Succession Act c-1) Now, if Cheney were to die w/o making a VP nomination, then Hastert would assume the presdency and serve until January 20, 1989. (1947 Presidential Succession Act c) esi
 
Top