The Best Chance For An Iowan President In The Near Future
March 3rd, 2007 at 04:36pm Geraldine
Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no chance that an Iowan will be elected President in 2008. (Sorry Sal) In fact, under the assumption that Vilsack’s Presidential ambitions are now permanently scuppered, it is unlikely that any other Iowa politician will be mounting a credible bid for the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That leaves Iowa’s best chance for the Presidency to be filled through its two Senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, both of whom, provided they stay in the Senate, are starting to get close to the level of seniority necessary to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This is a ceremonial position in the Senate mandated by the Constitution that has been filled in the past by such aged members as Strom Thurmond and Ted Stevens and is currently held by Robert Byrd. It has traditionally been held by the most senior member of the majority party since the 1940s. However, it is also third in the current line of succession to the Presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
That the members of the Legislative branch are eligible to be President is a weird quirk in the system as Norman Orenstein points out in the Washington Post. However, Orenstein’s suggestion of limiting the line of succession to unelected cabinet members and others designated by the Presidents is completely undemocratic. In fact, even the succession of a Vice President to the Presidency is not quite right. After all, we don’t have Vice Senators or Vice Congressman and many states have special elections if there is a vacancy for the Governorship. The logical and fair thing to do is to hold a special election for the Presidency. In fact, there’s pretty clear historical evidence that the Founders only intended the Vice President to serve as President until another could be elected. The resulting historical drift over the next two centuries has gradually set the precedent that not only does the Vice President serve out the rest of the President’s term but has also built the assumption that everyone after the Vice President will do so as well. (Although this concept has not been tested in practice.) What would make sense is to make it explicit that a special election will occur the November after a vacancy in the Presidency (unless there is less than a year left in the President’s term). This would insure that the President would be democratically elected. If there is a sitting Vice President, he would become “Acting President.” However, if there is a double vacancy, the least worst option would be allow Congress to fill both offices temporarily according to the method outlined in the 12th Amendment in case of a deadlock in the Electoral College.
This type of debate can seem somewhat academic, after all it deals with interpreting centuries of constitutional precedents to prepare for a highly unlikely event. However, as unlikely as this event is, it is worth preparing for as it would have a catastrophic impact on our nation’s government. Should something so unlikely occur, we need to be prepared to make sure that the will of the people is heard. It is what our county was founded upon and the will of the people will not be heard if we have President Robert Byrd or President Ted Stevens.
Related Posts
- Tom Vilsack’s Next Step
- Frontloading and Iowa
- Vilsack’s Adoption
- What Will Ed Fallon Run For Next?
- Kurt Cobain for Grundy County Attorney
Entry Filed under: State Politics, Voting Rights
Related Searches: succession to the presidency, strom thurmond, chuck grassley, tom vilsack, norman orenstein
1 Comment Add your own
1. Chase Martyn | March 4th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
John Deeth’s comment disappeared because it was posted in the middle of our shift to a new server. Here is what he wrote:
We had an Iowan Speaker of the House once - David Henderson at the turn of the 19-20th century. And there were even TWO vice presidential vacancies in his tenure - McKinley’s first VP Garret Hobart died in office, then VP was vacant after Teddy Roosevelt became President upon McKinley’s assassination. But at that time Speaker was not in the line of succession.
From 1792-1886, Senate president pro tem was next in line after the vice president, followed by the Speaker of the House.
In 1886 Congress changed the order, replacing the president pro tempore and the Speaker with the cabinet officers (Secretary of State first). This played a major role in Truman’s cabinet shuffle following FDR’s death. Truman wanted Jimmy Byrnes to be Secretary of State in order to put him in succession (Truman had backed Byrnes for VP at the `44 convention but FDR had other plans) This was also the other time an Iowan came close to succession - had Henry Wallace not been dumped from the ticket in `44…
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 changed the order to what it is today (with speaker ahead of Senate pro tem). Cynics might argue this was because the Republicans had taken over Congress that session and this placed Speaker Joe Martin next in line. But that would be cynical, as it would also be cynical to note that this same Congress passed presidential term limits following FDR’s four wins.
The 25th Amendment in 1965 made most of this moot as any future vice presidential vacancy would likely be brief. Unless Cheney were to leave one way or another and Bush insisted on nominating someone un-confirmable. Reportedly Nixon wanted John Connolly after Agnew resigned. But Ford was widely admired by his Democratic House colleagues and was the most confirmable choice. Cynics might also argue that he was seen by Dems as a weak `76 candidate. But that would be cynical.
There was a seven year stretch 1850-57 where the vice presidency was only filled for six weeks - VP Fillmore succeeded Taylor, then Franklin Pierce’s VP William King died soon after inauguration.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed