Resolution submitted on Succession of the Presidency

[zbdent]

Someone please explain to me why this Senate resolution shouldn't scare me? They are making preparations in case the President-elect doesn't survive to his (or her - future) inauguration.

From the 2/12/2004 Congressional Record online:

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 89--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE PRESIDENCY -- (Senate - February 12, 2004)



---

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. LOTT) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

S. Con. Res. 89

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), It is the sense of Congress that during the period preceding the end of a term of office in which a President will not be serving a succeeding term--

(1) that President should submit the nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of succession;

(2) the Senate should conduct confirmation hearings and a Senate floor vote on the nominations described under paragraph (1), to the extent feasible, between January 3 and January 20 before the Inauguration; and

(3) that President should agree to sign and deliver commissions on January 20 before the Inauguration of all approved nominations, to ensure continuity of Government.

END

The above makes me wonder if they are laying the groundwork in case W might lose in November, and, oh, my, the winning candidate is, uh, incapacitated (dead).

[mac2]

1. Succession of Senators

According to the Constitution...Senators are appointed by the Govenor until there is an election.

We don't need the President to pick any Senators. It violates separation powers. Think of the power it would give him to wipe out all of the Senate.

Govenors have enough experience and power to run their own states in an emergency. They don't need the President or FEMA taking over their states or having unlimited power. This could bring abuse of power and tyranny. That's what's scary about it.

[RC]

2. We didn't need the Supreme Court to pick the president either.

That procedure is set out in the Constitution also.

[Liberal Christian]

3. This isn't about picking Senators

This is about allowing the President-elect to submit his or her own choices of the names of individuals who would fall within the line of succession so that, in the event of the death or incapactitation of the President-elect, it would not be the sitting President who chose those individuals.

For the most part, these are people who would have had to be confirmed by the Senate, anyway.

[mac2]

5. Like this would make a difference with RWers in power?

"For the most part, these are people who would have had to be confirmed by the Senate, anyway."

They do as they please and threaten the Congress to get in step.

The Constitution lists sucession not the President. If it comes to a wipe out our governors can still lead their states.

[Mattforclark]

6. Wipe out

"If it comes to a wipe out our governors can still lead their states."

Yes, but the Federal Government would cease to exist. That's acceptable???

[Mattforclark]

4. It should not scare you because

"that President should submit the nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by the President-elect"

In other words, the President (let's say Bush) submits to the Senate a line of succession GIVEN TO HIM BY the President-elect (let's say Kerry).

"for offices that fall within the line of succession;"

Kerry gives a list of people to go in the sec state slot for line of succession, sec def slot, etc.

This way if the President Elect and Vice President Elect got assasinated or something, we would have some sort of government to take over.

Reform of the line of succession is long since overdue, and this looks (at first glance, anyway) like a positive step.

Hope that helps.