So, Garrett Graff (who) on CNN says Pompeo could be next in line...

[wcmagumba]

of succession before Nancy Pelosi if both the PINO an VPINO are disabled by covid 19...Says it could be disputed that NP is next in line and MP would be the one....WTF?

[Siwsan]

1. Perhaps he went to the Alexander Haig school of government.

Panic and declare. That's the idea.

[Roland99]

6. heh

[idziak4ever1234]

7. My first thought was Haig!

Maybe they should pull the Constitution out of their front pocket and read it once? It is the most mis-quoted book other than the Bible.

[Marius25]

2. That makes no sense. Pompeo doesn't come after Pelosi.

Chuck Grassley does, then Pompeo. And why would they skip Pelosi?

[Rebl2]

10. They pay

No attention to the constitution. They make up their own rules.

[MyOwnPeace]

20. It hasn't mattered up to this point.......

Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2020, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

why should they consider it now?

[Rebl2]

21. Exactly!

[Mz Pip]

14. Because they hate her

That’s reason enough. Screw the Constitution.

[LastDemocratInSC]

3. We now know who will play Alexander Haig.

[still_one]

4. Based on what? Not the Constitution

[wcmagumba]

9. Exactly,

He didn't really explain just said it could be disputed...this guy is a "highly respected journalist" and a former editor at Politico...in other words, a moron (or moran).

[still_one]

13. +++

[LiberalFighter]

5. Garrett Graff is an idiot.

Apparently doesn't like to do research.

[Sherman A1]

11. That would seem to be the case

[Trumpocalypse]

19. FYI

[dalton99a]

8. Another lazy idiot who went to Harvard

[TreasonousBastard]

12. With his background he should know better.

[nature-lover]

15. Correct order: VP, Speaker of House, Pro. Tem. of Senate(Grassley) and then Sec.of State

[Sgent]

16. The Constitution

is silent on succession after the VP except to say that Congress can designate by law the order of succession of officers, and the 25th amendment allows for a President to appoint a replacement VP.

The problem is it doesn't define officers, and the clause in question is in Article II (Presidency), so there is an argument that congress members are not officers since they are Article I persons and not in the executive branch. This has been a theoretical issue for a while and at least some academics urged congress to clarify by going from the VP directly to SecState when congress reformed succession after 9/11.

If Paul Ryan were speaker, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but in this environment I can almost guarantee a court challenge by at least one cabinet member.

[Jim__]

17. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 says Speaker of the House.

From wikipedia:

To provide for the performance of the duties of the office of President in case of the removal, resignation, death, or inability both of the President and Vice President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That

(a)

(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.

(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) a Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President.

...

[H2O Man]

18. gosh