In another thread discussing the probability of a Bush coup, BoF had this to say:



This stance raises some interesting, unconsidered questions that I think are worth exploring.

For those not familiar with the other thread, the basic premise is that sometime between the beginning of December when the Electoral College meets and Constitutionally designates the President-Elect and the Inauguration, the President-Elect, VP-Elect and entire legally defined line of succession are killed and/or rendered incapacitated.

1} How long do we cruise along w/o a President?

2} How do we replace judges, Cabinet officers, generals, ambassadors, etc without a President to nominate them?

3} Would any laws passed during the lack of a President be constitutional?

4} How will other nations react while there is no President?

5} What are the likely economic effects?

6} How do we select a new President?

Interesting speculation. Such a scenario would require an unprecedented disaster, so I tend to think that some of the details of the Constitution would be temporarily disregarded.

1} How long do we cruise along w/o a President?

A very short time, I suspect. In the event of such a disaster, somebody will step up and say "I am in charge." Possibly more than one somebody, in which case either one steps down or one forces the other out. There might be riots, but eventually somebody is going to win the loyalty of at least a major part of military forces, and martial law will be in operation for a time.

2} How do we replace judges, Cabinet officers, generals, ambassadors, etc without a President to nominate them?

I think this would be simply disregarded during the duration of the crisis. If we need somebody now -- say, to be in charge of the military after a nuclear attack -- I think that person will be self-appointed, just like the self-appointed President, and rule by a combination of force, loyalty by troops, and popular acclamation.

3} Would any laws passed during the lack of a President be constitutional?

I think we would have a President of some kind very quickly, so I don't think this would come up. If we are very unlucky, and the President is a dictator, it won't matter if the "laws" (decrees) are Constitutional, at least until the person is thrown out of office.

4} How will other nations react while there is no President?

With great interest. Some would extend any help possible, some would cheer the nation's troubles, most will simply sit back and watch to see what happens.

5} What are the likely economic effects?

Well, such a gigantic disaster would hurt the economy badly, even if it had no effect on the President at all. I doubt the lack of a President, by itself, would make much difference.

6} How do we select a new President?

Best case scenario: "Somebody" takes over, appoints the necessary people to get through the crisis, then withdraws from office after new elections are held.

Worst case scenario: "Somebody" takes over, appoints those who are most loyal, then holds onto power until forced out, either by another "somebody" or a popular uprising.

Hmm, you don't "scenario out" this one very well- are you saying that, through some sort of attack, we lose most of the executive branch, and quite a bit of the legislative as well? Because, as you know, the line of succession jumps into the legislative branch fairly early on, so there is no real loss of a "leader" ? Or are you talking about a constitutional crisis where GW refuses to step down?

The lin of succesion is so clear, that you would have actually incapacitated all three branches of goverment- then you really do have a problem- it means that something has taken out basically all elected leadership, AND those appointed- a few hundred poeple or so at least, if it is a surgical strike, such as a nuke goes off in DC during the inaugeration, or a bio agent or something.

However- that still doesn't make things so desperate- we have the governers of 50 states, and state bodies of law as well- IIRC, a governer gets to "move on up" in this case as well.

There may be some argument over who gets the job, but I think even still you get someone moving into that job.

Now- constitutional crisis of a president who would be king - not even a bump on the road. None of the duties you are talking about are so important that 60 or even 90 days would even make a difference in the world- there are poeple out there, called "state and federal workers" that keep the business of goverment going 24/7 and things would probably be better and more efficient without appointed crony's to fill the jobs

Yes, an attack. The scenario is spelled in greater detail in the inspiring thread.

Yes, the Speaker of the House, then the President Pro Tem. However, as the succession law is written, it is the Speaker and/or Pres Pro Tem at the time when succession becomes necessary who is eligible. My guess is this provision is there to avoid back room shenanigans. Imagine, if you will, that the Pres, Veep and Speaker are all killed, along with 4 randomly chosen Democrat Senators. That would throw the Senate to the Republicans. So, the Repubs designate a new President Pro Tem who ascends to the White House. Nope, not the way it works.

No, that's the subject of the original thread.


The Courts are completely outside of the line of succession. They probably would be incapacitated in the scenario, but it's not directly relevant.

Yup, that's pretty much it. Hey, worked for Tom Clancy.

Why a governor? BoF's point is that Bush (who, in the original scenario, isn't killed) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to continue in office. By the same token, there's absolutely no provision for any governor to step up directly.

Okay, an optimist. Not sure that I agree with you that it would be simply a "bump on the road."

I am quite sure that, as far as the military issues go, that part is probably the most "war gamed" already- neccesary orders to the military will probably continue apace without so much as a hiccup.

Really, in the end, what does the President really have to do in an "emergency" other than look presidential, or confirm the plans the pentagon have already "gamed" for him?

There is no real duty of the executive branch that has to be done "right now" in an emergency- who cares if the head of cabinets or justices aren't appointed- even in 6 months or a year, none of the duties you spoke of are paramount to the country for immediate needs.