Wow! How close we came. This would have been a real mess. I think Nixon would have refused to resign. And the Impeachment might have failed.
"In Nixon's case, Vice President Agnew had resigned, and some in Congress foresaw the demise of Nixon himself," Fortier said. "A group of representatives encouraged Carl Albert, then speaker of the House, to hold up the confirmation of Gerald Ford for vice president, so that Congress could then remove Nixon and elevate the Democrat Albert to the presidency."
Line to Succeed President Criticized
Political Gambits Concern Scholars
By Jesse J. Holland
Associated Press
Wednesday, September 17, 2003; Page A25
Congress should take its leaders out of the presidential line of succession to prevent a speaker of the House from using impeachment to put himself in the White House, two Senate panels were told yesterday.
In a time of national crisis, there should not be a fight over who the next president will be, said John Fortier, executive director of the private Continuity of Government Commission.
The Constitution specifies that the vice president succeeds the president but says only that Congress should name an "officer" to assume the presidency if both president and vice president are unavailable. In 1947, Congress put the House speaker and the senior member of the majority party in the Senate immediately behind the vice president on the succession list.
Fortier said that some House Democrats looked to the 1947 law during the Watergate scandal as a vehicle for taking the White House away from President Richard Nixon.
"In Nixon's case, Vice President Agnew had resigned, and some in Congress foresaw the demise of Nixon himself," Fortier said. "A group of representatives encouraged Carl Albert, then speaker of the House, to hold up the confirmation of Gerald Ford for vice president, so that Congress could then remove Nixon and elevate the Democrat Albert to the presidency."
Added M. Miller Baker, a former Justice Department lawyer: "Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and the Democratic-controlled Congress confirmed Ford, but it illustrates the mischief possible."
At a joint hearing conducted by the Senate's Rules and Judiciary committees, scholars also questioned the constitutionality of the 1947 law.
"House and Senate leaders are not officers within the meaning of the succession clause," said Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor who specializes in presidential succession. "Rather, the framers clearly contemplated that a Cabinet officer would be named acting president."
The way the succession statute is written now, political uncertainty could follow the death or incapacitation of the president and vice president, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.).
Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said Congress should change the law to remove its leaders from the line of succession before another Sept. 11-type terrorist attack imperils the president and vice president.
Cornyn posed several what-if scenarios that he said could set off a constitutional crisis.
For example, he said, what would happen if the House speaker claims the presidency but is challenged by the secretary of state, the first Cabinet member in the line of succession? And who would be president if the president, vice president, Cabinet and Congress are all killed in a terrorist attack on Washington?
"In an age of terrorism and a time of war, this is no longer mere fodder for Tom Clancy novels and episodes of 'The West Wing,' " Cornyn said. "These nightmare scenarios are serious concerns after 9/11."
The scholars said Congress could create a new office for an assistant vice president or first secretary to step in after the deaths or resignations of the president and vice president.
That person's "primary duty would be to remain in a secure location outside Washington, D.C., and away from the president and vice president," said Howard Wasserman, a Florida International University law professor.
washingtonpost.com |
