From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

I read that there was a certain amount of hesitence at the time to having Albert assume the Presidency because he was thought to be a heavy drinker. Should this be mentioned? - R. fiend 23:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, is his statement that if he assumed the Presidency he would step down when a replacement was selected a precedent? As it never panned out in the first place, and has certainly never been repeated, I don't think it qualifies. - R. fiend 07:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add the fact that there is a college in LeFlore County named for him. If anyone sees a better place in the article for it, feel free to move it.-- Thudgens 19:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • the Carl Albert saying he'd serve as acting president only 1973 senerio, made me think of a real potential brain twister: What if Bush & Cheney died ,at the same time?. the Speaker of the House ,it's seems would only become Acting President. If that's a fact, does the Nation go without a President for the rest of the elected Term? Since no-wheres in the Constitution does it say an Acting-President can nominate someone for Vice-President.
    • I assume you mean will the nation go without a Vice-President. Well, I'm no constitutional scholar, but I thought that one of the more recent amendments to the constitution states that the VP (or, I assume anyone further down who assumes the position of President due to death or whatever) does not just become the acting-President, but the actual President in all capacities. So he could appoint a VP,a s any other sitting President can. I'm not 100% on this, however. - R. fiend 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
My understanding is as R. Fiend's. It has, however, been suggested that the current presidential succession act, including the Speaker and President pro tem, is unconstitutional, because the Speaker and President pro tem are officers of the congress, not officers of the United States. But that's all hypothetical. john k 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
If Bush and Cheney both died, then the Speaker of the House (still Denny Hastert at this writing) would become President and would then nominate a new VP. The constitutionality of the succession act is pretty clear from Article II, Section 1: "Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." An officer of the Congress of the United States is an officer of the United States. The issue of greater concern is the 4th in line, the President Pro Tempore (PPT) of the Senate. By tradition, that purely ceremonial post is held by the longest-serving Senator of the majority party, which, at the moment (until January 3) is the batsh**-insane Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Either the Senate should change the PPT to a real position, or the succession act should be changed so that someone like the Majority Leader takes the PPT's slot. Lincmad 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
PPT is a "real position" (one mandated by the Constitution, at that). It's just that it's not a position that has any greater power than any other Senator, and thus is treated as ceremonial. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 07:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I guess if Hastert or Stevens (or their successors), are ever faced with that scenero, the interpretation is theirs. Eitherway ,you could say the Presidency of the United States can never be vacant, and Hastert's or Stevens's swearing-in would be supported (even if they were Democrats, which they're not).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.115.81 ( talk) 20:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Curious Reader: If Bush & Cheney died (same time), and Hastert decided to interpret the successon as Carl Albert would have (1973 acting president only). Could president pro-tempore Ted Stevens from Alaska, have himself sworn-in as President ,by-passing the reluctant Hastert?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.115.81 ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Just a comment: Thank goodness Carl Albert never got to face that situation. Though he meant well, in proposing to serve only as Acting President (until a Vice President took office), His action would have left the Presidency vacant. I think personally ,if left with the choice Speaker Albert would have accepted the Presidency and been sworn in to office.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.58.230 ( talk) 19:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  • I'll say this much, old Carl Albert was no John Tyler. When Tyler (as VP) was faced with Presidential Succession (before the 25th amendment) in April 1841, upon President Harrison death. He seen to it, that there was no 'Acting' about it. He was the New President , said so and defiantly took the Presidential Oath of Office (upon his arrival in Washington DC). Thus establishing a very important precedent, (at least for VP's). Would House Speaker Albert have been as bold?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.56.139 ( talk) 16:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If Nixon had resigned before Ford's confirmation, I believe Albert would have had to become President (not just acting-president)and would have had to complete the term (unless he died, resigned or was removed from office),until 1977. Furthermore ,if he'd had wished the Ford nomination to continue, and not named his own nominee ,Ford (upon confirmation) would become Vice President under President Albert. Mightberight/wrong 13:39, 28 October 2005—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.117.234 ( talk) 16:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Albert also could have personally ensured that neither Ford nor anybody else Nixon could nominate would have been confirmed. Confirmation of a replacement VP requires a majority vote in the House and the Senate, and the Speaker of the House has complete control of the House's voting schedule. Had he been so inclined, Albert could have simply not let Ford's confirmation vote happen. Thus the VP vacancy would've been left in legislative limbo until Nixon resigned. If he wanted the Oval Office, it was his for the taking. There was absolutely no legal way that Albert could've been stopped had he been so inclined. Which, honestly, is why it's probably a bad idea to include the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate in the line of succession. I understand the preference for having elected rather than appointed officials at the top of the line of succession, but having people who could play key roles in whether a vacancy exists be the first ones in line to fill it creates an obvious conflict of interests. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 07:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

"He thus announced that should the need arise for him to assume the presidency, he would do so only in an acting capacity, and would resign immediately after both Houses of Congress (in accordance with Section 2 of the 25th Amendment) had approved a Republican Vice President." Upon reading this, it made absolute no sense at all since Carl Albert being in the presidency would have to be the one to nominate the Vice President. The Constitution explictly states that it is the President and not anyone else who decides on who fills the Vice Presidential vacancy. Therefore there will be this conflict for him in nominating a Republican for the Vice Presidency. Does he as a Democrat risk nominating someone who could become a strong candidate for the Republican nomination? Even if Albert is correct about serving in the Presidency in an acting capacity prior to a Republican Vice President being approved by Congress, how long will this new Vice President have to served before taking over the presidency. One minute, one day, one month??? The fact that he was not from the same party as Nixon is not reason enough to be an Acting President. Democrat Andrew Johnson for example became President upon the Republican Abraham Lincoln's assasination and served out the rest of the term. If the whole the Republicans have been elected to the Presidency was such an issue for him, the best he could have done was for him to serve out the rest of the term and make a pledge not to seek election for the presidency in 1976. In my opinion the whole point of the presidential line of succession was to ensure a smooth presidential transition. Carl Albert had no right to be an Acting President since the line of succession obligates him to take on the presidency on a more permanent basis.-- The Shadow Treasurer 04:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it would be a "conflict" for a Democrat Prez to nominate a Republican Veep, but Albert said plainly that he would do exactly that, and resign immediately upon the new Veep's confirmation. The instant the new Veep is confirmed and takes the oath of office, he jumps to the front of the line of succession. (He doesn't even have to be in office for a full minute.) President Albert could then resign, leaving the new VP as Prez. Carl Albert would have every right to resign as President for any reason he wanted; anything else would be involuntary servitude. Lincmad 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
See discussion on Talk: President pro tempore of the United States Senate, Carl Albert may have been right (in becoming only Acting President). GoodDay 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Reopening Up ,an old can of worms

Here's something American historians have been arguing over for years. Does the Vice-President of the United States and if no VP ,then the next in line, automatically become President when the previous President dies, resigns or is removed from office, or does he or she have to take the Presidential Oath of Office to become the new President? Example: November 22nd ,1963 from the momment JFK died, did LBJ become President or did he stay Vice-President until 2 1/2 hours later when he took the Presidential Oath of Office aboard Air Force One? 23 October 2005.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.56.139 ( talk) 18:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think that's something anyone has argued about, because the answer is crystal clear: no one becomes President without taking the oath of office. The VP or the Speaker or anyone else in the line of succession might become acting President, but not President, without the oath. Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution is unambiguous: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation..." Lincmad 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
At Noon EST Inauguration Day, the President-elect assumes office (oath or no oath) see Zachary Taylor & David Rice Atchison pages. Similarly, If a President dies, resigns is removed from office, the Vice President becomes President immediately (oath or no oath). GoodDay 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The President-elect becomes President at that time, but cannot exercise the powers of the office unless and until taking the oath. Thus, there is always a President of the United States, but sometimes one who doesn't yet have the power to act as President. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 07:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Acting President

This article and other 'next in line' related articles, need complete re-writes. ONLY the Vice President can become President in the case of a Presidential death, resignation or removal from office. All other officials (in the Presidential line of succession) can only assume the Presidential powers & duties as 'Acting President'. GoodDay 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

That's the generally accepted interpretation, on account of the Presidential Succession Act using the phrase "act as President". The thing is, the Constitution itself used the same phrase, until the 25th Amendment changed it to say the VP "shall become President". Since the 25th Amendment was ratified 20 years after the Presidential Succession Act, the difference in language doesn't automatically mean difference in intent. If someone other than the VP ever did fill a presidential vacancy, it's entirely possible that their own version of the Tyler Precedent could come into effect. 24.214.230.66 ( talk) 07:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Albert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Carl_Albert&oldid=1204664060"