Talk:Acting President of the United States

message: I think that we should at least discuss the restoration of impeachment.  Certainly the impeachment of the President of the United States is considerably different than an ordinary criminal trial.  While certainly the presumption of innoncence should apply, it is noteworthy that in several other nations with presidential systems the president is somewhat or completely constrained in his actions while under impeachment.  The presence of these comments in the article is not necessarily an endorsment of this viewpoint but rather an acknowledgement that it definitely exists, and should not be so arbitrarily and capricously eliminated in my view.  Rlquall 01:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the President's powers & duties aren't suspended, when the President is impeached. GoodDay 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment 

message: There is a huge difference between what happened on this fictional TV show and anything that is yet to occur in real life.  On the show, the President announced his stepping aside in favor of the Speaker in a formal Cabinet meeting while his daughter had been kidnapped in a time of national crisis; the fictional Speaker/Acting President had to order a military attack in which the U.S. forces took casualties, and he served as President for several days before the President's daughter was recovered, not just for the duration of anesthesia for minor surgery.  It seems fairly likely that such a person could be regarded as a former President; much less likely that the real-world Cheney would be seen as such, at least based on his career to date and laying aside the considerations that many make that he may already be President to a large extent on a day-to-day basis.  A more interesting question the show raised in my opinion was whether a Speaker, President Pro Tem, or other such official would be expected to or likely to resign that previous position only to act as President for only a matter of hours or days as the West Wing character did.  Rlquall 01:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, an Acting President wouldn't take the presidential oath of office. GoodDay 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "West Wing" scenario 

message: Should we have a section discussing fictional portrayals of the 25th Amendment coming into play?  There have been several that I can think of - there is the West Wing example noted above, as well as two examples on 24.  Possibly it happened in the film Air Force One, as well, although I don't remember the specifics. john k 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional portrayals 

message: Under the sub-section "Authorities" , this article says an Acting President is even addressed as Mr.President. Was George H.W. Bush on July 13, 1985 or Dick Cheney on June 29, 2002 addressed as Mr.President? Not publicly and as for privately (no one knows). This "addressed as Mr.President" statement, seems unfounded. Also it would appear arrogant and insulting to the First Family. Mightberight/wrong 21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you consider the fact that traditionally (as far as I know), a person (in US) is addressed by the highest office they've held to date, for example Clinton would still be address as Mr. President if he's next to the current President as he's the 42nd President of the US, I don't see it as arrogant or insulting. It's probably argued that it is being respectful to address the Acting President as Mr. President, rather than insulting, as he (or she) would be carrying out the power and duties of the office of presidency. One's being respectful of the person, and the position. -- KTC 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill Clinton was President of the USA & all former President's of the USA (to date), are/were addressed as Mr.President. However an Acting President, is still the Vice President of the USA, an Acting President of the USA should still be adressed as Mr/Madam Vice President. If for example Cheney had to serve as Acting President for the rest of Bush's term, He's still Vice President and should be adressed as Mr. Vice President. GoodDay 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any (known) definite policy on this, but a Vice President, or anyone else serving as Acting President is the President at that particular time, so in my opinion should be addressed as Mr. / Madam President. Part of addressing someone as President is addressing the office in which the person holds (held), in this case it may be so that it's not permanent, but they are still holding / carrying out the power and duties of the office at the time. In a formal meeting, the chairperson would be address as such, this include the time when one have a acting chair because the normal chair is stepping aside temporarily or is unavailable. If VP Cheney is the Acting President when you meet him, he is the President of the USA at that particular time, even if at another time he would be rightfully only VP, so should be address as Mr. President (at that time). How an Ex-Acting President is address is probably a different question and depends on how long that person was AP, and how public it was when it occurs, whether it was the VP that was AP, or a resigned Speaker, President Pro. Temp. ... etc. -- KTC 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still must disagree, as Acting President of the USA, one does not hold the office of President of the USA, but rather discharges the powers & duties of that office, while mantaining his/her current office (vice president). During the time Cheney would be Acting President, George W. Bush would still be President of the USA. There can't be 2 Presidents of the USA at the same time. The scenerio would be as follows: George W. Bush, President of the USA & Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the USA-Acting President of the USA. Although we disagree about this topic, I respect your views. GoodDay 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Six months after the above discussion, the disputed sentence remains in the article (‘Acting Presidents are addressed as "Mr. President" during their service’). There are arguments pro and con addressing an Acting President as "Mr. [or Madam] President" but they are merely arguments so the Wikipedia article shouldn't make this statement as a fact. I have put in a "" designator but I doubt there is any authoritative source for this one way or another, and therefore the sentence should probably just be deleted. Alternatively, change it to ‘It is not known whether Acting Presidents are addressed as "Mr./Madam President".’ If somebody really wants to research this, then why not make a phone call to the Vice President's press office and ask whether Cheney was addressed as Mr. President during the period in 2002 when the 25th Amendment was invoked for George W. Bush's surgery. Or contact the Dept of State protocol office. --Mathew5000 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the exchange in this transcript from June 29, 2002. Speaking about Mr. Cheney, Ari Fleischer says: "I'd have to ask his staff if they address him as Mr. Acting President. I don't think they did. It's a mouthful." --Mathew5000 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ari Fleischer suggested "Mr. Acting President" as one possibility. I believe that to be the correct form of adress, given that the 25th Amendment says that the Vice-President shall discharge the powers and duties of the office of President as Acting President. Thus, while the Vice-president remains Vice-president during his service in the temporary position of Acting President, Acting President is more than Vice-president, it is a temporary higher rank, in so far as the Acting President, although not being President, has the powers and duties of the president. And given that the text of the 25th Amendment gives a name to the position of the one who acts as President, stating that the Vice-president shall discharge the powers and duties of the presidency as Acting President, I believe that the correct form of adress would be Mr. Acting President. I agree, however, that my opinion, just as others opinions, is speculative, and as such should not be included in the article. Just as the title Mr. President developed out of a personal preference of George Washington, and just as President Tyler imposed his interpretation that the Vice-president should succeed to the title of the presidency upon the death of the elected President, an interpretation that was confirmed by section 1 of the 25th Amendment, only a real-case scenario of someone serving as Acting President for a longer time, and appearing in public while Acting President (something that neither George H.W. Bush nor Cheney did) would solve the question of how an Acting President is to be adressed. For the reasons stated above, it seems to me that Mr. Acting President would be the correct form. But that has no place in the article, as it is original research. --Antonio Basto 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such speculation about how an Acting President is adressed is original research and personal opinion, insofar as we don't really know how George H.W. Bush and Cheney were adressed during the brief periods of service as Acting President. An encycopedic article is also not the place for speculation on how would an Acting President be adressed if one were to serve as such for a longer term, in a more high profile situation. The fact is that, so far, Acting Presidents have kept a low profile during the brief hours this office has been into existance, so nobody really knows the answer, and an encyclopedia is no place for personal opinion.--201.17.60.117 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr.President? 

message: The article should have the Vice Presidential Seal, as the Acting President is still Vice President of the USA. GoodDay 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going based my answer on the above comment and what's been crossed-out and now removed about the seal. The seal is for the office of the President of the USA, not the person. So an Acting President would use the President Seal when he's acting as the President. It would be ridiculous for example, for an (Ex-)Speaker of the House as Acting President to be issuing Executive Order bearing the Seal of the Speaker. He or she would be issuing the order, signing off bills or whatever as the President, under the power of the office of the President, not the Speaker (or whatever) and so uses the Seal of the office. -- KTC 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it's because of my 'pointing it out'. But, it's good to see the Presidential Seal image was removed. GoodDay 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential Seal?

message: Today there was an edit to the section "Other potential invocation situations" that addressed President Clinton. The edit is attempting to add balance to an otherwise absurd bullet point that suggests, without any foundation whatsoever, than an impeached President is or should be unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office to which he was legitimately elected. While several U.S. states have provisions of their Constitutions or laws that prevented an impeached official from the exercise of the duties of his or her office, there is NO corresponding section or intrepretation in the U.S. Constitution.
The edit does a good job, but the fact remains that the inclusion of President Clinton in the "Other potential invocation situations" is improper as it relates to impeachment. The only inclusion of President Clinton in this Section that I would support would be information relating to when President Clinton hurt his knee and underwent repair surgey using local anesthetic. 
I'd like to get other thoughts on the subject and inform everyone of my thoughts before I just remove the offending section. If there is a contrary opinion that would object to removing this section, please post here so we can discuss. If not, I will remove the section.JasonCNJ 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the lack of discussion on this topic, I am going to remove the mention from President Clinton as indicated above. If someone notices the removal and objects, I can put it back while we discuss it on here.  JasonCNJ 08:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the US Constitution doesn't suspend a President's powers & duties when he/she is impeached. Andrew Johnson & Bill Clinton governed thoughtout their respective Impeachment Trials. During the Clinton Impeachment Trial, I've never heard any calls for Clinton or Gore+Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. GoodDay 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Pres Clinton mention 

message: Could someone take a look at this related article? Perhaps an Afd is in order. GoodDay 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted on that talk page. Someone just made that up. It's a pretty article; graphs, colors, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that someone just made up that information. JasonCNJ 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting Vice President

message: Ok... the president and VP die 2 weeks into the first term and the Speaker is made the acting President. The Speaker (now the acting POTUS) finishes out the term as the acting president and is elected to the next term as the president? Is this person elgable to be re-elected for another (3rd) term since they have only served one term as the actual presidnet?--Dr who1975 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; the text of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically provides that if you have "acted as President" for more than two years of a term for which someone else was elected, then you yourself can be elected as president only once. --Mathew5000 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Speaker of the House would not become Acting President he would become THE PRESIDENT. -- Simmons 123456 05:20 31 July 2015
Simmons, the term "acting president" exists to describe someone in that speaker's position Snitch ninja (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: John L. Miller made the following addition to the article, which I have reverted:
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 in Section (d) clause (2) specifically states "An individual acting as President under this subsection shall act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list SHALL NOT TERMINATE HIS SERVICE." (emphasis added) All officers beyond the President and Vice President in the line of succession are included in paragraph (1), therefore it must be concluded that no one beyond an individual qualifying as President or Vice President, or a current President or Vice President who's own disability has been removed, will terminate the service of an Acting President. Thus, there would be no string of Acting Presidents. If the Speaker, President Pro Tempore, and the Secretary of State fail to qualify as Acting President, the Secretary of the Treasury would be Acting President (should he/she qualify). The later meeting of Presidential qualifications by the said Speaker, President Pro Tempore, or Secretary of State would NOT end the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury. John L. Miller 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An individual acting as President under this subsection shall act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list SHALL NOT TERMINATE HIS SERVICE." (emphasis added) 
That section - 3 USC 19 (d)(2) - limits itself specifically to this subsection -- thus, it limits itself to a Cabinet officer serving as Acting President.  Such an Acting President will have his or her term of office terminated by a Speaker or President pro tempore who desires to serve as Acting President but not by a higher ranking Cabinet officer who becomes qualified to serve. 
In the example mentioned in the now-reverted edit, the Acting Presidency of the Secretary of the Treasury will be ended by a Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate who wishes to and is qualified to serve but will not be ended by the qualification/availability of the Secretary of State.
The law itself can be found at Cornell Law school.
Hope this explains my edit to the article.
JasonCNJ 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining Expiration of Term as Acting President 

message: I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but I'm trying to find information and can't find it in this or any article.
If the president is temporarily incapacitated and the vice president becomes acting president, does someone in turn become acting vice president? Is the presidential line of succession invoked here? Or is the office just left empty? I would appreciate it if someone in the know added this information for other people, because all I can find about this topic is that the vice president becomes acting president. Äþelwulf <Small>See my contributions.</Small> 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the Senate were voting on a particular bill that the Acting-President-slash-Vice-President supports, it would seem that he could, in his role as V.P., cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate.  In the book/film Advise and Consent, the President dies just as the Senate deadlocks on his nominee for Secretary of State.  The Vice President announces that he will not be breaking the tie, reports the death of his predecessor and confides that he'd rather pick his own Secretary of State.  This shows newfound decisiveness in the man and provides an upbeat ending.  However, it begs the question: as he now has assumed the Presidency, could he have still voted in his former role? WHPratt (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens to the vice president's office? 

message: Yes, Harry Truman's middle name is "S"; so it is not necessary to add a period after the 'S'.  However, it's not wrong, either.  The first letter of his middle name is 'S"; it just happens to be the only letter of his middle name.
Truman himself approved of the use of "Harry S. Truman" during his lifetime. -- Terry Carroll 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry S Truman or Harry S. Truman? 

message: Is there any difference, at all, between a President (a Vice President who succeeds on the death of the President) and an Acting President (a Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore etc. who succeeds), other than semantics? There is obviously a difference between an Acting President who is serving temporarilly, while the President is incapacitated, in that, unlike a President, the Acting President can lose this office upon the Presidents resuming their duties. But what if the President is dead, or impeached etc. ? Is there a difference between holding the powers and duties of the Presidency, and actually being President, other than words? I'm thinking - could the Speaker/Acting President appoint themselves a Vice-President (it seems that, according to the above discussion, this would be a difference)? Could the Acting President be impeached? Would their time as Acting President (which, in theory, could be quite considerable), count with regards to the [22nd Amendment] which bars someone from serving more than two terms? If so, these things should be mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any answers? - 121.208.89.95 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholars have been debating for years over how the Presidential Succession Act would be implemented. My guess is this: only until the Act is implemented (which hasn't happened yet), will we know how it will work out. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vice President vs Speaker etc.

message: What about Ford?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.127.42 (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about him?  He was Vice President prior to Nixon's resignation.  He'd acquired that position in an unusual manner, via the 25th amendment rather than an ordinary election, but he was still Vice President XinaNicole (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "To date no one other than a Vice President has acted as President."

message: Federal law states that a person acting as president shall be paid the presidential salary.  Does anyone know if Dick Cheney got a bump in pay the two times he was Acting President?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.49.51 (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compensation

message: The "Origin of the Position" section, misinterprets the text of The Article 1 Section 3, which has nothing to do with succession to the presidency. It addresses the role of the the Vice President IN THE SENATE and the role of the pro temp to act (as president of the senate) in the vice president's absence including when the vice president is unavailable because he is acting in the president's stead.
This misinterpretation seems to have driven some of the other analysis throughout this section, mostly in that it assumes that the pro temp had a constitutionally authorized place in the line of succession even before the succession act. For example, the "presidential disability before 1967" subsection refers to the succession rights of D.R. Atchison, B.F. Wade, etc. This stuff needs to be supported by some kind of scholarly authority.
Speaking of supporting notes, this entire "Origins" section needs a LOT more. It makes a number of claims about "disagreements" and "arguments" without identifying the parties to these disputes and without citing sources. 
Curious georgianna (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 1 Text & Pro Temp Assumptions 

message: I removed a large part of the Designated survivor section that was incorrect. 
", in which President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) or Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) was also a designated survivor – he or she would become the Acting President of the United States rather than the surviving Cabinet member. However it is unclear whether another legislator could do so without first being elected to that leadership position by a quorum of their respective house.
To date, no one other than a Vice President has acted as President."
This paragraph is incorrect. The 25th Amendment states very clearly that only a Vice President can become President. 
See below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#/media/File:25th_Amendment_Pg1of2_AC.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#/media/File:25th_Amendment_Pg2of2_AC.jpg
Simmons123456 5:57 31/7/2015
:I restored that material, but also clarified it so it now clearly states that the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Cabinet officers can only become Acting President. SMP0328. (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed a large part of the Designated survivor section 

message: I remember that when the Supreme Ct. was considering FL, it was suggested that both Bush and his VP should be impeached for sending it to the Ct. improperly, and that if they were, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would become Acting President during the impeachment, as they would be unable to carry out their duties, thus immediately becoming the first woman to hold Presidential powers. Could someone sufficiently knowledgeable comment on this? 24.90.104.148 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting President during impeachment discussed when George W. Bush results in FL were in doubt 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Acting President of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120512003207/http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social/families-children-marriage/815661-1.html to http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social/families-children-marriage/815661-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article starts out with "The Acting President of the United States is a post that was created after the adoption of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ...". However, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, section 3, contains:
It seems to me that this provides for two cases where someone can be Acting President (though these cases have never happened), and this existed before the 25th Amendment. --4.28.172.154 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. The article has been updated to take into account the 20th Amendment. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about 20th Amendment? 

message: User:Carlbergman added an infobox to the article, which I think is a good thing, but the photo treatment of the Bush and Cheney images appears ragged and sloppy. They're different sizes, for one thing, and stacked vertically, at least in desktop view. I changed it to use the  template, which is exactly what that template is for, and I think is a big improvement. Carlbergman reverted, with the comment "That looks so much worse".
In the spirit of WP:BRD, having been Bold and been Reverted, I now Discuss. Which is the preferred layout? 
*without the multiple image template (desktop)
*without the multiple image template (mobile)
*with the multiple image template (desktop)
*with the multiple image template (mobile)
This seems to be exactly why we have the multiple image template. if the width parameters need to be tuned, I would certainly be okay with that, of course.
BTW, Carlbergman, when I was trying to copy your edit summary, I accidentally hit "revert" as the still-loading page was shifted under my mouse pointer. I quickly re-reverted myself, but I don't want you to think I was intentionally reverting you there. TJRC (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No response in three weeks, so I am restoring the infobox edit. TJRC (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox photos 

message: The two individuals listed on this page served as Acting President. Shouldn't that be reflected in the infobox on those respective pages? This is a request for consensus. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Serving in the most important office under the U.S. Constitution, however brief, should be reflected in the infobox. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

text: this isn't the proper place for your request, as it does not pertain to improving this article. Please post your idea at :Talk:George H. W. Bush and :Talk:Dick Cheney. There it will get on-topic attention. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the proper place for my request, IMO. It is a question of how we infobox this particular office. It's not really about the individuals who have held the position. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither held any position at that time, other then the vice presidency. What the did was hold the powers and duties of the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

text: No, the names of G.H.W.B. & D.C. do not belong in this article's infobox. The template on this page is about the post, rather than the two persons who have briefly acted as president of the United States. Both men are mentioned at the end of the introduction, and are featured prominently in the body of the article. Drdpw (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting President Recognized in Infoboxes  

message: The Acting President section for Cheney should be clarified to make it clear it was two separate terms and not one full duration. Dogblock (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the table to make it more clear that Cheney was acting president on two separate occasions. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting President should be clarified 

message: "The Article II succession clause authorizes Congress to designate which federal officeholders would accede to the presidency in the event that the vice president were unable to do so, a situation which has occurred on three occasions." could we have some sources or just general info on when this happened? or am I misunderstanding. Sure more than 3 presidents have been removed / left / shot early, but has the speaker or other successions even happened? thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyplane2247 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out this statement, which was inaccurate, and which has been corrected –such a situation has never arisen. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of vice president incapable 

message: Why do we need a big table with big photos for three instances? Why not just "George H W Bush served as Acting President on <date> while Reagan was undergoing colon cancer surgery. Cheney served as AP twice, first on <date>, second on <date>, while Pres. Bush underwent colonoscopies under sedation." --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  15:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem with removing the table. The information in its "Date (time) and reason" column could be put into paragraph form with images of Bush and Cheney positioned to one side or centered below. Drdpw (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objections to deletion, since Bush & Cheney (twice) had very brief tenures as acting president. We can always add this back in the future, if a vice president assuming the role of acting president for at least multiple days. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless table 

message: Should we mention the qualifications for the presidency & vice presidency are exactly the 'same'? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as the qualifications for the vice presidency, even though exactly the 'same', are tangential here. Stating "and of the vice presidency" is unnecessary. It enough that the article mentions the qualifications for the presidency. Drdpw (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: One exception, only the veep succeeds to the presidency & only the veep can assume presidential powers & duties under Sections 3 & 4 of the 25th amendment. As for the 1947 succession act? Nobody 'truly' knows how it'll be invoked, as the presidential powers & duties have 'never' devolved beyond the vice president. Though rare, it's possible that 'nobody' could be eligible to assume the presidential powers & duties, under the 1947 Act. Indeed, scholars have found many contradictions in the 1947 Act. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the paragraph you edited was about the qualifications stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which addresses the office of the presidency only. It is the XXII Amendment which provides that no individual constitutionally ineligible to the office of president would be eligible to serve as vice president. Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say we should include the vice presidency. But, have it your way. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add an additional sentence to the paragraph stating something like: "The Vice President, by virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, is already held to these eligibility requirements." Drdpw (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do as you see fit. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifications