Talk:Acting Vice President of the United States

message: Is there any written proof, these president pro-tempores were listed as Acting Vice Presidents? GoodDay 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a written account or an actual title of "Acting Vice President".  These are people who were next in line to the U.S. President when there was no Vice President due to vacancy by death, resignation, etc.  I believe "Acting V.P." is more of a modern term, yet a couple of them believed they were President for a day, or "Acting President".  There are inaccuracies with this page.  For example George Poindexter was not next in line and Hugh Lawson White was.  Someone read the history wrong. Jjmillerhistorian 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should be deleted. GoodDay 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting Vice President ?

message: Hello, all. 
I read with some interest the details of this article. I have read a lot about Nixon/Watergate/Ford/Albert and done several papers for which research was required about that topic and I have never seen Speaker Albert described or referred to as "Acting Vice President."
There is absolutely NO mention of an "Acting Vice President" in the Constitution of the United States or in the U.S. Code.  
Quite simply:  someone has just made this up. Given its complete lack of sources for ANY of its claims and the recognition that no historical organization has ever recognized its claims to be true, the article all but admits that someone just made this up. 
Wikipedia has requirements to source information for a reason.  I do not believe this article should be on here since it cannot be sourced. (And for the additional reason that <S>I think
 someone just made this up.) JasonCNJ 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to nominate this article for deletion, but the AFD instructions are too complicated for me. Maybe we should get an Administrator to put up the nomination. GoodDay 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated the article for deletion. Please make your comments known on the appropriate page. JasonCNJ 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone just made this up 

message: I can't believe that this article hasn't been deleted!  The only source that makes reference to this supposed title states that IT uses material from Wikipedia!  Someone is laughing at us right now because he has fabricated this whole thing and dressed it up real pretty like a real article.  This needs to be deleted!  Unschool 19:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So first we're told that, effectively, there could be no Acting VP after the 1886 succession act, but then we're told that Eastland had the job twice in the 1970s.  This article is a pile of hooey. Unschool 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "acting Vice President" was used in the media, including the Congressional Globe prior to the change in law in 1886.Ericl (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a CON job! 

message: I believe that the above author is missing the point a bit, and that may be the real flaw of this article, as what I believe we are discussing is really a concept of political science concerning the vagaries of presidential succession prior to the 25th Amendment. Perhaps that would be a better starting point to begin the discussion of the subject. But I do have some interesting evidence I ran into yesterday that adds a little more fuel to the fire:
Though this doesn not confirm an official usage of the title "Acting Vice President", it is evidence of a government official mistakenly identifying a President of the Senate pro Tempore as simply, "Vice President."  I had the opportunity to read through the "Special Order's" Log for the United States Military Academy at West Point for the year 1865 and came upon the following passge which caused me to run into this Wikipedia page and associated discussion: 
Special Orders No. 136, dated October 6, 1865 state, "In honor of the arrival at this Post of Hon. Lafayette S. Foster Vice President of the United States, a salute of Seventeen (17) guns will be fired... at 4.10 P.M, the Academic & Military Staff will assemble at the quarters of the Superintendent, to pay their respects to the Vie President, at 4.30 P.M., the Corps of Cadets will be reviews by him on the general parade ground..."
Lafayette Sabine Foster was of course not Vice Presdient, but as Presdident pro Tempore of the Senate, he assumed the role of President of the Senate when Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency following Lincoln's assassination. Obviously the United States Military Academy was mistaken, but it is also quite suggestive there was some popular assumption that the President pro tempore became Vice President as he was next in line in the order of succession.
I believe (and yes this is personal conjecture not based on specific research, but I do have some professional training in history) that what we are dealing with is the popular presumption of the time. Since the Vice President did little but preside over the Senate and act as a functionary until F.D.R. allowed John Nance Garner to sit in cabinet meetings, it could be easily assumed that the President pro tempore was serving in the Vice President's capacity and was thus a de facto Vice President.  I believe John Adams had some choice things to say about the office. 
In conclusion, I think that i would be plain silly and misguided to delete this article as it raises issues of interest to historians and political scientists. Basically what needs to be done here is to frame the concept a bit differently. Perhaps placing the term in quotes, or something to that effect would be more acceptable. (e.g. "Acting" Vice President.) Pklarnet 03:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary Evidence 

message: This article says that James Eastland was the last person who could have been considered Acting VP, yet the table shows that there could have been no such office after the 19th century.  I plan to delete the contradictory material if nothing is done about it over the next couple of weeks. Unschool 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I suppose, technically, it proves nothing, but I find it interesting that we're all debating this article and its creator has never even defended it.  Indeed, the creator of this article, User:Soxfan728, has had exactly one edit on Wikipedia—the creation of this article. 
Please, please, somebody nominate it for deletion. It will be one year old on the 30th of this month.  Let's get rid of it. Unschool 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having previously nominated it, I do not feel it proper to do so again. Unschool, I would encourage you to explore the WP:AFD articles, follow the steps, and submit it for AfD. Be bold. JasonCNJ 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I will do so, but don't have time now.  Perhaps next weekend. In the meantime, I've trimmed more fiction from it. Unschool 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The subject of this articel does not exist, no publication of any legitimacy (Scholarly, historical, governmental, etc) has ever addressed it or compiled the list on the page. The author is also an absentee, this articel being the sole contribution of any sort (Unless previous contributions have also been deleted).
68.39.174.238 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article creator 

message: Here's my attempt at an AfD summary:
:The subject of this articel does not exist, no publication of any legitimacy (Scholarly, historical, governmental, etc) has ever addressed it or compiled the list on the page. The author is also an absentee, this articel being the sole contribution of any sort (Unless previous contributions have also been deleted).
68.39.174.238 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone else wants it