It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: U.S. Senate Changes Line of Succession

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The U.S Senate has passed a bill that would alter the chain of succession if President Bush would be incapacitated. The move put the Secretary for Homeland Security in the eighth spot from its current position as the last. The bill would also have to pass in the House and be signed by President Bush before it became law.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The Senate approved a bill Tuesday to raise the homeland security secretary from last to eighth place in the presidential line of succession, just after the attorney general.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, passed without objection just before the chamber adjourned. The companion House bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., is pending before the Judiciary and Government Reform committees.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Kind of scary when you start getting to the bottom of the order. For those who do not know the order is, VP, House Speaker, Senate Pro Tem, Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, the Attorney General, with this bill Homeland Security, Interior, and Agriculture. Last on the chain is the Veterans Affair Secretary. As a practical matter during the state of the union one member of the line of succession is not there in the event of an attack.




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
While this sounds relatively minor in the scheme of probabilities, we can be very thankful that in the 21st century such machinery does not need to depend on the US Constitution or the voice of the people at Elections.

Instead this streamlined approach of having a stacked House to pass all things into law that must be passed into law (pesky though that is) and Presidential Executive Orders for everything that needs to be swept under the carpet, is a far more cost effective form of government administration!

In Bush We Trust.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Seems kind of strange to make the Dept. of Security head 8th in line. Seems like he should be ahead of the Attorney General.

Then again, if its gotten to that point, the Security Secretary is, by definition, inpet no?



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
MA, the line of succsession has been around for quite abit of time. If the Dems controlled the house they would be third in line. Nancy Polosy 9sp?) if I am not mistaken.

However as always I am impressed as ever in your ability to turn anything and everything into an anti Bush rant.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Yeah this is stupid... If all of these people die in a terrorist attack, then the Homeland Security Sec. should NOT become president.

Its like giving someone a promotion for complete and utter FAILURE of their responsibilities.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I'd ask why this needed to be brought up and changed?

Some one obviously thought that it was important that the head of the Dep. Homeland Security be bumped up in the sucession line. Why?

Is there really any chance of 7 incapacitations of the office of President? Should we be worried that this is even being considered? Im all for prudent measures but this should be such an insignificance as to not even be raised. Isnt there more important bills to be considered than this?

Im currently reading Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, is that what the government fears? An attack like what occurs in that book?



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Subz,
I am reading Tom Clancy but have not gotten past Cardnial of the Kremlen. But I do think this is an importand thing to consider. These troubled times that we live in much of our Gov could be wiped out quickly and with out warning. I am not saying there are other more importand things to for our law makers to be working on. But also looking at who has been in 3rd place for comander and chief in the past, can make some one wonder what would happen if the unthinkable did happen. I rather think think seceter of home land security should have a higher ranking then #8.

If it means anything I do think Regan had a better plan in place in the event of an attack.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Red Golem, thats a good book. Ive read his books out of sequence but I've read a good half dozen or so of them already.

With regards to the order of succession, the head of the Dept. of Homeland security comes after an unelected appointee - the Attorney General. If the head of the Dept. of Homeland security was important enough then you'd think they'd get the gig before a political appointee.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   


Some one obviously thought that it was important that the head of the Dep. Homeland Security be bumped up in the sucession line. Why?

It was probably moved up because it is a new position in the government.

When the office was created it was put in the last position in succession. The new bill moves it up the list.

[edit on 27/7/05 by Skibum]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Im currently reading Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, is that what the government fears? An attack like what occurs in that book?



State of the union. During the cold war forces were kept on alert. THe Lookglass plane was up of cource as it was during those times, but one cabinet level member would be out similar to what they did with Cheney post 911.

A limited nuclear strike say with China, could take out a sign part of our leadership so the chain has to be something to have set up.

So the question is what happens if they go all the way down and get even the VA affairs person? Or the last person left alive cannot serve (Has to be born here, a fact noted in the story one Secretary cannot serve)? Then what?

My quess is that the States assume full and total controll of thier borders untill such time that a Federal government can be put in place.

My question is this: WHo then runs the military?



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
My quess is that the States assume full and total controll of thier borders untill such time that a Federal government can be put in place.

My question is this: WHo then runs the military?


The military runs the military, as the military should. Why is it that W has proven to be all the worst aspects of recent presidents?

Jimmy sent Delta in, nobbled them with ROE and then lost the presidency because of it.

Ronnie did the same in Beirut, kept the Presidency, went into Grenada and set up Noriega for a fall.

HW went in to Kuwait and let the military do exactly as it wished. Successful mission.

Bill went into Somalia and came running back out. Refused t touch Rwanda.

Thinking he was HW, W went into Afghanistan a month too late, but won anyway and then, again thinking he was HW, went into Iraq.

Unlike HW, W, who has no time in federal uniform or combat, keeps telling the military what to do. Say, who does that General Colin Powell think he is, telling me an invasion is a bad idea?

In general (I say again In general) Democrat Presidents have interfered with military ops and Republicans have not, simply given an objective and said "go get 'em". Why is W the first president not to be afraid of the political cost of body bags, but also interfering with the military's mission?

Civilians are for oversight, not operational orders and planning.

I would personally suggest that the Secretary of the Interior should be higher than either the Attorney General OR the Secretary for Homeland Security. But I assume that's because Interior in the US has a different job description to other places.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Subz,
yes I do feel the the Dept of Home land security should be higher on the list. As to why it is stopping at 8th place I dont know. Perhaps because it is still a new appointment. I supose time will tell if the order of succession is any where close to correct.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I'll agree that its important to have a clear line of succession. Heck, the further down the list you go, the more important it is really. If there was such a huge attack that the post master general was the highest ranking executive officer, then ya can't be standing aroudn trying to figure out who should be in charge right? I mean, a devastating attack like that, the simple pressence of an agreed upon leader is more important than who he is (obviously not in an extreme case tho). And the President is going to allways be up for re-election within a max of 4 years anyway.

Recall that when Regan was shot and out for a short while one of his staffers was claiming to be in charge, and there was confusion as to what was meant by that, etc etc. That confusion would be devastating if ther was a super emergency.

So in an emergency, remember,

All hail president postman!



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Something else to note.
When Reagan was shot, there was an unusually large number of Soviat Submarines massing off the east coast. At the time the idea was discused that the attempt on Reagans life was the first part of a Soviat attack on the US.
If the US was to be attacked, that chain of events might have some merrit.

Just something else to think about.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

When Reagan was shot, there was an unusually large number of Soviat Submarines massing off the east coast.


Do you have anything to back that up? I doubt there were many more than there are RIGHT NOW (they're called "Russian" these days
).



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I'd ask why this needed to be brought up and changed?

?Because the new Dept. had to be given a place in the 'pecking order'

Some one obviously thought that it was important that the head of the Dep. Homeland Security be bumped up in the sucession line. Why?

Repeat the answer from above,also Heirarchy & status considerations

Is there really any chance of 7 incapacitations of the office of President? Should we be worried that this is even being considered? Im all for prudent measures but this should be such an insignificance as to not even be raised. Isnt there more important bills to be considered than this?

The micromanagement of every eventuality must be written into law...
or else the motto that 'we are a nation of laws' loses meaning.

?more Important? than the 'attention-to-detail' and the 'cradle-to-grave' management of every aspect of living...
as the Elitists and their Machinery (our lawmakers) create the inexcapable web of control.

The process of finding gaps, excapes, loopholes, in the program of control-
brings fame, fortune, and favor (at least temporarily) to the 'NWO' wonks.
The process of finding also creates the need for remedies, and greater numbers of specialized personnel and agencies to correct the deficiencies...
Think in terms of 'BORG'= the 'NWO-Illuminati' = neocon Administration


Im currently reading Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, is that what the government fears? An attack like what occurs in that book?


i.e. the Beast lives, and is multiplying itself to the point of needing every resource on earth and this solar system to sustain itself. Look past the specific tree, in this case the DHS position in the line-of-succession, and
see the forest, eh
sorry, about the bleed-over, in the content...........ciao



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2

When Reagan was shot, there was an unusually large number of Soviat Submarines massing off the east coast.


Do you have anything to back that up? I doubt there were many more than there are RIGHT NOW (they're called "Russian" these days
).


They might be Russian these days but they were Sovs then, and there were truckloads more of them then.

But were they actually massing, or was this part of the Pentagon exercise that was being run and unfortunately adding to the confusion that day?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2

When Reagan was shot, there was an unusually large number of Soviat Submarines massing off the east coast.


Do you have anything to back that up? I doubt there were many more than there are RIGHT NOW (they're called "Russian" these days
).


Fry,
That was something that I heard on a news documentry about that chain of events that happened that day. All I can say is it was on a major network. I am sory but I dont have anything in writing to back that up.

I just do rember that day because our teacher steped out of class then steped back in to tell us what had happened.







 
1

log in

join