James M. Ronan - Living Dangerously: The Uncertainties of Presidential Disability and Succession

Living Dangerously

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham Boulder New York London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-1-4985-1471-2 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-1-4985-1472-9 (electronic)

TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

To my grandparents, Peg and Bill
My parents, Mary Ann and Mike
My wife, Mary
And my daughter, Emily

History has a way of repeating itself, and this is never more evident than when it comes to the issue of presidential disability and succession. Imagine the president of the United States is shot by a deranged gunman just a few miles from the White House. Although the president survives the attack, he is seriously wounded and requires immediate medical care. Although no one is quite sure how bad the injuries are, it quickly becomes clear the president is unable to discharge the duties of his office. Since this news would obviously cause panic, the decision is made to conceal the presidents true condition.

This strategy necessitates that misleading information be disseminated to the American people at a time when their president is critically ill. At this point, the role of president is being performed by a team of advisors and Cabinet officials, none of whom were elected to their positions. This scenario occurred following the shooting of President James A. Garfield in 1881. However, it also occurred following the shooting of President Ronald Reagan, a century later.

The Framers did a remarkable job of drafting a broadly worded document that allows for interpretation in several areas. The benefit of this feature is that it enables the Constitution to endure, despite unimaginable changes in society. The downside is that it presents an opportunity for confusion in a time of crisis.

The most infamous example of constitutional confusion occurred following the Election of 1800. The lack of guidance concerning the Electoral College selection of a president and vice president threatened a nation still in its infancy, and was remedied by the creation of the Twelfth Amendment four years later. While Congress should be praised for responding to a national crisis, a reactive strategy to constitutional uncertainties is inherently flawed. The enormous danger of this strategy was never more obvious than when it came to the issue of presidential disability and succession.

The issue was considered by the Framers in the form of a question raised by John Dickinson of Delaware at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Unfortunately, an answer would not be provided during Dickinsons lifetime, or for another two centuries. During this time period, the nation repeatedly came within a single heartbeat of disaster. Along with providing a fascinating series of what if questions, a larger, more profound mystery emerges: why did no one act? The answer to this question is a combination of fear, uncertainty and, most prominently, politics.

The first two components of the answer are not surprising given the gravity of the issue. When dealing with the removal of the elected president from office, careful deliberation is certainly a beneficial attribute. Unfortunately, political concerns repeatedly dominated the thinking of members of both the executive and legislative branches, often placing the nation in great danger. What makes this trend so alarming is that the impact is still being felt in 2015.

Although these decisions can be characterized as political in nature, they were also very personal. The desire to portray the commander-in-chief as healthy, vigorous, and fully in command is not a recent phenomenon; in fact, it began with our nations first president. And as a study of subsequent office holders will clearly show, the desire to control public opinion was the impetus in how the presidents health was conveyed, or more accurately, hidden, from the nation.

These repeated instances of concealing the presidents health are not merely historical tales. They also hindered efforts to address the situation prior to it endangering the nation. For example, had there been full disclosure in the cases of George Washington and James Madison, it is likely action would have occurred much sooner. Additionally, if the true health of Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt been widely known in the 1950s, guidelines may have already been in place when the problem again arose during the Eisenhower administration. This strategy of hiding the presidents health did more than simply deceive the public, it endangered the nation.

Despite the culpability of numerous presidents and their advisors, the blame for ignoring the problem cannot be placed solely on the executive branch. The Constitution charges the legislative branch with remedying the disability and succession problem. However, in spite of repeated brushes with disaster, Congress failed to take substantial action on several occasions. And when they did act, the results left a great deal to be desired.

In all, Congress passed three Presidential Succession Acts. The first act in 1792 established a line of succession, but was heavily influenced by political concerns and ignored the issue of disability altogether. The second act in 1886 created a logical succession line, but again ignored the disability issue. Unfortunately, the last Succession Act in 1947 not only ignored the disability issue, it reverted to a succession line for which logic is sorely lacking. This succession line is still in place as of this writing.

Occasionally, members of both Houses attempted to draw attention to the issue, only to see their concerns pushed aside in favor of what was deemed more important business. Ultimately, it would take the passage of 174 years before Congress approved legislation that addressed all the components of the disability and succession problem. This legislation would ultimately become the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Without question, the drafters of this amendment deserve enormous praise. Their work ensured that by February 1967, guidelines were in place to deal with both a disabled president who acknowledged an ailment, as well as one who refused to admit to any illness. And while the ill-conceived line of succession remained, supporters argued that the provision allowing for the replacement of a vice president rendered such a concern moot. But while this may seem to be the end of a prolonged saga, it was in fact merely the beginning of another chapter, one in which politics would play an even larger role.

The first evidence of political influence occurred with the selections of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller as vice president under Section 2 of the amendment. While it was assumed partisan considerations would play a role in the process, the evidence clearly shows political concerns dictated the selections of each man. And while the argument can be made that the backdrop of Watergate makes these cases unique, I intend to show how they are actually harbingers for the future.