A series of published articles discussing issues regarding postal service reform, including a discussion of the distressed global postal services industry, required regulatory reform and pitfalls associated with poorly or improperly defined national postal service reform business models. In summary, a national postal service provider with USO (i.e., Universal Service Obligation—pickup and delivery at every physical address daily) is a viable business, but such providers must properly identify their primary market (which is not the communications market), as well as what products and services they must focus on providing if they are to remain relevant in the future, and finally, modernization efforts cannot primarily focused on automation, cost cutting and consolidation if they are to remain competitive and pertinent as postal markets continue to open up to greater competition.
Presidential succession has truly not been tested because succession to date has been restricted to filling the office of the President of the United States with the constitutionally mandated occupant of the office of Vice President, and the office of Vice President has never been vacant such that succession required invoking the Presidential Succession Act (3 U.S.C. §19). Serious problems exist in the succession process if succession is actually required while the offices of the President and Vice President are vacant. And although many of the more obvious issues are well-documented, there exists many more. When, not if, presidential succession requires invoking the Presidential Succession Act, legal challenges are assured, which under the circumstances, can only result in chaos and instability at a time when certainty and stability are required. The articles presented in the US Presidential Succession Portal discuss various quagmires in the process, that is, quagmires that have never previously been identified, along with proofs, as well as solutions, to avoid constitutional challenges when the succession statute is finally invoked. The article's authors are leading authorities on presidential succession, presidential powers and constitutional law, and given many of the issues have never been previously identified, the articles are presented using non-legalise terminology so the material is easier to comprehend and understand.
The Senate and the Executive branch harbor differing interpretations regarding the Article II, Section 2 Officer Assignment process as defined in the U.S. Constitution. The issues raised as a result of the differing interpretations requires an unbiased analysis of all applicable sections of the Constitution that involve Officer assignments, as well as Senate sessions, adjournments and recesses. Analysis must resolve the differing interpretations, which include when is the Senate in recess, does the timing of the originating vacancy determine which Section 2 Officer assignment process is applicable, who determines (and who can merely ascertain) the Senate's session status, can the Senate create procedural rules to circumvent the constitutionally mandated legislative adjournment process, and are there inter-session and intra-session recesses, and if so, does the so-called Recess Appointments Clause apply to both equally? A expert regarding the Constitution with respect to presidential powers, presidential succession, and Section 2 Officer Assignment Processes (Appointments and Recess Appointments Clauses) performed the analysis back in mid 2010, with the resulting analysis circulated in late 2010. Lawsuits based upon the subject matter were filed in the following year after the analysis was circulated (2011), with the U.S. Supreme Court accepting a case on the subject matter in 2012.