articles.nestvedllc.com/
Note:
The content, excluding modified abstracts, has been temporarily removed from the HTML and PDF documents.
![[image] Bald Eagle/American Flag](../images/graphic_indexpg_ps.jpg)
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 occupant of the Office of the Vice President of the United States, and the Office of the Vice President has never been vacant such that presidential 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 the Vice President are vacant. And, although the more obvious issues are documented, there exists many more, and even some of the documented issues remain unnecessarily disputed and unresolved. When, not if, presidential succession requires invoking the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, legal challenges are assured, which can only result in chaos and instability at a time when certainty and stability are required.
The essays presented below definitively prove, per the Constitution of the United States, who is and is not an Officer of the United States, which Officers are eligible for presidential succession per the Constitution's Succession Clause, the constitutionality of the inclusion of the titles of Members of Congress in the list of potential successors in 3 U.S.C. §19 and the constitutionality of the inclusion of the Officer Succession Impeachment Clause in 3 U.S.C. §19.
Additionally, the essays in this Portal discuss various constitutional issues associated with the overall presidential succession process, some issues of which have never been previously identified or disclosed, with the goal of providing definitive proofs to resolve such constitutional issues. We have the ability to avoid needless chaos in instances of presidential succession, but only if we select true leaders and decision makers that act on behalf of all Americans in an effort to resolve problems instead of waiting for the problems to occur before they are addressed. Waiting to act until after an otherwise avoidable disaster is not an example of leadership, but it does reek of apathy, incompetence, ineptitude and idiocy.
Originally distributed for publication [date redacted], the essay [Title Redacted] was revised in 2012 to form two distinct essays (Presidential Succession Statute–Constitutional and Unconstitutional and Presidential Succession–Entitled Successors), with links to both essays provided below.
In 1947, the Eightieth Congress modified the prior Presidential Succession Act and inserted the title of two Members of Congress into its succession list. That action raised the question of whether or not the statute itself, 3 U.S.C. §19, is constitutional.
The essay Presidential Succession Statute–Constitutional and Unconstitutional examines presidential succession applicable sections of the Constitution of the United States, as well as 3 U.S.C. §19 (i.e., the Presidential Succession Act of 1947), and presents a set of premises derived from the applicable sections of the Constitution to formulate definitive proofs on the constitutionality of the inclusion of the two Members of Congress—the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate—in the list of presidential successors, as well as the constitutionality of the remaining clauses in the statute itself.
Continuing, the essay Presidential Succession–Entitled Successors examines presidential successors by analyzing applicable sections of the Constitution of the United States (via SSIRR morphology) and definitively proves who are and are not entitled presidential successors per the Constitution of the United States.
† Original essay was [Title Redacted], [Date Redacted]
‡ Revised essay: included typographical corrections
Abstract: Analysis of U.S. presidential succession is not a new topic, with prior authors having uncovered a number of deficiencies, issues and constitutional questions, quagmires if you will; however, the number of quagmires is substantially larger than what has been presented to date. Most of the existing unconstitutional analysis is focused on whether the Presidential Succession Statute (i.e., 3 U.S.C. §19, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947) is constitutional or not due to the inclusion of the titles of two Members of Congress in the list of presidential successors, namely the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate. The essay presents the previously unauthored quagmires and concludes with a strategy designed to resolve the quagmires by presenting irresistible incentives for the States to act, incentives that would ultimately result in negative consequences for Congress, thus encouraging Congress to act first.
‡‡ This essay was never finalized or submitted for publication because there appears to be no interest in solving even the known issues. Instead, our so-called leaders and decision makers, both political and business, are generally more interested in maintaining the status quo. When a known problem reaches a critical point, only then do our so-called leaders, and many of us, consider acting. Is that the leadership style we desire as a Nation? It certainly appears to be the leadership style we accept until we suffer consequences and then demand to know why our leaders and decision makers did not act beforehand, an irony that is both cyclical and illogical.
![[image] logo](../images/weblogo_nllc_articles.gif)