(ReacTor) Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession

[James Nicoll]

Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession

The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.

https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

[Paul S Person]

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?

As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.

Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

The name escapes me at the moment but a very good story of an
America and Earth under attack by the cosmos with a big meteoric storm.
It wiped out Washington DC and most of the Elected Federal officials.
However one lowly department heat is trying to help Mexico with its
problems and he survives. Returning to the USA via torturous routes as
Mexico in in bad shape from tsunamis he is kidnapped and held briefly
by the Government of Texas which of course is very wealth people.
He escapes with the help of African-American and eventually assumes
the office of president and helps to suppress the Neo-Confederacy and
and reunites the nation. There is more than one volume and lots of
action heroes, male and female. To the Best of My poor Recollection.
If anyone recognizes this story feel free to chime in.

bliss

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-
line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

Dug it out of the Internet:
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28015837-into-the-guns>
America Rising #1 Into the Guns
and Seek and Destroy (America Rising, #2)

William C. Dietz

    The name escapes me at the moment but a very good story of an
America and Earth under attack by the cosmos with a big meteoric storm.
It wiped out Washington DC and most of the Elected Federal officials.
However one lowly department heat is trying to help Mexico with its
problems and he survives. Returning to the USA via torturous routes as
Mexico in in bad shape from tsunamis he is kidnapped and held briefly
by the Government of Texas which of  course is very wealth people.
He escapes with the help of African-American and eventually assumes
the office of president and helps to suppress the Neo-Confederacy and
and reunites the nation.  There is more than one volume and lots of
action heroes, male and female. To the Best of My poor Recollection.
If anyone recognizes this story feel free to chime in.

bliss - dogged about SF.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.

Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.

Here's the timeline:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-election-day/

The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

This discussion is about the result of total decapitation of the Feds.

No President. No VP. No Senators (so no President Pro-Tempore). No
Representatives (and so no Speaker). No Cabinet. No Supreme Court.

The question is not "how does it happen normally", the question is
"what happens when it's all gone?".

Please try and get with the program.

Wild speculations are definitely in order.

Mine is that the senior serviving military officer will take control.
The Governors/States will appoint/elect (depending on State law)
replacement Senators and Representatives.
Whichever House gets organized first and elects a person to an office
in the line of succession will, in fact, be electing a President (OK,
someone who acts as President, perhaps). The military is now under
civilian control again.

The President then appoints other people, and the Senate confirms
them. Things are restored.

During all this, of course, the areas affected by whatever disaster
caused the decapitation are being evacuated/rehoused/whatever is
appropriate depending on the situation and the level of radiation.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

But that's just my wild speculation. What would really happen would be
anybody's guess.

[William Hyde]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

William Hyde

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place. ;)

If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.

That was a plot point in _Debt of Honor_, where the attack was timed
such that the vast majority of elected officials in the line of
succession were at the Capitol.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.

That was a plot point in _Debt of Honor_, where the attack was timed
such that the vast majority of elected officials in the line of
succession were at the Capitol.

I read that a long time ago, but that doesn't mean it's attack wasn't
at the back of my mind somewhere when I thought of mine.

[William Hyde]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.


When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

William Hyde

[Chris Buckley]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades, but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland just as
the part of DC across the river was made part of Virginia in the
nineteenth century.

The local Democratic leaders are continuing their distaste for
allowing voters to have more say in government this year. There's a
referendum on the ballot to allow independents to vote in the primary
of their choice. All the Democratic political leaders are lobbying
hard against the referendum; DC is so strongly Democratic that the
primary is the only time voters have any input and the leaders like it
that way.

Chris

[William Hyde]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.



but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.




William Hyde

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by William Hyde
It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

The plans they have been promoting basically give residents the opportunity to
vote as part of adjacent states, meaning that their votes will make far
less difference than if they were able to vote a restricted representative
to congress themselves. Which is why nobody in DC, no matter what party,
likes that program, even though it's better than nothing.
--scott

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

The plans they have been promoting basically give residents the opportunity to
vote as part of adjacent states, meaning that their votes will make far
less difference than if they were able to vote a restricted representative
to congress themselves. Which is why nobody in DC, no matter what party,
likes that program, even though it's better than nothing.
--scott

DC will basically get its own Representative if it joins Maryland, but
you're right they would share Senators with the rest of Maryland.

But I see no evidence for your claim that Republicans would not like
that program; I would guess overall they would support it (but no
factual evidence to support my case either.) They would get to vote,
and the possibility that DC would become a state with 2 Democratic
senators would be gone.

Chris

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

The plans they have been promoting basically give residents the opportunity to
vote as part of adjacent states, meaning that their votes will make far
less difference than if they were able to vote a restricted representative
to congress themselves. Which is why nobody in DC, no matter what party,
likes that program, even though it's better than nothing.
--scott

DC will basically get its own Representative if it joins Maryland, but
you're right they would share Senators with the rest of Maryland.
But I see no evidence for your claim that Republicans would not like
that program; I would guess overall they would support it (but no
factual evidence to support my case either.) They would get to vote,
and the possibility that DC would become a state with 2 Democratic
senators would be gone.

Just throwing in the fact that Wyoming has fewer people than DC,
but does get two Senators and a Comgresswoman.

pt

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

The plans they have been promoting basically give residents the

opportunity to

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Dorsey
vote as part of adjacent states, meaning that their votes will make far
less difference than if they were able to vote a restricted representative
to congress themselves. Which is why nobody in DC, no matter what party,
likes that program, even though it's better than nothing.
--scott

DC will basically get its own Representative if it joins Maryland, but
you're right they would share Senators with the rest of Maryland.
But I see no evidence for your claim that Republicans would not like
that program; I would guess overall they would support it (but no
factual evidence to support my case either.) They would get to vote,
and the possibility that DC would become a state with 2 Democratic
senators would be gone.

Just throwing in the fact that Wyoming has fewer people than DC,
but does get two Senators and a Comgresswoman.
pt

I believe minimum State population would be 6:

1 governor
1 state rep (unicameral is fine)
1 state judge
2 federal senators
1 federal congresscritter

[Chris Buckley]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic; Maryland is the
3rd most Democratic state (more than California, less than
Massachusetts and Vermont). If the Democrats want it to happen, it
will. Can you name a single recent Democratic leader in either DC
or Maryland who says they want to work towards having DC vote with
Maryland?

Second, it's the leaders (and residents) of DC who strongly do not
want to vote with Maryland. They like the current situation much better
than having DC as part of Maryland. They have an absentee landlord who
occasionally makes ridiculous demands, but for the most part leaves them
alone. The leaders would hate to have to give up power to Maryland.

The fact that DC residents don't want to vote with Maryland is indeed
a major obstacle. But that is their right. Yes, they would like to
have their current situation PLUS the right to Congressional votes
(note that they get to vote for president) and power, but they value
the current situation much more than voting.

Chris

[William Hyde]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

Reality.

Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.

Post by Chris Buckley
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

Quite irrelevant. The voters of Maryland do not want to share their
senators with the people of DC.

If we come to the point where Maryland accepts the deal, but DC does
not, then there's an end of it as far as I am concerned. But as the
people of DC have been without legislative representation for over 200
years, I don't think they should be required to wait until MD changes
it's mind.

There's no reason DC has to be a state. It's just that making it a
state or joining it with MD would not require a constitutional amendment.

But it would be easy to formulate, if not pass, another solution. The
district will have voting house members in proportion to its population
(one at the moment and probably forever) and one senator.

Nothing would change in the US except that the people of DC would have
some voting power, albeit less than the people of Vermont or Wyoming,
both with smaller populations. But then the senate is inherently
undemocratic anyway. Not nearly as undemocratic as ours, but
undemocratic all the same.

William Hyde

[Chris Buckley]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.

Please give your citations. Surely if this is the major obstacle in the
way of DC getting the vote then it's been extensively studied with the
goal of making an effort to change public opinion.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

Quite irrelevant.

The issue is an intensely political issue. There is almost universal
agreement that DC residents should have voting rights in Congress, but
there is political disagreement on the mechanism. A constitutional
amendment giving them voting rights was approved by Congress in the
1970s, but was only ratified by 16 states and thus failed.

The proposal that DC residents vote with Maryland is one of the only
proposals that probably doesn't require a constitutional amendment
(Retrocession of the land is possibly another). For the first years
after DC was established, DC residents did vote with Maryland (and
Virginia back then), but then Congress passed a law against that in
1800. Congress should be able to undo that law, and Republicans have
proposed bills doing so (eg bill HR3709 introduced in 2004, 2005,
2007, 2009, 2011,2013; dying in committee), but Democrats have been
firmly against it. The Democrats won't accept any solution that
doesn't give them 2 additional (Democratic) Senators. Voting
representation is not the issue.

Post by William Hyde
The voters of Maryland do not want to share their
senators with the people of DC.

Give your citations. The people of Maryland have not been asked about
sharing Senators as far as I know for hundreds of years (they might
have been in 1800). And they don't have a direct say in any case,
using historical precedent (Virginia). Even giving back DC to Maryland
doesn't require the Maryland population to approve, just the Maryland
legislature and, of course, the DC population.

Post by William Hyde
If we come to the point where Maryland accepts the deal, but DC does
not, then there's an end of it as far as I am concerned. But as the
people of DC have been without legislative representation for over 200
years, I don't think they should be required to wait until MD changes
it's mind.

I've lived in a DC suburb for 28 years now, you are literally the first
person I have ever heard saying that Maryland approval is the obstacle.
DC residents do NOT want to vote with Maryland.

Post by William Hyde
There's no reason DC has to be a state. It's just that making it a
state or joining it with MD would not require a constitutional amendment.

Making it a state almost certainly requires a constitutional amendment.
That was the entire purpose of Maryland and Virginia giving up land to DC!
Congress has exclusive legislative power over that land (Constitution)

Post by William Hyde
But it would be easy to formulate, if not pass, another solution. The
district will have voting house members in proportion to its population
(one at the moment and probably forever) and one senator.

Again, requires an amendment. Why would this succeed when the last
amendment failed?

Post by William Hyde
Nothing would change in the US except that the people of DC would have
some voting power, albeit less than the people of Vermont or Wyoming,
both with smaller populations. But then the senate is inherently
undemocratic anyway. Not nearly as undemocratic as ours, but
undemocratic all the same.

Checks and balances.

Once again: Republicans keep offering a path for voting representation
(giving more power to Democrats in the House) and Democrats are saying
no, and are in control of DC and Maryland. The Democrats are going
after even more political power at the expense of voting
representation.

Chris

[William Hyde]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.

Please give your citations.

From the Washington Post, in 2019:

"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."

Other polls can be found supporting this. It's not hard to find.

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

Quite irrelevant.

The issue is an intensely political issue.

If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?

To make my position clear:

Reunion with Maryland would be fair. Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done. They can justly claim equal status with other
cities of the same size, but not special status. However, better
special status than continued disenfranchisement.

But it cannot be done without the approval of Maryland, which we do not
have. And given the nature of senatorial representation, I can see why
they do not want to dilute their vote, even if the residents of DC are
fellow democrats, at least for now.

My proposal below, which I acknowledged would be difficult to pass, is
merely an example of what could be done without statehood, or reunion.
It is not and does not claim to be the best possible resolution.
Speaking as an outsider, I prefer it to statehood.

Actually, I should not be calling it "my" proposal, as I see I have been
anticipated by 220 years:

" In 1801, Augustus Woodward, writing under the name Epaminondas, wrote
a series of newspaper articles in the National Intelligencer proposing a
constitutional amendment that would read, "The Territory of Columbia
shall be entitled to one Senator in the Senate of the United States; and
to a number of members in the House of Representatives proportionate to
its population."

I think we can agree that since neither the current Democratic or
Republican parties existed in 1801, neither can be faulted for the
failure to act at that time.

I do wonder what he meant by that pen name. Epaminondas was the Theban
general who overthrew Spartan power. I don't see the analogy.


The people of Georgetown objected to their losing the franchise in 1800.
Two hundred and twenty years would seem like time enough to remedy
that complaint.


William Hyde

[Chris Buckley]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.

Please give your citations.

"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
Other polls can be found supporting this. It's not hard to find.

That seems like an insignificant barrier to overcome, given all the
publicity in the previous years was about alternatives (the DC statehood
referendum). It's pretty close but especially insignificant when
you consider the polls indicate only 20% support for retrocession
among DC residents. Maryland residents are almost twice as much in
favor of it as DC residents!

I don't understand why you consider Maryland resident support, who don't
get to vote on the issue, is more important than DC resident support, who
do get to vote on the issue.

And note that all of this is about Maryland actually re-annexing DC.
The much more likely proposal (and the one the Republicans keep
suggesting) is for DC residents to be able to vote as Maryland residents,
but otherwise remain separate.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

Quite irrelevant.

The issue is an intensely political issue.

If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?
Reunion with Maryland would be fair. Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done.

??? It can't be done without the citizens of DC approving (and can be
done without the citizens of Maryland approving). And DC citizens
apparently don't value voting rights enough to want it.

Post by William Hyde
They can justly claim equal status with other
cities of the same size, but not special status. However, better
special status than continued disenfranchisement.
But it cannot be done without the approval of Maryland, which we do not
have. And given the nature of senatorial representation, I can see why
they do not want to dilute their vote, even if the residents of DC are
fellow democrats, at least for now.

Again, it is DC that has primary approval power, and they don't want
it. Maryland approves it much more than DC.

Post by William Hyde
My proposal below, which I acknowledged would be difficult to pass, is
merely an example of what could be done without statehood, or reunion.
It is not and does not claim to be the best possible resolution.
Speaking as an outsider, I prefer it to statehood.
Actually, I should not be calling it "my" proposal, as I see I have been
a series of newspaper articles in the National Intelligencer proposing a
constitutional amendment that would read, "The Territory of Columbia
shall be entitled to one Senator in the Senate of the United States; and
to a number of members in the House of Representatives proportionate to
its population."
I think we can agree that since neither the current Democratic or
Republican parties existed in 1801, neither can be faulted for the
failure to act at that time.
I do wonder what he meant by that pen name. Epaminondas was the Theban
general who overthrew Spartan power. I don't see the analogy.
The people of Georgetown objected to their losing the franchise in 1800.
Two hundred and twenty years would seem like time enough to remedy
that complaint.

Yes, I agree. And the Republicans agree. They want to undo this simple
law (NOT constitutional amendment) that disenfranchised DC residents.
The Democrats disagree. They want something more than voting rights;
they want two more Senators and are willing to hold the voting rights
of DC hostage until they get it.

Chris

[William Hyde]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.

Please give your citations.

"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
Other polls can be found supporting this. It's not hard to find.

That seems like an insignificant barrier to overcome,

More polls asking different questions can be found. If you want to.


given all the

Post by Chris Buckley
publicity in the previous years was about alternatives (the DC statehood
referendum). It's pretty close but especially insignificant when
you consider the polls indicate only 20% support for retrocession
among DC residents. Maryland residents are almost twice as much in
favor of it as DC residents!
I don't understand why you consider Maryland resident support, who don't
get to vote on the issue, is more important than DC resident support, who
do get to vote on the issue.

Can Maryland be compelled to take DC back? I'd be very surprised if
that were so.

Can the federal government compel states to change their borders? How
interesting that would be.

Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Post by Chris Buckley
And note that all of this is about Maryland actually re-annexing DC.
The much more likely proposal (and the one the Republicans keep
suggesting) is for DC residents to be able to vote as Maryland residents,
but otherwise remain separate.

That would equally dilute their voting power.

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

Quite irrelevant.

The issue is an intensely political issue.

If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?
Reunion with Maryland would be fair. Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done.

??? It can't be done without the citizens of DC approving

As above, I'd be interested in the legal basis for this. They were not
asked to approve when the district was formed.

Article one, section eight, gives congress power over DC. Congress
regularly overturns laws passed by the city.

The voting rights act of 2007, which would have given some justice by
allowing DC (and Utah, just to keep the political balance) a seat in the
house did not pass a republican filibuster in the senate, gaining only
57 votes.

A similar bill in 2009 did pass the senate, but only with a republican
amendment requiring DC to abandon all gun-control legislation. It died
in the house.

I am not as sanguine about the republicans' good intentions as are you.



William Hyde

[Chris Buckley]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place.  ;)

As I understand it a number of people in Georgetown and other
settlements in what became DC were rather unhappy with their loss of
voting rights.
When I lived in DC someone published a few letters from the time as part
of the movement to enfranchise the residents of DC.

The issue in DC has not been about being able to vote for a long time.

It certainly was when I lived there.

Post by Chris Buckley
Republicans have been floating plans to enfranchise DC residents for
decades,

Only plans that will never come to fruition.
but the local Democrats have been saying "no, we don't want

Post by Chris Buckley
to vote that much." The Republican plans are to join DC and Maryland
in some form, perhaps making the remaining DC part of Maryland

Maryland doesn't want them. That's what makes the plan so perfect for
the Republicans. It won't happen but they can say that they are doing
something.

Baloney!

Reality.
Look it up. It's not popular in Maryland.

Please give your citations.

"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."
Other polls can be found supporting this. It's not hard to find.

That seems like an insignificant barrier to overcome,

More polls asking different questions can be found. If you want to.

Please give citations that actually support your case.

Post by William Hyde
given all the

Post by Chris Buckley
publicity in the previous years was about alternatives (the DC statehood
referendum). It's pretty close but especially insignificant when
you consider the polls indicate only 20% support for retrocession
among DC residents. Maryland residents are almost twice as much in
favor of it as DC residents!
I don't understand why you consider Maryland resident support, who don't
get to vote on the issue, is more important than DC resident support, who
do get to vote on the issue.

Can Maryland be compelled to take DC back? I'd be very surprised if
that were so.

The Maryland *legislature* gets to vote on DC; the *residents* don't.
The *DC residents* do get to vote.

Post by William Hyde
Can the federal government compel states to change their borders? How
interesting that would be.
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
And note that all of this is about Maryland actually re-annexing DC.
The much more likely proposal (and the one the Republicans keep
suggesting) is for DC residents to be able to vote as Maryland residents,
but otherwise remain separate.

That would equally dilute their voting power.

?? Equally with what? Whose voting power?

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
First, both DC and Maryland are heavily Democratic;

Quite irrelevant.

The issue is an intensely political issue.

If we can't rise above politics on an issue of fundamental rights, what
are we?
Reunion with Maryland would be fair. Whether or not the citizens of DC
want it, it can be done.

??? It can't be done without the citizens of DC approving

As above, I'd be interested in the legal basis for this. They were not
asked to approve when the district was formed.
Article one, section eight, gives congress power over DC. Congress
regularly overturns laws passed by the city.
The voting rights act of 2007, which would have given some justice by
allowing DC (and Utah, just to keep the political balance) a seat in the
house did not pass a republican filibuster in the senate, gaining only
57 votes.
A similar bill in 2009 did pass the senate, but only with a republican
amendment requiring DC to abandon all gun-control legislation. It died
in the house.

Those are pure political theater. Not-withstanding Holder's opinion
that the right to vote is so fundamental that it overrides the clear
text in the rest of the Constitution, it is clearly unconstitutional
and has been viewed so for hundreds of years. That's why things like
the 23rd Amendment giving DC the right to vote in presidential
elections had to be a full constitutional amendment, not just law.

Post by William Hyde
I am not as sanguine about the republicans' good intentions as are you.

Clearly the Republicans have the motive of denying the 2 Senators that
statehood would give DC. But that is a different issue than denying
voting rights. That DC should have voting rights has frequently been
part of the Republican platform, but they are firmly against DC statehood.

Almost everybody agrees with you that DC residents should have voting
rights. As I said originally, that is not the issue. The Democrats
have hijacked the issue; they have not been willing to discuss resolutions
that do not give them 2 Democratic Senators.

Chris

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.

As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
voted down becoming a state. Which makes me wonder what the real point
of that proposed "binding referendum" is.

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.

As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
voted down becoming a state.  Which makes me wonder what the real point
of that proposed "binding referendum" is.

I recall the same results but maybe the mood on PR has
changed and after disasters they might appreciate the increase
in Representation.

bliss

__
b l i s s dash s f 4 e v e r at d s l e x t r e m e dot c o m

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.

As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
voted down becoming a state.  Which makes me wonder what the real
point of that proposed "binding referendum" is.

    I recall the same results but maybe the mood on PR has
changed and after disasters they might appreciate the increase
 in Representation.

Or a President who does more than just toss around some paper towels?

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde
Do the voters of DC actually have any legal rights in this?

Yes, but exactly where and when the line is drawn hasn't been legally
tested. One of the only Constitutional requirements for a state to be
approved is that it has to be governed by the consent of its citizens
(republican form of government). In practice, this has meant voting
for becoming a state in those questionable cases. Examples include
1) the Virginia retrocession, which had to not only be approved by the
Virginia legislature but also the citizens of Virginia side DC (which at
the time meant white male residents since the major purpose of the Virginia
retrocession was to preserve slavery in that area),
2) The Puerto Rico statehood. US Congress is currently attempting to work
towards a "binding referendum" for Puerto Rico that has to be approved
before Congress will vote on statehood.

As I recall it is the residents of Puerto Rico that have, many times,
voted down becoming a state. Which makes me wonder what the real point
of that proposed "binding referendum" is.

To make it different from all the previous votes! Opinion is actually
pretty evenly split in Puerto Rico, and the pro-statehood faction has
won at least a couple of those votes, though with quibbles as to the
language and process used.

Chris

[William Hyde]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde
Can Maryland be compelled to take DC back? I'd be very surprised if
that were so.

The Maryland *legislature* gets to vote on DC; the *residents* don't.

So Maryland cannot be compelled to take DC back.

Post by Chris Buckley
The *DC residents* do get to vote.

Do you have any evidence that their vote is binding? The constitution
seems to be pretty clear that the federal government can do what it
wants with DC.

William Hyde

[Chris Buckley]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by William Hyde
Can Maryland be compelled to take DC back? I'd be very surprised if
that were so.

The Maryland *legislature* gets to vote on DC; the *residents* don't.

So Maryland cannot be compelled to take DC back.

William, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I've been
(at least in my mind) very precise about what I believe the requirements
are. I'll try again: DC can be joined to Maryland without the general
population of Maryland voting on the issue. DC cannot be joined to Maryland
without the general population of *DC* voting on the issue. What is it
you don't understand?

Post by William Hyde

Post by Chris Buckley
The *DC residents* do get to vote.

Do you have any evidence that their vote is binding? The constitution
seems to be pretty clear that the federal government can do what it
wants with DC.

What does "binding" mean here? I believe it is *necessary* for DC residents
to vote in favor of DC joining Maryland in order for it to happen.
Matters of statehood require consent. (Note: having DC vote with
Maryland does not constitutionally require DC to consent, though I'm
sure they would be given the option. Congress did not require
DC residents to vote when Congress disenfranchised them.)

And all this is quibbling about a possibility that nobody is working
towards. There is no movement to have DC join Maryland. It's currently
a false choice.

Nonetheless, Democrats seem to want to set the voting rights debate to
be that choice between DC joining Maryland or DC becoming a state
itself. The polls and DC referendum don't mention other
possibilities. The Washington Post poll you quoted had *9* questions
for Marylanders about DC voting rights and statehood. As expected, not
a single one mentioned the possibility of DC voting with Maryland, a
path that's been proposed in Congress for decades by Republicans.
Democrats seemingly don't want that option discussed.

The Democrats don't care about DC voting rights nearly as much as they
care about 2 more Senators.

Chris

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by William Hyde
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."

That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."

That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott

The proposal I remember seeing was reducing the District to the Mall and
the Federal Triangle (including all of the Congressional office
buildings, the Supreme Court building and, of course, the White House
which would be the only residence in the District). Everything else
would be in Maryland.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:43:42 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,â€? by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."

That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott

The proposal I remember seeing was reducing the District to the Mall and
the Federal Triangle (including all of the Congressional office
buildings, the Supreme Court building and, of course, the White House
which would be the only residence in the District). Everything else
would be in Maryland.

So only the President, the First Lady, and any of their offspring who
were old enough and still living with them would be unable to vote
(for a Senator or Representative [1]).

1. I tend to use "Congresscritter" for both species.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 16 Oct 2024 21:43:42 -0700, Robert Woodward

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,â€? by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."

That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.
--scott

The proposal I remember seeing was reducing the District to the Mall and
the Federal Triangle (including all of the Congressional office
buildings, the Supreme Court building and, of course, the White House
which would be the only residence in the District). Everything else
would be in Maryland.

So only the President, the First Lady, and any of their offspring who
were old enough and still living with them would be unable to vote
(for a Senator or Representative [1]).

To the best of my knowledge, recent (if not all) presidents (and family)
have kept their pre-election registration. Thus, Biden will be voting in
Delaware.

[William Hyde]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by William Hyde
"The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new
county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36
percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with
majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed."

That's a different plan: that is the complete return of DC to MD which
will involve now state control over DC. Nobody likes that plan, and it
is disliked for reasons that go far beyond voting.

When I lived in the area, it was common knowledge that Maryland didn't
want anything to do with DC.

But I don't trust old memories of that kind, so before engaging in this
discussion, I looked for more recent data. I've seen a number of
sources, and all indicate that the situation has not changed.

One republican source said that it "may change" as DC is more
prosperous than it was. That's the most positive comment I found.
I suppose that if some deal was profitable enough to MD, opinions might
well change.


Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the US constitution than I
have can answer two key questions:

(1) Can the federal government force MD to take DC back? If so, what
gives it that power? Can it change other state boundaries? I know some
people who would happily not be part of Texas.

(2) Do the residents of DC have a veto over such an action? If so, under
what law?

William Hyde

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.

Ah! The /The Postman/ scenario, so to speak.

But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession). And, in the resulting confusion, a few well-planned hits
would take out the stragglers.

Note that this leaves perhaps 48 States intact (Maryland and Virginia
-- northern Virgina, at least -- are toast). So other scenarios where
the governors get together (by phone/computer conference) and work out
what to do are possible. Some might result in two different groups
forming, leading to the "flyover States vs the Coasts" or similar
scenario.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person
But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession). And, in the resulting confusion, a few well-planned hits
would take out the stragglers.

Why has nobody mentioned Fred Pohl's _Starburst_ in this thread?
--scott

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.

But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession).

No, I didn't.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:17:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.

But you missed the Cabinet (the Secretaries are in the line of
succession).

No, I didn't.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 13:51:44 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:18:12 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-
presidential-line-of-succession/

I've occasionally wondered: in the event of a complete wipeout not
actually destroying the entire USA, so that most States could replace
their Senators and Representatives, would whichever of the Senate (by
electing a President Pro Tempore) or the House (by electing a
Speaker), depending on which is faster, actually be electing a
President of the USA?
As to maintaining order, I suspect the highest ranking military
officer would temporarily assume de facto control. As opposed to, say,
one of the Federal Attorneys scattered around the country. The
military does have one advantage: there is /always/ someone who
outranks everybody else, so "who takes charge?" is clear.
Once a President exists, of course, the rest of the gummint (with the
advice and consent of the Senate, of course) would follow, and the DoD
could be put back under civilian control.

IIRC, Congress is installed first, and they approve the
slate of electoral votes to declare the President. So Congress comes
first. That's what Trump was treasonously trying to disrupt on Jan 6.

Which is corrrect, but has nothing to do with my very wild
speculations.
Or are you contemplating an off-year/out of season Presidential
election before a new President can be installed?

No, the regular Congress.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2024-election-key-dates-beyond-
election-day/
The new Congress is sworn in Jan 3, and counts the electoral
votes Jan 6.

I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place. ;)
If you are going to take out every elected official at the Federal level
and all the SC Justices then you have to hit a LOT more places than just
DC. Someone from the Cabinet or Congress is ALWAYS away from DC.
Taking them all out would require basically glassing every major city in
the country. Anything that's left after that is going to be little
fiefdoms scattered across the continent.

Alternately, if the /chain of succession/ has been eliminated, a stray
undersecretary, Senator, or Representative here or there doesn't
change things much.

Except to highlight a point I glossed over by blithely saying (in
effect if not in actuality) "when the Senate and/or House is
restored"): how much of it must be restored before it can act. IOW,
how may Senators would constitute a Quorum able to elect a
President-Pro-Tempore who might become President if the House hasn't
elected a Speaker? And how many Representatives would be needed to
constitute a Quorum able to elect a Speaker?

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that most Governor's can
appoint Senators to serve at least until the next general election
(this is how Georgia ended up voting for two Senators in 2000: one was
for a six-year-term and the other was for the remainder of a term)
while most Representatives can only be replaced by an election. Which
would seem rather likely to get the Senate up and running first.

Which is not so great, since spending bills can only originate in the
House -- that is, it the House that has, as it's primary function, to
fund the government.

Of course, if we passed a law (or, if necessary, an Amendment) which
causes the Budget to roll over (incorporating all pending changes)
each year, this problem would not exist. We might be stuck with a
budget not suited to the new situation, but it would at least be a
budget.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:44:41 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person
I also suspect a new District of Columbia will be established,
probably in the middle of the country. Nothing like high mountains and
a thousand miles or two of land to make a government feel secure.

Without, one hopes, disenfranchising a million Americans.

You can't be disenfranchised if you don't have the ability to vote in
the first place. ;)

Do ANY of America's allies have a federal district? I know Canada, the
UK France and Germany don't - anybody who does? (Australia I think
does but who else?)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by The Horny Goat
Do ANY of America's allies have a federal district? I know Canada, the
UK France and Germany don't - anybody who does? (Australia I think
does but who else?)

Mexico does, and politically it's as messy as DC.
--scott

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

Clancy's _Debt of Honor_ might qualify.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by James Nicoll
Five SF Scenarios Involving the US Presidential Line of Succession
The American Presidential Line of Succession determines who replaces
a suddenly absent President. More importantly, it is an invaluable
narrative tool.
https://reactormag.com/five-sf-scenarios-involving-the-presidential-line-of-succession/

Clancy's _Debt of Honor_ might qualify.

It was a big part of the premise of the BSG reboot.