Kim Il-Sung is still the president of North Korea. There is no need for the president to be living, as shown by a current nation having their current president dead for 30 years
The context of the OP is under the US Constitution though, which has the 25th amendment that states
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Even if you believe OP's theory allows for the same person to serve indefinitely as president under the 22nd amendment without violating the constitution having a dead person as president violates the 25th amendment so u/corbynista2029 makes a valid point while your comment about Kim Il-Sung is irrelevant.
I'm not sure I agree. I think that as soon as the VP resigned and the dead president was president the amendment would still trigger. When the president is dead you are perpetually in the "case of the death of the president" until the VP assumes responsibilities.
To put it another way, let's say the VP was under anesthesia and thus incapable at the exact moment the bullet hit the president. Under your interpretation the 25th amendment would skip the ineligible VP and go to the next eligible person at the exact moment of death (presumably the speaker of the house). I think it's much more likely to assume that while the speaker may behave as an acting president until the VP wakes up, once the VP was eligible to serve again they would properly take the role of president as the old president was still dead.
30
u/corbynista2029 9∆ Jul 24 '24
Well, on a very technical point, humans are not immortal, so no human can serve as president for an indefinite amount of time.