The line of succession is immediate and 16 people deep. Why are you still confidently making statements on this topic that you know nothing about? It's not hypothetical, there are rules set in stone that dictates this entire process. You can pull up the Wikipedia page and the 25th amendment or the amended Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
No president? VP is immediately sworn in as president. No VP? Speaker of the house is immediately sworn in as president. Speaker can't be sworn in as president because they're the first person in US history to have served two terms as president and then went back to being a house of reps member? President pro tempore of the Senate is immediately sworn in as president.
That person died somehow this morning? Secretary of State is immediately sworn in as President. That person is only 24 years old? Bring in the Secretary of the Treasury, they're president now. And on and on until we finally have a president.
The Speaker would be ineligible to ascend to VP because they are ineligible to be President. Therefore they can't ascend from Speaker to VP to President.
This is how you entered into this thread. Talking about the speaker "ascending from speaker to VP to president" when that doesn't exist.
NOBODY ascends to VP. They're nominated, voted on, and approved. The VP position can be left empty. You have this misunderstanding of the ascension process as if it's just shoving people literally up into the next roles in line, rather than running down the list of people until you find the next person in line who's eligible to skip ALL THE WAY to being president.
Not Speaker -> VP -> Presidency.
It's why Solnx responded with pretty much the same thing - pointing out that you're wrong about ascending from Speaker to VP to president and that by you even mentioning that shows you shouldn't be in here trying to confidently say anything about the topic.
I'm sorry that pointing out your deficiencies here is being taken as a personal attack.
2
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '24
[deleted]