Futurist meals comprised a cuisine and style of dining advocated by some members of the Futurist movement, particularly in Italy. These meals were first proposed in Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and Luigi Colombo (Fillìa)'s Manifesto of Futurist Cooking, published in Turin's Gazzetta del Popolo on December 28, 1930. In 1932, Marinetti and Fillìa expanded upon these concepts in The Futurist Cookbook.
Concept
According
to Marinetti, he developed his concept of Futurism on October 11, 1908,
while he was pondering the liberation of the Italian lyrical genius.
He concluded that, for this to happen, it is necessary to change the
method by going down into the streets, attacking the theaters, and by
bringing "the fist into the midst of the artistic struggle." Futurist cooking was directed at combining gastronomy and art, as well as the transformation of dining into a performance art. Futurism
recognized that people "think, dream and act according to what they eat
and drink" so cooking and eating needed to become inferior to the
proper aesthetic experience that Futurism favored. It has been
associated with the notion of avant-garde in the sense that Futurist banquets are seen as great performances. Futurist food is also considered a means to address political and social issues. Marinetti's Manifesto
has been described as a satirical polemic more than a cooking manual
and was published in response to the Italian economic needs during the
Depression.
Futurist cuisine notably rejected pasta, believing it to cause lassitude, pessimism and lack of passion. This was seen as a novel way to strengthen the Italian race in preparation for war.
The historian Carol Helstosky explains that "the Futurist proposal to
abolish pasta was intended to transform Italians from pasta-eating
brigands and mandolin players to modern, active citizens. The abolition
of pasta would also reduce Italy’s dependence on foreign wheat
supplies." This was in accordance with Benito Mussolini's Battle for Grain campaign, begun in 1925. Another idea in the Manifesto establishes that perfect meals require two elements: originality and harmony in table setting. Futurists maintain that these include all implements, food aesthetics and tastes, and absolute originality in the food. Marinetti also stressed the importance of sculpted foods, including meats
whose main appeal is to the eye and imagination. This was demonstrated
in the case of the "Equator + North Pole" edible food sculpture by Enrico Prampolini,
which involved a cone of firmly whipped egg whites adorned with orange
segments that resembled the rays of the sun and set on an equatorial sea
of poached egg yolks. In futurist cooking, the knife and fork are also abolished, while perfumes are added to enhance the taste experience.
The Manifesto of Futurist Cooking also proposed that the way in which meals were served be fundamentally changed. For example:
Some food on the table would not be eaten, but only experienced by the eyes and nose
Food would arrive rapidly and contain many flavors, but only a few mouthfuls in size
All political discussion and speeches would be forbidden
Music and poetry would be forbidden except during certain intervals
One of the proposed settings for these "perfect meals" incorporated
the Futurist love of machinery. The diners would eat in a mock
aircraft, whose engines' vibrations would stimulate the appetite. The
tilted seats and tables would "shake out" the diners' pre-conceived
notions, while their taste buds would be overwhelmed by highly original
dishes listed on aluminium cards.
Traditional kitchen equipment would be replaced by scientific
equipment, bringing modernity and science to the kitchen. Suggested
equipment included:
Chemical indicators or analyzers—to help the cook determine if sauces need more salt, sugar, or vinegar
Relationship with fascism
By the time Marinetti published La Cucina Futurista
in 1932, a rift had developed between the Futurist movement and
fascism, as evidenced by their contrasting orientation towards cuisine;
the Futurists advocated for new methods of cooking, broadening the
sensory experience, while Fascism worked to consolidate and spread
classic "Italian" cuisine to the masses as a means of producing a modern
and unified nation-state. Futurist cooking emphasized presentation and
multisensory impression, revelling in transgression and shock value. As
the historian Carol Helstosky demonstrates, "food sculptures and
seemingly odd food pairings (meat and cologne or mussels and vanilla
creme) heightened the tactile and sensory experience of the meal." Furthermore, the controversy generated by the anti-pasta campaign and the bizarre recipes in La Cucina Futurista
succeeded in generating media attention for Futurism at a time when the
movement had been in decline, by directly addressing Italian food
supply and consumption, concerns which had become central to the
political agenda of Fascism during the 1920s.
Mussolini's "Battle for Grain" was inaugurated in 1925 as part of a broader goal of autarky, or self-reliance of the Italian food system by increasing domestic food production and reducing or eliminating food imports.
According to Helstosky, "Italy’s mounting debt and growing dependence
on external powers for subsistence" had become untenable by the end of
World War I, and thus "food performed a great deal of cultural and
political 'work' under fascism."
The ideological differences between Fascism and Futurism had grown as
Fascism negotiated a compromise with the middle-class and embraced
tradition while Marinetti and the Futurists continued their evangelism
for the new.
Nonetheless, there were still important areas of convergence, particularly the shared embrace of aluminium. According to Daniele Conversi,
a researcher in nationalism studies, "Aluminum was the futurist
material par excellence: it was shiny, modern and entirely produced in
Italy."
For the latter reason, Fascism too had embraced the material as Italy's
national metal, which continues to be central to Italian identity due
to its relationship with the preparation of coffee. Caffeine's
properties as a stimulant made it a natural fit with both Fascist and
Futurist ideologies, and Marinetti quite famously regularly introduced
himself as "the caffeine of Europe."
Reception
The Italian
public was not won over by Marinetti's manifesto regarding cuisine. In
fact, immediately following its publication the Italian press broke
into uproar. Doctors were measured in their response, agreeing that
habitual consumption of pasta was fattening and recommending a varied
diet; but Giovanni De Riseis, the Duke of Bovino and mayor of Naples, was firmer in his views: "The angels in Paradise," he told a reporter, "eat nothing but vermicelli al pomodoro [fine spaghetti with tomato sauce]." Marinetti replied that this confirmed his suspicions about the monotony of Paradise.
The Futurists amused themselves and outraged the public by
inventing preposterous new dishes, most of which were shocking due to
their unusual combinations and exotic ingredients. For example, mortadella with nougat or pineapples with sardines. Marinetti wanted Italians to stop eating foreign food and to stop using foreign food words: a bar should be called quisibeve (literally, "here one drinks" in Italian), a sandwich should be called traidue (between-two), a maître d'hôtel a guidopalato (palate-guide), and so on. Elizabeth David,
the cookery writer, comments that Marinetti's ideas about food
contained a germ of common sense, but behind his jesting lay the Fascist
obsession with nationalism. Marinetti wanted to prepare the Italians
for war. "Spaghetti is no food for fighters," he declared.
Influence
Futurist
cooking has had a wide influence, and like other aspects of the
movement, some manifestations of this influence would only be realized
many decades later. La Cucina Futurista anticipated that science would play a growing role in food consumption and diet.
Marinetti expected synthetic foods to redefine nutrition, correctly
anticipating the important role played by food science. Futurism was,
however, largely an artistic and cultural movement, and its influence in
these areas is vast. The first Futurist restaurant, the Taverna del
Santopalato, was opened in Turin at Via Vanchiglia 2, on March 8, 1931.
Designed by Marinetti, Fillìa, and Nikolay Diulgheroff,
its clean and minimalist interior, marked by a prevailing use of
aluminium, was in stark contrast to the traditional Italian dining
experience, anticipating future restaurant design. It has also been suggested that Marinetti's pioneering interest in food chemistry anticipated the molecular gastronomy of chefs like Ferran Adrià, or the incorporation of influences from contemporary art by chef Massimo Bottura. The influence of Futurist cooking also has had more mundane manifestations, including the tactile experience of finger food, the emergence of fusion cuisine, and the emphasis on presentation developed in food presentation. It has also been suggested that some of the autarkic ideals of Futurist cooking influenced Slow Food, an organization founded by Carlo Petrini in Italy in 1986.
Example meals and dishes
Italian Breasts in the Sunshine: A Futurist dessert that features almond paste topped with a strawberry, then sprinkled with fresh black pepper.
Diabolical Roses: Deep-fried red rose heads in full bloom.
Divorced Eggs: Hard boiled eggs are cut in half; their yolks
are removed and put on a "poltiglia" (puree) of potatoes, and their
whites on one of carrots.
Milk in a Green Light: A large bowl of cold milk, a few teaspoons of honey, many black grapes, and several red radishes
illuminated by a green light. The author suggest it be served with a
"polibibita" or cocktail of mineral water, beer, and blackberry juice.
Tactile Dinner: A multi-course meal featured in Marinetti's The Futurist Cookbook.
Pajamas have been prepared for the dinner, each one covered with a
different material such as sponge, cork, sandpaper, or felt. As the
guests arrive, each puts on a pair of the pajamas. Once all have arrived
and are dressed in pajamas, they are taken to an unlit, empty room.
Without being able to see, each guest chooses a dinner partner according
to their tactile impression. The guests then enter the dining room,
which consists of tables for two, and discover the partner they have
selected.
Traidue: Two slices of rectangular bread, one slice is spread
over with anchovy paste, and the other slice with chopped apple skins.
Between the two slices of bread, the salami is sandwiched. The name is
Italian for “between two.”
Sequence
Sequence is essential to traditional Italian meals, and thus the Futurist cooking also manipulated expectations by inverting the order of course and other modifications:
The meal begins. The first course is a 'polyrhythmic salad,'
which consists of a box containing a bowl of undressed lettuce leaves,
dates and grapes. The box has a crank on the left side. Without using
cutlery, the guests eat with their right hand while turning the crank
with their left. This produces music to which the waiters dance until
the course is finished.
The second course is 'magic food', which is served in small
bowls covered with tactile materials. The bowl is held in the left hand
while the right picks out balls made of caramel and filled with
different ingredients such as dried fruits, raw meat, garlic, mashed banana, chocolate, or pepper. The guests cannot guess what flavor they will encounter next.
The third course is 'tactile vegetable garden,' which is a plate
of cooked and raw green vegetables without dressing. The guest eats the
vegetables without the use of their hands, instead burying their face
in the plate of vegetables, feeling the sensation of the greens on their
face and lips. Each time a guest raises their head to chew, the waiters
spray their face with perfume.
Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Congress has enacted a Presidential Succession Act on three occasions: 1792 (1 Stat.239), 1886 (24 Stat.1), and 1947 (61 Stat.380). The 1947 Act was last revised in 2006.
Although none of these succession acts have ever been invoked, an
invocation was a distinct possibility on several occasions. However,
the future likelihood that a person in the line of succession beyond the
vice president will be called upon under normal circumstances to be acting president has diminished greatly due to the Twenty-fifth Amendment's provision for filling vice presidential vacancies.
Presidential Succession Act of 1792
Article
II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to
declare who should act as president if both the president and vice
president died or were otherwise unavailable to serve during their terms
of office. Legislation to establish such a line of succession was
introduced in December 1790 in the United States House of Representatives, in the 1st Congress. When brought up for discussion the following month, the president pro tempore of the United States Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives were proposed; the United States secretary of state and the chief justice of the United States were as well.
Lawmakers failed to reach consensus on who should be the statutory
successor. Naming the secretary of state was unacceptable to most Federalists, as they did not want the office's then-occupant, Thomas Jefferson, the leader of the growing anti-administration opposition that would become the Democratic-Republican Party,
placed so close to the presidency. Constitutional and policy objections
were raised to naming the president pro tempore of the Senate or the
speaker of the House, as it was assumed the individual would retain
their office and seat in Congress while temporarily performing duties of
the presidency; similar separation of powers concerns were also raised regarding the chief justice.
The matter was raised again when the 2nd Congress
convened later in 1791. On November 30, the Senate approved legislation
titled "An act relative to the election of a President and Vice
President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall act
as President in case of vacancies in the offices both of President and
Vice President", which was sent to the House for concurrence. It
contained a provision naming the president pro tempore of the Senate,
or, if that office were vacant, the speaker of the House as acting
president if a vacancy arose in both the presidency and vice presidency.
Various representatives, including a number of the Constitution's
framers, criticized the arrangement as being contrary to their intent.
As a result, after a contentious debate, on February 15, 1792, the House
struck out the president pro tempore and speaker and inserted the
secretary of state in their place. The Senate rejected the House change a
few days later, and the House relented. The bill became law on March 1,
1792, with the signature of President George Washington.
The Presidential Succession Act of 1792,
sections 9 and 10 of a larger act regarding the election of the
president and vice president, provided that the president pro tempore of
the Senate would be first in line for the presidency should the offices
of the president and the vice president both be vacant. The speaker of
the House was second in line. Section 9 provided that the statutory successor would serve in an acting capacity until a new president could be elected.
If such a double vacancy occurred, Section 10 directed the secretary of
state to notify the governor of each state of the vacancies and of the
special election to fill them. This special election would take place no
fewer than two months later.
The persons elected president and vice president in such a special
election would have served a full four-year term beginning on March 4 of
the next year; no such election ever took place.
While the succession provisions of the 1792 Act were never invoked,
there were ten instances when the vice presidency was vacant:
April 20, 1812 – March 4, 1813 (318 days) following the death of George Clinton
November 23, 1814 – March 4, 1817 (2 years, 101 days) following the death of Elbridge Gerry
December 28, 1832 – March 4, 1833 (66 days) following the resignation of John C. Calhoun
April 4, 1841 – March 4, 1845 (3 years, 334 days) following the accession of John Tyler to the presidency
July 9, 1850 – March 4, 1853 (2 years, 238 days) following the accession of Millard Fillmore to the presidency
April 18, 1853 – March 4, 1857 (3 years, 320 days) following the death of William R. King
April 15, 1865 – March 4, 1869 (3 years, 323 days) following the accession of Andrew Johnson to the presidency
November 22, 1875 – March 4, 1877 (1 year, 102 days) following the death of Henry Wilson
September 19, 1881 – March 4, 1885 (3 years, 166 days) following the accession of Chester A. Arthur to the presidency
November 25, 1885 – March 4, 1889 (3 years, 99 days) following the death of Thomas A. Hendricks
In each case, had the incumbent president died, resigned, been
removed from office or been disabled during one of these vice
presidential vacancies, the president pro tempore of the Senate would
have become the acting president. Such a double vacancy nearly occurred
on three occasions:
In 1844, President John Tyler narrowly missed being one of the several people killed when a gun on the newly built USS Princeton exploded during a ceremonial cruise. Had Tyler died, Senate President pro tempore Willie Person Mangum would have become acting president.
As a consequence of the sometimes lengthy vacancies in the office of
vice president, the person serving as president pro tempore of the
Senate garnered heightened importance, for although he did not assume
the vice presidency, he was then next in line for the presidency. Several who served during these vacancies were referred to informally as "Acting Vice President".
Presidential Succession Act of 1886
The death of President James A. Garfield on September 19, 1881 – after his lengthy incapacity following an assassination attempt – resulted in Vice President Chester A. Arthur
ascending to the presidency. Upon Arthur becoming President, the
offices of vice president, president pro tempore of the Senate, and
speaker of the House of Representatives were vacant.
However, a new president pro tempore of the Senate was named on
October 10, 1881, and a new speaker of the House of Representatives was
named in December 1881.
In 1884, Grover Cleveland was elected president, with Thomas A. Hendricks
being elected vice president. Hendricks' death in November 1885, just
eight months into his term, once again left no direct successor, which
forced Congress to address the inadequacies of the 1792 Succession Act.
A bill to transfer the succession from congressional officers to members of the Cabinet was introduced in the Senate by George Hoar
in 1882. It was passed by the Senate the following year, but failed in
the House. Hoar laid out several reasons why the succession statute
needed to be changed: among them, that the four-year term of a president
elected in a special election might be out of sync with the
congressional election cycle, resulting in "confusion and trouble". He
also pointed out the negative constitutional and practical implications
of having the president pro tempore and the speaker in the line of
succession. To buttress this argument, he pointed out that since the
federal government began operations 96 years earlier in 1789, six
secretaries of state had gone on to be elected president, serving in
that office for 36 of those 96 years.
Reintroduced shortly after the death of Vice President Hendricks,
Senator Hoar's bill was passed by the Senate after vigorous debate, in
December 1885, and by the House one month later. It became law on
January 19, 1886, with President Cleveland's signature.
The Presidential Succession Act of 1886 (Full text)
substituted the Cabinet secretaries— listed in the order in which their
department was created — for the President pro tempore and Speaker in
the line of succession. It provided that in case of the removal, death,
resignation or inability of both the President and Vice President, such
officer would "act as President until the disability of the President or
Vice-President is removed or a President shall be elected."
It mandated that if Congress were not then in session nor due to meet within twenty days, the acting president was to call a special session
of Congress, giving no less than twenty days' notice. It also
stipulated that for a member of the Cabinet to act as president, he had
to have been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
and be eligible to the office of president, and not under impeachment.
This last provision also repealed the 1792 Act's provision for a
double-vacancy special election.
While it never became necessary to invoke the 1886 Act, the vice
presidency was vacant at the time of its adoption, and would become
vacant five more times during the 61 years that it was in effect:
November 21, 1899 – March 4, 1901 (1 year, 103 days) following the death of Garret Hobart.
September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1905 (3 years, 171 days) following the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency.
October 30, 1912 – March 4, 1913 (125 days) following the death of James S. Sherman.
August 2, 1923 – March 4, 1925 (1 year, 214 days) following the accession of Calvin Coolidge to the presidency.
April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1949 (3 years, 283 days) following the accession of Harry S. Truman to the presidency.
Had the president died, resigned, been removed from office or been
disabled during one of these vacancies, the secretary of state would
have become the acting president. Although such circumstances never
arose, President Woodrow Wilson apparently drew up a plan (given the turmoil of World War I) whereby, if his Republican opponent Charles Evans Hughes had won the 1916 election, then Wilson would have dismissed his secretary of state, Robert Lansing, and recess-appointed Hughes to the post before Wilson and Vice President Thomas R. Marshall both resigned, thus allowing President-elect Hughes to serve as acting president until his March 4, 1917 inauguration. Wilson's narrow victory over Hughes rendered the plan moot.[20][21]
Also of note is that 1940 Republican presidential nominee Wendell Willkie and vice presidential nominee Charles L. McNary both died in 1944 (October 8, and February 25, respectively), the first (and as of 2023
only) time both members of a major-party presidential ticket died
during the term for which they sought election. Had they been elected,
Willkie's death would have resulted in the secretary of state becoming
acting president for the remainder of the term ending on January 20,
1945.
Presidential Succession Act of 1947
Presidential Succession Act of 1947
Long title
An
Act To provide for the performance of the duties of the office of
President in case of the removal, resignation, death, or inability both
of the President and Vice President.
In June 1945, two months after becoming president upon Franklin D. Roosevelt's
death, Harry S. Truman sent a message to Congress urging the revision
of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886. He recommended that the
speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate be restored
to, and given priority in, the presidential line of succession over
members of the Cabinet. The arrangement reflected Truman's belief that
the president should not have the power to appoint to office "the person
who would be my immediate successor in the event of my own death or
inability to act", and that the presidency should, whenever possible,
"be filled by an elective officer". Cabinet officials are appointed by
the president, whereas the speaker and the president pro tempore are
elected officials.
He also recommended that a provision be made for election of a new
president and vice president should vacancies in both of those offices
occur more than three months before the midterm congressional elections.
A bill incorporating the president's proposal was introduced in the House on June 25, 1945, by Hatton W. Sumners
and approved—minus the special election provision—four days later by a
wide margin. The measure was forwarded to the Senate, which took no
action on it during the balance of the 79th Congress. Truman renewed his request in 1947, when the 80th Congress convened following the 1946 midterm elections. Early in 1947, Senator Kenneth S. Wherry
introduced a bill in the Senate which, like the previous 1945 version,
put the speaker and the president pro tempore second and third in the
succession order respectively, and contained no provision for a special
election. After considerable debate the measure was approved on June 27,
1947, by a vote of 50 to 35. Forwarded to the House, the legislation
engendered little debate, and was passed on July 10 by a vote of 365 to
11. President Truman signed the bill into law on July 18.
The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (Full text)
restored the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the
Senate to the line of succession—in reverse order from their positions
in the 1792 act—and placed them ahead of the members of the Cabinet, who
are positioned once more in the order of the establishment of their
department: secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, secretary of war, attorney general, postmaster general, secretary of the navy, and secretary of the interior. Three Cabinet secretaries were added to the lineup, reflecting the creation of three Cabinet-level departments post-1886: secretary of agriculture, secretary of commerce, and secretary of labor.
The act stipulates, that in order for either the speaker or the
president pro tempore to become acting president, he or she must meet
the requirements for presidential eligibility, and must, prior to acting
as president, resign from office, including from Congress.
Like the 1886 act, this statute specifies that only Cabinet
members who are constitutionally eligible to the office of president,
and not under impeachment by the House at the time the powers and duties
of the presidency devolve upon them, may become the acting president.
However, unlike the 1886 act, this statute mandates that any Cabinet
officer who accedes to the powers and duties of the presidency resign
their Cabinet post.
It also contains a clause stipulating that any Cabinet officer acting
as president may be "bumped" from office (supplanted) by a qualified
individual higher up the line of succession, a provision not contained
in either of the earlier succession acts.
The 1886 and 1947 acts diverge in one other way. The 1886 act
describes "such officers as shall have been appointed by the advice and
consent of the Senate to the offices therein named" as being eligible to
serve as acting president, whereas the 1947 act describes "officers
appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" as being
eligible. The less explicit 1947 language raises the question of whether acting secretaries are in the line of succession. The nonpartisanContinuity of Government Commission,
in a 2009 report, said "[r]ead literally, this means that the current
act allows for acting secretaries to be in the line of succession as
long as they are confirmed by the Senate for a post (even for example,
the second or third in command within a department)."
Although a case for their inclusion can be made, it is not clear
whether acting secretaries are indeed in the line of succession.
The 1947 act established that a person who becomes an acting
president under the act will earn the same compensation given to the
president. Additionally, based on authority granted by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment,
the act applies to situations where the president-elect, alone or
together with the vice president-elect, fails to meet the qualifications
for the office of president. Based on that same authority, the act also
applies to situations in which there is neither a president-elect nor a
vice president-elect on Inauguration Day.
Revisions
The 1947 act has been modified by a series of incidental amendments to reflect the creation of new federal departments. Less than two weeks after the Act was enacted, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. This statute (in part) merged the Department of War (renamed as the Department of the Army) and the Department of the Navy into the National Military Establishment (renamed Department of Defense in 1949), headed by the secretary of defense.
It also included a provision substituting the secretary of defense for
the secretary of war in the line of succession and striking out the
secretary of the navy.
When the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, the act
creating it did not contain a provision adding the new department's
secretary into the line of presidential succession. Secretaries of newly
created cabinet-level departments are not automatically included, but
must be specifically incorporated. Companion bills to include the secretary of homeland security (SHS) in the line of succession were introduced in the 108th Congress (in 2003) and again in the 109th (in 2005) by Senator Mike DeWine and Representative Tom Davis.
Both bills strayed from tradition, however, by proposing to place the
SHS in the line of succession directly after the attorney general
(rather than at the end of the line). Proponents of placing the SHS high
in the order of succession (eighth overall, as opposed to seventeenth)
argued that, given the department's many responsibilities in the areas
of security and national preparedness, the officer responsible for
disaster relief and security could be expected to possess the relevant
knowledge and expertise to capably function as acting president
following a catastrophic event; the same could not be said of every
cabinet secretary. Referred to committee, no action was taken on these
proposals. The matter remained unresolved until March 2006, when the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act added the secretary of homeland security to the presidential line of succession, at the end.
While it has not become necessary to invoke the 1947 Act, the vice
presidency was vacant at the time of its adoption, and has been vacant
three more times since:
November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1965 (1 year, 59 days) following Lyndon B. Johnson succeeding to the presidency
October 10, 1973 – December 6, 1973 (57 days) following Spiro Agnew resigning the vice presidency
August 9, 1974 – December 19, 1974 (132 days) following Gerald Ford succeeding to the presidency
Had the president died, resigned, been removed from office, or been
disabled during one of these vacancies the speaker of the House would
have become acting president. The nation faced the prospect of such a
double-vacancy in the autumn of 1973. With the future of Richard Nixon's presidency in doubt on account of the Watergate scandal, and with the vice presidency vacant following Spiro Agnew's resignation, there was a possibility that Speaker of the House Carl Albert might become acting president. Recourse in this case to the 1947 Act was not necessary, because Section 2 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, ratified only six years earlier, established a mechanism for filling an intra-term vice presidential vacancy, and House Minority Leader
Ford was appointed. As a result, rather than Speaker Albert becoming
acting president when Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, Vice President
Ford became president on that date.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment also established a procedure for
responding to presidential disabilities whereby a vice president could
assume the powers and duties of the presidency as acting president. Its
procedures for declaring a temporary disability have been invoked on
four occasions by three presidents.
During the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Secret Service carried out its plan for ensuring the continuity of government, which in part called for gathering up persons in the presidential line of succession and taking them to a secure location, to guarantee that at least one officer in the line of succession would survive the attacks. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and several other congressional leaders went; President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd did not, choosing instead to be taken to his Capitol Hill home. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta went into an underground bunker at the White House; a few Cabinet members were out of the country that day.
Designated successor
There is a long history, dating back to the Cold War era, of keeping a designated successor
away from events at which numerous high-ranking federal
officers—including the president, vice president, congressional leaders,
and Cabinet members—will be gathered. This is done to ensure that there
is always someone available to assume the reins of government if all
the other officers are killed at the event. For example, Secretary of
Agriculture Sonny Perdue was the Cabinet member so designated when President Donald Trump delivered his 2018 State of the Union Address.
Perdue was taken to a secure location several hours beforehand, and
remained there throughout the event. Although any cabinet secretary
could be selected, the person appointed has usually come from one of the
newer departments low in the line of succession. The person chosen must also meet the constitutional requirements to serve as president.
Constitutionality
The 1947 act has been widely criticized over the years as unconstitutional. Akhil Amar, who is a legal scholar in constitutional law, has called it "a disastrous statute, an accident waiting to happen". There are two main areas of concern.
Meaning of "officer"
There
are concerns regarding the constitutionality of having members of
Congress in the line of succession. The Constitution's Succession
Clause—Article II, Section 1, Clause 6—specifies that only an "Officer" may be designated as a Presidential successor. Constitutional scholars from James Madison to the present day have argued that the term "Officer" refers to an "Officer of the United States", a term of art that excludes members of Congress. During a September 2003 joint hearing before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration and Committee on the Judiciary, M. Miller Baker said:
The 1947 Act is probably
unconstitutional because it appears that the Speaker of the House and
the President pro tempore of the Senate are not "Officers" eligible to
act as President within the meaning of the Succession Clause. This is
because in referring to an "Officer", the Succession Clause, taken in
its context in Section 1 of Article II, probably refers to an "Officer
of the United States", a term of art under the Constitution, rather than
any officer, which would include legislative and state officers
referred to in the Constitution (e.g., the reference to state militia
officers found in Article I, Section 8). In the very next section of
Article II, the President is empowered to "require the Opinion, in
writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments"
and to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
"Officers of the United States". These are the "Officers" to whom the
Succession Clause probably refers. This contextual reading is confirmed
by Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, which reveal that
the Convention's Committee of Style, which had no authority to make
substantive changes, substituted "Officer" in the Succession Clause in
place of "Officer of the United States", probably because the Committee
considered the full phrase redundant.
In "Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?", Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar refer to the Incompatibility Clause
(Article I, Section 6, Clause 2)—which bars officials in the federal
government's executive branch from simultaneously serving in either the
U.S. House or Senate—as evidence that members of the Congress cannot be
in the Presidential line of succession.
Bumping
The
current act is also controversial because it provides that an officer
who is acting as president due to the disability or failure to qualify
of an officer higher in the order of succession does so only until the
other officer's disability or disqualification is removed. If this
happens, the previously entitled officer can "bump" the person then
acting as president. During testimony in 2004 before the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice,
Akhil Reed Amar stated that this provision violates "the Succession
Clause, which says that an officer named by Congress shall 'act as
President ... until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be
elected'".
In its 2009 report, the Continuity of Government Commission argued that as well as going against the language of the Constitution, bumping violates the doctrine of separation of powers by undermining the independence of the executive from the Congress:
The Constitution on its face seems
to stipulate that once a person is deemed to be acting president by the
Presidential Succession Act, he or she cannot be replaced by a different
person. This interpretation makes some logical sense as the provision
would presumably prevent the confusion that would arise if the
presidency were transferred to several different individuals in a short
period of time. It would also seemingly prevent Congress from exercising
influence on the executive branch by threatening to replace a cabinet
member acting as president with a newly elected Speaker of the House.
On a practical level, it has been argued that this provision could
result in there being multiple acting presidents in a short period of
time during a national crisis and weaken the public legitimacy of
successors.In a January 2011 Roll Callop-ed, Representative Brad Sherman wrote,
[The bumping provision] creates a game of musical chairs
with the presidency and would cause great instability. In a time of
national crisis, the nation needs to know who its president is.
An order, line or right of succession is the line of individuals necessitated to hold a high office when it becomes vacated, such as head of state or an honour such as a title of nobility. This sequence may be regulated through descent or by statute.
Hereditary government form differs from elected government.
An established order of succession is the normal way of passing on
hereditary positions, and also provides immediate continuity after an
unexpected vacancy in cases where office-holders are chosen by election:
the office does not have to remain vacant until a successor is elected.
In some cases the successor takes up the full role of the previous
office-holder, as in the case of the presidency
of many countries; in other non-hereditary cases there is not a full
succession, but a caretaker chosen by succession criteria assumes some
or all of the responsibilities, but not the formal office, of the
position. For example, when the position of President of India becomes vacant, the Vice-President of India temporarily carries out the functions of the presidency until a successor is elected; in contrast, when the position of President of the Philippines is vacant, the Vice-President of the Philippines outright assumes the presidency itself for the rest of the term.
It is often the case that the inheritance
of a hereditary title, office or the like, is indivisible: when the
previous holder ceases to hold the title, it is inherited by a single
individual. Many titles and offices are not hereditary (such as
democratic state offices) and they are subject to different rules of
succession.
A hereditary line of succession may be limited to heirs of the body,
or may also pass to collateral lines, if there are no heirs of the
body, depending on the succession rules. These concepts are in use in
English inheritance law.
The rules may stipulate that eligible heirs are heirs male or heirs general – see further primogeniture (agnatic, cognatic, and also equal).
Certain types of property pass to a descendant or relative of the original holder, recipient or grantee according to a fixed order of kinship. Upon the death of the grantee, a designated inheritance such as a peerage, or a monarchy, passes automatically to that living, legitimate, non-adoptive
relative of the grantee who is most senior in descent (i.e. highest in
the line of succession, regardless of age); and thereafter continues to
pass to subsequent successors of the grantee, according to the same
rules, upon the death of each subsequent heir.
Each person who inherits according to these rules is considered
an heir at law of the grantee and the inheritance may not pass to
someone who is not a natural, lawful descendant or relative of the
grantee.
Collateral relatives, who share some or all of the grantee's
ancestry, but do not directly descend from the grantee, may inherit if
there is no limitation to "heirs of the body".
In hereditary monarchies the order of succession determines who becomes the new monarch
when the incumbent sovereign dies or otherwise vacates the throne. Such
orders of succession, derived from rules established by law or
tradition, usually specify an order of seniority, which is applied to
indicate which relative of the previous monarch, or other person, has
the strongest claim to assume the throne when the vacancy occurs.
Often, the line of succession is restricted to persons of the blood royal (but see morganatic marriage), that is, to those legally recognized as born into or descended from the reigningdynasty or a previous sovereign. The persons in line to succeed to the throne are called "dynasts". Constitutions, statutes, house laws, and norms may regulate the sequence and eligibility of potential successors to the throne.
Historically, the order of succession was sometimes superseded or reinforced by the coronation of a selected heir as co-monarch during the life of the reigning monarch. Examples are Henry the Young King and the heirs of elective monarchies, such as the use of the title King of the Romans for the Habsburg emperors. In the partially elective system of tanistry, the heir or tanist
was elected from the qualified males of the royal family. Different
monarchies use different rules to determine the line of succession.
Hereditary monarchies have used a variety of methods and
algorithms to derive the order of succession among possible candidates
related by blood or marriage. An advantage of employing such rules is
that dynasts may, from early youth, receive grooming, education,
protection, resources and retainers suitable for the future dignity and
responsibilities associated with the crown of a particular nation or
people. Such systems may also enhance political stability by
establishing clear, public expectations about the sequence of rulers,
potentially reducing competition and channeling cadets into other roles or endeavors.
Some hereditary monarchies have had unique selection processes, particularly upon the accession of a new dynasty. Imperial France established male primogeniture within the descent of Napoleon I,
but failing male issue the constitution allowed the emperors to choose
who among their brothers or nephews would follow them upon the throne.
The Kingdom of Italy was designated a secundogeniture for the second surviving son of Napoleon I Bonaparte but, failing such, provided for the emperor's stepson, Eugène de Beauharnais, to succeed, even though the latter had no blood relationship to the House of Bonaparte. Serbia's monarchy was hereditary by primogeniture for male descendants in the male line of Prince Alexander I, but upon extinction of that line, the reigning king could choose any among his male relatives of the House of Karađorđević. In Romania, on the other hand, upon extinction of the male line descended from Carol I of Romania, the constitution stipulated that the male line of his brother, Leopold, Prince of Hohenzollern,
would inherit the throne and, failing other male line issue of that
family, a prince of a "Western European" dynasty was to be chosen by the
Romanian king and parliament. By contrast, older European monarchies
tended to rely upon succession criteria that only called to the throne
descendants of past monarchs according to fixed rules rooted in one or
another pattern of laws or traditions.
Vertical inheritance
In
hereditary succession, the heir is automatically determined by
pre-defined rules and principles. It can be further subdivided into
horizontal and vertical methods, the former favoring siblings, whereas
vertical favors children and grandchildren of the holder.
In male-preference primogeniture
(in the past called cognatic primogeniture) the monarch's eldest son
and his descendants take precedence over his siblings and their
descendants. Elder sons take precedence over younger sons, but all sons
take precedence over daughters. A female member of a dynasty can succeed
to the throne if and only if she has no living brothers and no deceased
brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants. Children represent
their deceased ancestors, and the senior line of descent always takes
precedence over the junior line, within each gender. The right of
succession belongs to the eldest son of the reigning sovereign (see heir apparent), and next to the eldest son of the eldest son.
With respect to hereditary titles, it is usually the rule everywhere in Scotland and baronies by writ in the United Kingdom, but usually these English baronies by writ go into abeyance
when the last male titleholder dies leaving more than one surviving
sister or more than one descendant in the legitimate female line of the
original titleholder. In England, Fiefs or titles granted "in tail
general" or to "heirs general" follow this system for sons, but
daughters are considered equal co-heirs to each other, which can result
in abeyance. In the medieval period, actual practice varied with local
custom. While women could inherit manors, power was usually exercised by
their husbands (jure uxoris) or their sons (jure matris).
However, in Scotland, Salic law or any of its variations have never
been practised, and all the hereditary titles are inherited through
male-preference primogeniture, where in the extinction of a male line,
the eldest sister automatically receives the titles, and rules in her
own right, not in the right of her son. A famous example of this is Marjorie, Countess of Carrick, mother of Robert the Bruce, who was the Countess of Carrick in her own right.
It was also practised in many of the kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent from the Middle Ages to the Indian independence movement.
In many of these kingdoms, adoption was allowed from a relative if a
monarch did not have children, and the adopted child could succeed to
the throne at the death of the monarch. An example of a king who was
adopted was Rajaram II of Satara, who was adopted by Shahu I (Rajaram II in turn adopted a son, Shahu II
who ruled as the next king). Often, the wife or mother of a childless
king were allowed to succeed to the throne as well and allowed to rule
as queen regnants in their own right, until their death, after which the
throne passed to the next closest relative. An example of this Queen Didda of Kashmir, who ascended the throne of Kashmir in 980 CE after the death of her grandson and ruled until 1003 CE. Another example is Qudsia Begum who became the Nawab of Bhopal in 1819 CE after the death of her husband and ruled until 1837 CE. Other famous queens include Rudrama Devi, Keladi Chennamma, Ahilyabai Holkar and Velu Nachiyar. Razia Sultana was a rare example of a queen who succeeded her father even when her brothers were alive. She ruled the Delhi Sultanate from 1236 to 1240 CE.
The Salic law,
or agnatic succession, restricted the pool of potential heirs to males
of the patrilineage, and altogether excluded females of the dynasty and
their descendants from the succession, unless there were no living males
to inherit. The Salic law applied to the former royal or imperial
houses of Albania, France, Italy, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Prussia/German Empire. It currently applies to the house of Liechtenstein, and the Chrysanthemum Throne of Japan.
In 1830 in Spain the question whether or not the Salic law applied – and therefore, whether Ferdinand VII should be followed by his daughter Isabella or by his brother Charles – led to a series of civil wars and the formation of a pretender rival dynasty which still exists.
Generally, hereditary monarchies that operate under the Salic law also use primogeniture among male descendants in the male line to determine the rightful successor, although in earlier history agnatic seniority was more usual than primogeniture. Fiefs and titles granted "in tail
male" or to "heirs male" follow this primogenitural form of succession.
(Those granted to "heirs male of the body" are limited to the male-line
descendants of the grantee; those to "heirs male general" may be
inherited, after the extinction of the grantee's male-line descendants,
by the male-line descendants of his father, paternal grandfather, etc.)
Agnatic-cognatic succession
Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture diagram. Legend:
Grey: incumbent
Square: male
Circle: female
Black: deceased
Diagonal: cannot be displaced
Agnatic-cognatic (or semi-Salic) succession, prevalent in much of
Europe since ancient times, is the restriction of succession to those
descended from or related to a past or current monarch exclusively
through the male line of descent: descendants through females were ineligible to inherit unless no males of the patrilineage remained alive.
In this form of succession, the succession is reserved first to
all the male dynastic descendants of all the eligible branches by order
of primogeniture, then upon total extinction of these male descendants to a female member of the dynasty. The only current monarchy that operated under semi-Salic law until recently is Luxembourg, which changed to absolute primogeniture in 2011. Former monarchies that operated under semi-Salic law included Austria (later Austria-Hungary), Bavaria, Hanover, Württemberg, Russia, Saxony, Tuscany, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
Some cultures pass honours down through the female line. A man's
wealth and title are inherited by his sister's children, and his
children receive their inheritance from their maternal uncles.
In Kerala, southern India, a custom known as Marumakkathayam was practiced by the Nair
nobility and royal families. Through this system, descent and the
inheritance of property were passed from the maternal uncle to nephews
or nieces. The right of the child was with the maternal uncle or the
mother's family rather than the father or the father's family. Through
this bloodline, surnames, titles, properties, and everything of the
child are inherited from his uncle or mother. Almost all the monarchs in
Kerala practised this system, including the monarchs of the Kingdom of Travancore, Sammothiris who were the monarchs of the Kingdom of Calicut, monarchs of the Kingdom of Cochin as well as the Kolathiris, the kings of Kolathunadu as well as in the Kingdom of Valluvanad. The Arakkal kingdom
followed a similar matrilineal system of descent: the eldest member of
the family, whether male or female, became its head and ruler. While
male rulers were called Ali Rajah, female rulers were known as Arakkal
Beevis. Usually after one king, his nephew through his sister succeeded
to the throne, and his own son receives a courtesy title
but has no place in the line of succession. In the absence of nephews,
nieces could also succeed to the kingdom, as in the case of Queen Gowri Lakshmi Bayi who was the queen regnant from 1810 to 1813. Since Indian Independence and the passing of several acts such as the Hindu Succession Act
(1956), this form of inheritance is no longer recognised by law.
Regardless, the pretender to the Travancore throne is still determined
by matrilinear succession.
Ultimogeniture
is an order of succession where the subject is succeeded by the
youngest son (or youngest child). This serves the circumstances where
the youngest is "keeping the hearth", taking care of the parents and
continuing at home, whereas elder children have had time to succeed "out
in the world" and provide for themselves.
Proximity of blood
is a system wherein the person closest in degree of kinship to the
sovereign succeeds, preferring males over females and elder over younger
siblings. This is sometimes used as a gloss for "pragmatic" successions
in Europe; it had somewhat more standing during the Middle Ages everywhere in Europe. In Outremer it was often used to choose regents, and it figured in some of the succession disputes over the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was also recognized in that kingdom for the succession of fiefs, under special circumstances: if a fief was lost to the Saracens and subsequently re-conquered, it was to be assigned to the heir in proximity of blood of the last fief-holder.
In Scotland, Robert de Brus
tried to claim the Scottish crown by order of proximity. He was not
successful, but his grandson later successfully claimed the crown as Robert I of Scotland.
In some societies, a monarchy or a fief was inherited in a way that
all entitled heirs had a right to a share of it. The most prominent
examples of this practice are the multiple divisions of the Frankish Empire under the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties, and similarly Gavelkind in the British Isles.
In seniority successions, a monarch's or fiefholder's next sibling (almost always brother),
succeeds; not his children. And, if the royal house is more extensive,
(male) cousins and so forth succeed, in order of seniority, which may
depend upon actual age or upon the seniority between their fathers.
Rota system
Rota system diagram. Legend:
Grey: incumbent
Half-grey: predecessor of incumbent
Square: male
Black: deceased
Diagonal: cannot be displaced
cross: excluded or Izgoi (excluded from succession due to their parent never having held the throne)
The rota system, from the Old Church Slavic word for "ladder"
or "staircase", was a system of collateral succession practised (though
imperfectly) in Kievan Rus' and later Appanage and early Muscovite Russia.
In this system, the throne passed not linearly from father to
son, but laterally from brother to brother and then to the eldest son of
the eldest brother who had held the throne. The system was begun by Yaroslav the Wise,
who assigned each of his sons a principality based on seniority. When
the Grand Prince died, the next most senior prince moved to Kiev and all
others moved to the principality next up the ladder.
Historically the tanist was chosen from among the heads of the roydammna or "righdamhna" (literally, those of kingly material) or, alternatively, among all males of the sept,
and elected by them in full assembly. The eligibility was based on
descent from a king to a few degrees of proximity. Usually descent from
the male lines of a king was the norm, however in Scotland, descent
through the female lines of a king was also accepted, possibly because
of an intermingling with the Pictish succession rules. An example of
this is King Eochaid who claimed the Scottish throne as the son of the daughter of Kenneth I.
The composition and the governance of the clan were built upon
descent from a similar ancestor. The office was noted from the beginning
of recorded history in Ireland, and probably pre-dates it. A story
about Cormac mac Airt refers to his eldest son as his tanist. Following his murder by a member of the Deisi, another roydammna, Eochaid Gonnat, succeeded as king.
The royal succession in Celtic Scotland was limited to the elective succession of the male descendants of Siol Alpein (House of Alpin) until the accession of King Malcolm II in 1005, who introduced the concept of hereditary monarchy in Scotland. He did so to try to eliminate the strife caused by the elective law, which encouraged rival claimants to fight for the throne. The earlier Pictish kingdoms
had allowed female-line succession to the throne and in middle age
Scotland, Pictish and Gaelic succession rules were intermingled. Since
Malcolm had only daughters, the throne passed to his grandson through
his eldest daughter and later, their descendants. The Irish monarchies,
for their part, never at any stage allowed for female line succession.
Order of succession can be arranged by appointment: either the incumbent monarch or some electoral
body appoints an heir or a list of heirs before vacancy occurs. A
monarchy may be generally elective, although in a way that the next
holder will be elected only after it becomes vacant.
In history, quite often, but not always, appointments and
elections favored, or were limited to, members of a certain dynasty or
extended family. There may be genealogical rules to determine all who
are entitled to succeed, and who will be favored. This has led sometimes
to an order of succession that balances branches of a dynasty by
rotation.
Lateral or fraternal system of succession
mandates principles of seniority among members of a dynasty or dynastic
clan, with a purpose of election a best qualified candidate for the
leadership. The leaders are elected as being the most mature elders of
the clan, already in possession of military power and competence.
Fraternal succession is preferred to ensure that mature leaders are in
charge, removing a need for regents. The lateral system of succession
may or may not exclude male descendants in the female line from
succession. In practice, when no male heir is mature enough, a female
heir is usually determined "pragmatically", by proximity to the last
monarch, like Boariks of the Caucasian Huns or Tamiris of Massagetes
in Middle Asia were selected. The lateral monarch is generally elected
after the leadership throne becomes vacant. In the early years of the
Mongol empire, the death of the ruling monarchs, Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan, immediately stopped the Mongols' western campaigns because of the upcoming elections.
In East Asia, the lateral succession system is first recorded in the pre-historical period starting with the late Shang dynasty's Wai Bing succeeding his brother Da Ding, and then in connection with a conquest by the Zhou of the Shang, when Wu Ding was succeeded by his brother Zu Geng in 1189 BC and then by another brother Zu Jia in 1178 BC.
A drawback of the lateral succession is that, while ensuring a
most competent leadership for the moment, the system inherently created
derelict princely lines not eligible for succession. Any scion of an
eligible heir who did not live long enough to ascend to the throne was
cast aside as not eligible, creating a pool of discontented pretenders
called Tegin in Turkic and Izgoi
in Rus dynastic lines. The unsettled pool of derelict princes would
eventually bring havoc to the succession order and dismemberment to the
state.
When a monarch dies without a clear successor, a succession crisis often ensues, frequently resulting in a war of succession. For example, when King Charles IV of France died, the Hundred Years War erupted between Charles' cousin, Philip VI of France, and Charles' nephew, Edward III of England, to determine who would succeed Charles as the King of France. When the crown of Scotland became vacant in September 1290 on the death of the seven-year-old Queen Margaret, 13 claimants to the throne came forward. Where the line of succession is clear, it has sometimes happened that a pretender with a weak or spurious claim but military or political power usurps the throne.
In recent years researchers have found significant connections
between the types of rules governing succession in monarchies and
autocracies and the frequency with which coups or succession crises
occur.
Religion
In Tibetan Buddhism, it is believed that the holders of some high offices such as the Dalai Lama are reincarnations
of the incumbent: the order of succession is simply that an incumbent
is followed by a reincarnation of himself. When an incumbent dies, his
successor is sought in the general population by certain criteria
considered to indicate that the reincarnated Dalai Lama has been found, a process which typically takes two to four years to find the infant boy.
In states or provinces within a country, frequently a lieutenant
governor or deputy governor is elected to fill a vacancy in the office
of the governor.
In Republic of Korea,
If the president is unable to serve, the prime minister takes over if
able to serve. If not, the order of succession is the minister of
Economy and Finance, minister of Education etc. There is no vice
president, and a new president has to be elected if the president dies
or resigns.
In Finland,
the president's temporary successor is the prime minister and then the
ministers in the order of days spent in office, instead of in order of
ministry. There is no vice president, and a new president has to be
elected if the president dies or resigns.
.svg)
