Talk:Carl Albert

I read that there was a certain amount of hesitence at the time to having Albert assume the Presidency because he was thought to be a heavy drinker. Should this be mentioned? -R. fiend 23:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, is his statement that if he assumed the Presidency he would step down when a replacement was selected a precedent? As it never panned out in the first place, and has certainly never been repeated, I don't think it qualifies. -R. fiend 07:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add the fact that there is a college in LeFlore County named for him. If anyone sees a better place in the article for it, feel free to move it.--Thudgens 19:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

the Carl Albert saying he'd serve as acting president only 1973 senerio, made me think of a real potential brain twister: What if Bush & Cheney died ,at the same time?. the Speaker of the House ,it's seems would only become Acting President. If that's a fact, does the Nation go without a President for the rest of the elected Term? Since no-wheres in the Constitution does it say an Acting-President can nominate someone for Vice-President.

- I assume you mean will the nation go without a Vice-President. Well, I'm no constitutional scholar, but I thought that one of the more recent amendments to the constitution states that the VP (or, I assume anyone further down who assumes the position of President due to death or whatever) does not just become the acting-President, but the actual President in all capacities. So he could appoint a VP,a s any other sitting President can. I'm not 100% on this, however. -R. fiend 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is as R. Fiend's. It has, however, been suggested that the current presidential succession act, including the Speaker and President pro tem, is unconstitutional, because the Speaker and President pro tem are officers of the congress, not officers of the United States. But that's all hypothetical. john k 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if Hastert or Stevens (or their successors), are ever faced with that scenero, the interpretation is theirs. Eitherway ,you could say the Presidency of the United States can never be vacant, and Hastert's or Stevens's swearing-in would be supported (even if they were Democrats, which they're not). 22 October 2005

Just a comment: Thank goodness Carl Albert never got to face that situation. Though he meant well, in proposing to serve only as Acting President (until a Vice President took office), His action would have left the Presidency vacant. I think personally ,if left with the choice Speaker Albert would have accepted the Presidency and been sworn in to office. 22 October 2005

I'll say this much, old Carl Albert was no John Tyler. When Tyler (as VP) was faced with Presidential Succession (before the 25th amendment) in April 1841, upon President Harrison death. He seen to it, that there was no 'Acting' about it. He was the New President , said so and defiantly took the Presidential Oath of Office (upon his arrival in Washington DC). Thus establishing a very important precedent, (at least for VP's). Would House Speaker Albert have been as bold? 23 October 2005.

Opening Up ,a new can of worms

Here's something American historians have been arguing over for years. Does the Vice-President of the United States and if no VP ,then the next in line, automatically become President when the previous President dies, resigns or is removed from office, or does he or she have to take the Presidential Oath of Office to become the new President? Example: November 22nd ,1963 from the momment JFK died, did LBJ become President or did he stay Vice-President until 2 1/2 hours later when he took the Presidential Oath of Office aboard Air Force One? 23 October 2005.