The Vice Presidency

December 2, 1963

Though the assassination of President Kennedy came as an incredible shock, it did not bring the uncertainty and chaos that might have followed in a country under different institutions. The nation was not left in doubt for an hour concerning Mr. Kennedy’s successor. It knew almost immediately that it would be the Vice President, Lyndon Johnson. Yet the incident once more raises the question whether the constitutional and statutory arrangements for the succession to the Presidency, when the incumbent dies or is killed in office, are adequate or even reasonably satisfactory.

It is, of course, a gain for the orderly transition of power, and for the reduction of uncertainty, that the name of the successor should be known. But even the institution of a hereditary monarchy provides this kind of transition and certainty. What remains in doubt when a Vice President succeeds to the Presidency through the accident of death is not only what changes in policy he will attempt, but what support he will get from Congress, and whether he would in fact have been the choice of the country for President. The succession of Andrew Johnson following Lincoln’s assassination, and the bitter struggle with Congress that followed, culminating in the attempt to impeach him (which failed only by a single vote), dramatized all these doubts and misgivings.

ABOLISH THE OFFICE?

No one expects a repetition of anything approaching this now that another President Johnson has been brought into office by an assassin’s bullet. Because of Lyndon Johnson’s long and brilliantly successful experience as Majority Leader of the Senate and because he represents more nearly the center of his own party, it is probable, indeed, that he will gain more cooperation from Congress than President Kennedy did, and may even succeed in reconciling the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic Party. But if this turns out to be so, it will be a lucky accident and a result hardly attributable to our institutional provisions.

Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to abolish the office of Vice President? When there is a Vice President in office it is difficult to discuss this abstract institutional question without being suspected of a personal bias for or against the incumbent. But when, as now, the office falls vacant, it seems opportune to consider it with the seriousness it deserves. I should like to take the liberty of quoting from a book I wrote more than twenty years ago, A New Constitution Now (1942).

CHOICE BY CONGRESS

“If the aim of a constitution is either to clarify the expression of the popular will or to bring the ablest men of a country into leadership, the institution of the Vice Presidency achieves neither purpose. On the contrary, the institution beclouds campaign issues. It forces many voters to choose a man they do not like in order to elect a man they do like. It would be an obvious improvement in our democratic machinery if only candidates for President were nominated and elected, and if the Constitution were amended to provide, following the precedent in a number of other countries, that in the event of the death of the President the successor to fill his unexpired term would be chosen by the House and Senate sitting as a single body. A President so chosen would be certain to be an outstanding man, who would receive the willing cooperation of Congress, and would represent the sentiment of the country at the time he came into office.

“Such a man could not fail to be a better choice, on the average, than a man who comes to the Presidency accidentally through the death of the President. Congress, in making its own choice of a successor, would be forced to act with the utmost seriousness and responsibility. Compare this with the irresponsible and frivolous attitude of a party nominating convention that chooses a Vice Presidential candidate to ‘balance the ticket’ with little real belief that he will ever become President—and with even a doubt whether he will ever become Vice President. The superiority of the method of Congressional choice is beyond question.”