Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Friday, Jan. 10, 1964
Presidential Disability
Lyndon B. Johnson carries with him, wherever he goes, a dog-eared piece of paper encased in plastic.
The paper is a cardiogram proving that Johnson's heart is completely healed from a heart attack in 1955.
HOWEVER REASSURING that paper may be, it also is a constant reminder that at any moment the President of the United States may be unable to perform the duties of his office. No reminder should be needed—the tragic assassination of President Kennedy is enough.
Of course, the assassination of Kennedy occasioned much debate over the desirability of the present law of succession, under which Speaker of the House John McCormack is next in line for the presidency.
A consensus seems to be developing that we should return to the succession law of 1886, under which the next man in line after the vicepresident was the secretary of state, with the other cabinet members following in order of the historic creation of their office.
BUT OF EQUAL if not greater importance are the provisions for succession when the President is disabled but not dead.
There is more historic basis for concern over this question than over the problem of succession beyond the vice-presidency; no vice-president has ever succeeded to the presidency and then himself died or become disabled, although seven vice-presidents have died in office, and one—John C. Calhoun—resigned to run for the Senate.
But three times in the last 80 years a president has been unable to fulfill the duties of office and the result has been chaotic at worst, undesirable at best.
THE FIRST WAS in 1881, when Garfield was shot. He lingered on for 80 days, unable to carry out the affairs of state.
The second was in 1919, when Wilson suffered a stroke. He did not attend a cabinet meeting until the following April, and the President's doctor and wife played an important role in determining what the President could do and whom he might see. When he did recover, Wilson regarded the action of Secretary of State Robert Lansing in calling cabinet meetings as an usurpation of presidential power, and he dismissed him.
The most recent was in 1955 and '56, when President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack and then ileitis. An ad hoc committee of White House aides — particularly Sherman Adams — cabinet members and Vice-President Nixon kept things going until Eisenhower recovered.
Each of these incidents points up the weaknesses of the current situation: there is almost no definite way to take care of a situation in which the president is incapacitated.
FOUR BASIC NEEDS of the nation must be considered in judging any proposal for definite assumption of power in the event of presidential disability—power, responsibility, certainty, continuity.
In a world where a decision might be required at a moment's notice, there must be some definite concentration of power. In the case of Wilson and Garfield, no such concentration was in evidence. Major decisions simply had to wait. When Eisenhower was disabled, the body of men who assumed the nation's leadership apparently had the power, but it also is apparent that such a committee could never have the swift decisiveness of a single man. The control of power must be clear, unencumbered, undisputed.
It also is evident that a semi-secret, self-appointed body of men would never be as accountable to the public as a single man—they could not be called "responsible," in this meaning, by any stretch of the imagination.
ABSOLUTEY NO certainty is evident in the present state of affairs. Who is to take over is set by law, however bad that law may be, but "when" is so nebulous as to be undeterminable. In times of national emergency, there must be a definite plan for the assumption of power, both to meet the emergency and to allay public fears.
The uncertainty is best displayed in the Garfield and Wilson administrations. Arthur hesitated to take over from Garfield because he feared that he would appear to be improperly wresting power from the president; also, he was from another wing of the Republican party and Garfield's supporters distrusted him.
The same was true in Wilson's day. Some cabinet members apparently thought of asking
Vice-President Thomas Marshall to take over, but Wilson's supporters distrusted Marshall and he himself declined to move. The indecision here may have cost the U.S. the ratification of the Versailles Treaty.
THE PROBLEM is even worse today. If Johnson should become disabled and McCormack should have to take over for a time, McCormack would be required by law to resign from the House before assuming the presidency. When Johnson recovered, McCormack would be a private citizen—another, and unfair, burden on the speaker and probably a fact which would cause him to hesitate even more.
The problem of continuity is the one which has caused the most spirited debate recently. Six times in the last century—most recently under President Eisenhower—the party other than that of the president has controlled Congress. In such a case, Speaker Joseph Martin, an implacable foe of the New and Fair Deal programs, would have become president had Truman died or become incapacitated while still serving the remainder of FDR's fourth term. That clearly is not the public wish—and it would cause administrative chaos if a man from the opposition party assumed the presidency during an unexpired term.
That is also one reason most people favor returning to the 1886 succession act; the secretary of state would more likely carry on the president's program.
IF ANY SOLUTION is considered by Congress, three requirements must be met.
First, there must be some provision under which the next man in line, whatever office he might hold, would take over promptly. We cannot afford another 80-day lapse in the nation's business, as happened under Garfield; we cannot afford a slowdown and possible diplomatic loss, as happened under Wilson. Besides, 28 bills became law without Wilson's signature during a special session of Congress; if the opposition party controlled Congress the result might be total chaos.
Second, there must be a guarantee that the incumbent president will resume power. Garfield's supporters feared that if Arthur took over Garfield would never be able to reassume his office—one reason Arthur made no move to assume control. And Wilson fired his secretary of state for essentially the same reason.
The incumbent president, then, must have the right to decide for himself when he is able to reassume office—and be guaranteed that he will be able to do so. If there is some medical reason why the president should not reassume his office—if he is insane, for example—the solution is impeachment. But we cannot permit the presidency of the United States to become a goal of power coups.
THIRD, THERE must be some machinery set up to decide when the president is unable to fulfill his duties. The New York Times suggested an advisory board of cabinet members, congressmen, medical men, and disinterested private citizens.
However, this proposal puts more power than seems proper in the hands of a few men—the power to remove the president, a power rightfully belonging to the Congress.
A definite safeguard would, however, be established by the second requirement; the president himself would have the power to overrule the "committee."
There is also a dislike among many scholars for establishing a definite, written procedure for presidential succession. The feeling is that we must allow for agreements between the president and vice-president. Harry Truman concurs in this belief, saying he would not like to see the president encumbered by too strict procedural details.
WHILE CONGRESS does have the power to determine presidential disability, for it to do so would immediately bring in politics and smack of impeachment to boot, when impeachment proceedings might not be what was required.
"We must have certain flexibility to meet changing conditions," he said.
BUT IT WAS also President Truman who wrote in 1957 that "the job of the President is getting to be an almost unendurable mental and physical burden, and we ought not to go on trusting to luck to see us through."
Indeed not.
Blaine King
"Now It's Just A Matter Of Rounding Up A Herd Of Elephants"
The People Say...
Bad Book
Editor.
I have just put down my copy of the 1964 Jayhawk and have a few comments to make. The first, Fall edition which was rushed to the eager students on January 7 is one of the most amateurish attempts at capturing the life of a university that I have ever seen. This-called college yearbook has so many basic faults that it is hard to begin. The book is paper thin, but the real trouble comes when the reader opens the book. Instantly he is met with one of the most unattractive first pages ever seen. A headless drawing of two students (obviously symbolizing something) is the main attraction of this page. Two pages later another of these awful sketches comes to view.
There are many layout mistakes in this book. The Rush pictures and S.U.A. Carnival pictures are horribly arranged and dully placed against black backgrounds. The reader then turns to the sports section with the thought that certainly the book will improve. His hope is given an uplift by the beautiful color photo of the football team in action. But, alas, the beauty soon ends. The four games covered are crammed into a one page summary. Certainly a little more space could have been given these games, with maybe a line or two, or possibly even a photo of the newly expanded stadium.
Right after the photos of the football team comes the double page entitled New Students. This section is made ludicrous by the photograph chosen to represent what I suppose is considered the average new students. A flowery article on the happiness of the new students is printed on a picture of three of the glumnest students seen since November 22nd. They are photographed against a gloomy gray wall that would seem to indicate that this unsmiling trio had just hopped over the wall at Leavenworth.
The book then concludes with a somewhat humorous editorial and the usual party shots laced with their usual humor.
A bright note about this travesty is the attractive cover that successfully hides the book's unpleasant interior.
Daily transan
111 Flint Hall
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service 18, University of North Carolina, Knox service; United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the weekdays on Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas
The format of the yearbook seems rather strange also. The four-section magazine idea may have its good points, but it would be simpler and more reasonable if the yearbook came out in two sections, one at the end of each semester. As it is we almost have to wait that long anyway, and many activities are divided. The football section is a good example. One has to bear the suspense of "to be continued" to find out if Kansas beat "mighty Oklahoma the next weekend."
Mike McCrann
It also costs six dollars.
Kirkwood, Mo., sophomore
Editor:
Just Stupidity
It is obvious that you missed the whole concept of the principle involved concerning the Mummer's Parade in Philadelphia.
In the first place, what may seem to you to be hypersensitivity is just stupidity on your part. Is it hypersensitive to dislike 64 years of mockery in a parade? Do you suppose that after suffering slavery and 400 years of injustice, the Negro will say, "I don't mind being ridiculed in public"?
If you think that isn't mockery, then what do you propose to call it? You say that they're doing the same thing the minstrels did. Apparently you don't know what minstrels did. The minstrels mocked the Negro and helped to initiate the Negro stereotype. You concede that the Negro must fight this image, yet you oppose what was—in this case—the only practical method of fighting the stereotype. Perhaps your thoughts are idealistic, but no practical solution can be attained through idealism.
As for your "rough analogy," you were correct in calling it rough for it doesn't begin to compare with mocking the Negro. A cartoon characterizing LBJ's nose mocks but one man, but a blackface clown insults a multitude of men. It is no more a 64-year tradition to go about wearing large noses than it is for Negroes to parade for 64 years, or 164 years, or 1064 years, with painted white faces.
Blackface clowning is a tradition which never should have begun. If people can stop telling accent or religious jokes, then they can stop making a joke of a race of people. This is a common courtesy. This is respect for human beings. This is attainment of one of the freedoms for which we cry—the freedom from stereotype; the right to individualism.
Barbara E. Bailey
Grambling, La., sophomore
Bessiefrances J. Meador
Kansas City junior