I imagine it had to do with FDR dying while in office, but why was it that the speaker was chosen as first in line after the vice president. It seems like this creates a pretty big conflict of interests in an impeachment setting. It's the current situation that has me thinking of this. If the president and vice president were to be involved in a serious crime or possibly completely legal, but highly unethical scandal, wouldn't the speaker have large motivation to swing votes toward impeachment? I recall a similar conflict of interests with Henry Clay in the 1800's having a large say in an election he lost. I think it was the election of John Q. Adams? Something like he was sour Andrew Jackson took votes from him, but since nobody had a majority, the House decided, and Henry Clay was speaker, so he pushed through second place John Q. Adams. If I'm wrong here, please enlighten me. This is what I recall from High School years ago. If this is correct, did anyone consider the conflict of interest when passing the succession act, through this example or otherwise?
The start of the Cold War. Worries that the president could chose his own successor. Truman had issues with the current sec of state, however the reasoning does make sense.
You wouldn't want a president/ Vice President in theory to win then resign allowing an unelected official, the sec of state to become president.
The speaker does not have a conflict because if he could swing the votes, which the house needs a simple majority to impeach, the senate needs a 2/3 majority. So the senate checks the speaker.
But let's say that there is a situation where the speaker and the senate pro temp both are trying to impeach the president. That would most likely mean the executive branch and the both chambers of the house are under different political control.
Impeachment is a very long process, we have elections every 2 years for the house and for 1/3 for the senate.
So the house would have an their impeachment process, so does the senate. Both of which are time consuming. An impeachment would more than likely happen in the second half of a presidents second term. There would be no political reason to impeach a president before that, if he is that unpopular he won't be reelected. (Baring he committed a major crime)
So both houses are in control of the different party than the president, however Republicans learned that during bill Clintons impeachment.
Before the 1998 midterms. They lost pretty big.
So if it were for a power hungry speaker of the house. Well he's gonna have some problems.
My only concern would be that the speaker of the house doesn't have the be an elected official. It can be anyone.