Not Proved: Some Lingering Questions About Presidential Succession

14 Pages Posted: 19 Oct 2016

Date Written: November 1, 1995


This paper examines textual and structural arguments made by Professors Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar against placing the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate in the line of succession to the Presidency, as the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 does. The paper argues that neither the text nor the history of Article II’s Succession Clause speaks decisively to the question of whom Congress may, by statute, place in the line of succession to the Presidency. For that reason, the assignment of the burden of persuasion on the question of constitutionality necessarily plays a large role in the analysis. Certainly, the text and structure of the Constitution justify “substantial” doubts about the validity of the Presidential Succession Act. But if Congress' implementation of the Succession Clause warrants the presumption of constitutionality traditionally enjoyed by Acts of Congress, then there is good reason to hesitate before declaring unconstitutional Congress' longstanding (but not unbroken) practice of placing legislative “Officers” in the line of succession.

Suggested Citation

Manning, John F., Not Proved: Some Lingering Questions About Presidential Succession (November 1, 1995). 48 Stan. L. Rev. 141 (1995). Available at SSRN: or

John F. Manning (Contact Author)

Harvard Law School ( email )

1575 Massachusetts
Hauser 406
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics