The "Munson Question"

[Legbreaker]

Split this can of worms from the Mexico thread.

Originally Posted by Webstral

President Munson is an interesting issue. I must confess that I’d never given his fate after being relieved any thought until Leg brought it up.

As far as the timing of the takeover of the Joint Chiefs, Leg is right that there is no specific reference to when Munson’s two successors take over. Most importantly, Howling Wilderness gives us no date as to when the Secretary of Energy commits suicide. However, the first paragraph after the heading “The Mexican and Soviet Invasions” tells us that the Joint Chiefs were governing the country as of 02 JUN 98. In the absence of evidence stating that either of Munson’s successors were still in power as of or after 02 JUN 98, I take the foregoing as evidence that by 02 JUN 98 the Secretary of State had his heart attack and the Secretary of Energy took her own life.

Still, we don’t know what happened to Munson. It’s an interesting question. How long after his breakdown does he survive? Being the last truly legitimate successor, Munson has the best claim to lead the nation. Unfortunately for him, this fact would make him very unpopular with both Milgov and Civgov. If Munson ends up in the protective custody of the Joint Chiefs after his breakdown and somehow survives through 2001, then either he is legitimately incompetent to lead or has been declared so at the behest of the Joint Chiefs. Either way, it’s unlikely he’ll resurface. If he is sufficiently competent to show to the public for the purposes of supporting Milgov, then he’s sufficiently competent to lead (otherwise his support doesn’t mean anything).

Still, there’s an outside chance that the Joint Chiefs are holding Munson in case he does recover sufficiently to lead. This idea begs more interesting questions. What criteria must be met for the Joint Chiefs to bring Munson out from under wraps, knowing that if they do so he will assume the presidency? This is asking a lot of the loyalty of the Joint Chiefs to the pre-war chain of command, but this level of loyalty isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility. A good novel might be written showing the thought processes of the Joint Chiefs as Munson increasingly shows that he might resume the presidency.

It’s also possible that Civgov has him in protective custody, though I find this prospect more remote than the idea that Milgov is holding Munson. If Civgov has Munson, then they are playing the same game as outlined above. If Munson is competent to lead, then Civgov would unveil him when they think it is to their advantage. The twist here is that while Broward would hate the idea, the rest of Congress might support it. No skin off their noses, so to speak. And Milgov would have no further claims to independent power, though they might deny that Munson was in good enough condition to lead.

It’s also possible that a third party has been hiding Munson. It’s hard to see that either Milgov or Civgov would allow themselves to be subjected to the authority of Munson if he were to resurface in 2001. In all likelihood, they would deny his mental competence and drive on. Still, if Munson somehow were to find himself in the hands of a strong cantonment, a third claimant to executive authority of the US could emerge. This seems unlikely, but it would be good storytelling.

All very interesting. I’m surprised I never thought about it. Good job, Leg.

Edit: I added p.9 of Howling Wilderness for those who don't have access to it.

Further to the "Munson Question", an election was due in 2000. What would happen to his claim to the presidency (if he's still alive) at that time? Could the normal election schedule be suspended for the duration of the emergency?

With the greater likelihood of him being in military care, how might Milgov use him to further legitimise their authority. Could his survival impact upon his successors decisions and commands?

What other complications could arise from his survival, or even rumours of him still being alive?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by DocSavage45B10

Section 4 of the Ammendment XXV specifies that a President may declare himself incompetent or be declared incompetent by his Vice President and a majority of his cabinent, or other body as Congress may by law provide. In both cases official letters to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to take effect.

In either case the incapatitated President can return to acting President by sending letters to stating that no inability exists to the leaders of the Senate and House. Such a declaration of ability may be contested by the Vice (and Acting) President (or presumably another acting President by the Succession Act of 1947) and a majority his Cabinent, in which case the descision is referred to Congress.

As per the Presidential Succession Act, in order for the chairman of the JCS to assume the powers of Acting President, the entire cabinent would have to be incapable of acting as President.

Basically as long as there exists a Senate and a House President Munson can claim his office by informing them of his ability to do so. What's interesting is that the Acting President of both CIVGOV and MILGOV might have problems with this, and might both concievably protest. Except in MILGOV's case, this would require recognizing the disputed body that lead to their split in the first place.

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is an excellent resource, Doc. Thanks for posting this.

This isn’t really what I meant by criteria for having the Joint Chiefs hand the reins back to the President. There’s what’s written in the Constitution, and then there’s what people in power actually do. There is an excellent chance that the Joint Chiefs see politicians as being the [expletive deleted] who got the country into this [expletive deleted] mess in the first place. There’s an excellent chance that they may be reluctant to take Munson’s say-so that he’s ready to resume his position as the chief executive of the nation. The Joint Chiefs might also feel that a guy who cracked up at the beginning of the post-Exchange crisis might not be trustworthy in 2001, regardless of what he says or what his therapist says. Honestly, I think the issue of letter writing, Cabinet approval or disapproval, and Congressional voting comes after the people who are harboring Munson (assuming Milgov or Civgov is) decide they are going to let him see the light of day again. The Joint Chiefs have everything to lose and a questionable amount to gain by trying to re-install Munson as POTUS.

Assuming that the Joint Chiefs are so loyal to the Constitution that they want to have Munson re-instated after satisfying themselves that his previous inability has resolved itself, then they still face the problem of getting approval from the various parties mentioned. Milgov doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the Civgov Congress, President, or Cabinet (the last of which would be appointed by someone elected by a legislature whose legal standing is very much in doubt and which is contested by Milgov in any event). We see no mention of Milgov doing much of anything to restore a Congress or civilian executive. So even if the Joint Chiefs are inclined to hand supreme executive power back to Munson because they are loyal to the Constitution, and even if they somehow become satisfied that his mental condition warrants consideration for re-installment, neither Vice President nor Cabinet nor Congress exist in Milgov to provide a legal basis for Munson’s resumption of his duties as President.

Of course, none of the aforementioned obstacles really matter if the Joint Chiefs are determined to restore Munson to his former position. Some sort of legal nicety can be crafted and left to the law students and historians to debate down the road. If Milgov has been harboring Munson, then the only criterion that matters is whether the Joint Chiefs are willing to hand power back to him.

If Civgov has been harboring Munson, then things can unfold more-or-less as outlined in the Constitution—provided, of course, that whoever has possession of Munson decides to allow him to write the appropriate letters and have them delivered. There’s the question of the legitimacy of Congress in 2001, but that’s another issue. Of course, Broward might simply have Munson killed to prevent his return. I’m sure there are other actions he could take to block Munson from returning—not the least of which would be to point out that Munson broke down under pressure and therefore Congress would be insane to put him back in place. On the other hand, the resumption of power of the last living legitimate POTUS might close the breach between Milgov and Civgov. (Heavy emphasis on MIGHT) Whatever Milgov think of the Civgov Congress, Munson is the real deal. Of course, they’d still want to satisfy themselves that he wouldn’t pooch everything they have done to put the country back together—and this might prove an insurmountable obstacle for a restored Munson Administration. However, the restoration of an unquestionably legitimate POTUS in 2001 would be a real propaganda coup for Civgov, regardless of what the Joint Chiefs choose to do.

If New America has been harboring Munson (not that I think there’s an easy path to explain how such a thing would have happened), then the Constitutional route is out. It doesn’t really matter, though. New America would use him as a figurehead, nothing more.

If some other party was harboring Munson, the outcome of bringing him back into the public eye would depend a great deal on what that group wanted to achieve. A warlord would want legitimacy and keep Munson on a set of strings. If somehow the Shogun in Nevada got hold of Munson, for instance, Munson’s role would be to appoint the Shogun as senior military man with some sort of political power to boot. A military man might behave like a warlord, or he might actually treat the President like the President. General Thomason of Fort Huachuca would treat the President as the President. The CG of Sixth US Army might recognize a Munson Presidency, or the CG might ask Colorado Springs for guidance. Admiral MacDowell of First District might recognize Munson’s authority, or he might have Munson fed to the fish. The possibilities are endless.

It's worth looking at the recent political situation in Papua New Guinea for ideas on this.
The previous Prime Minister required surgery which left him in a coma which it was thought he would not recover from. His son tendered his resignation to Parliament on his behalf and a new Prime Minister elected. The former PM then recovered and a attempted to reclaim his position - a civil war almost broke out with some military and police units supporting one side and the rest the other. The whole mess ended up in the High Court and after they declared the former as the rightful PM, the judge was arrested and charged with sedition (I think).
It was a lot messier than this though and has almost been concluded (new general election called), but makes for an interesting parallel to the Milgov/Civgov/Munson scenario.

[Legbreaker]

Another question.
What happens if the rightful successor (after President Tanners Secretary of Energy) is found and is willing/forced to step up?
I'm guessing Civgov would do absolutely EVERYTHING in their power to prevent this.

[Tegyrius]

Covertly, of course. If they got caught, they'd lose any claim to constitutional legitimacy.

- C.

[Jason Weiser]

Ok,
This is taken from memory of reading Edward Zuckerman's "The Day After World War III". I would encourage all T2K players to read it. It's pretty good and lays out government post attack planning during the Cold War very well.

What probably happened was this: At the initiation of tactical nuclear warfare in Europe, FEMA's Central Locator Service (CLS) probably upgraded their reporting requirements. CLS's job is to track all the presidential successors and their whereabouts. The reporting requirements from said successors were usually in time of peace, fairly infrequent. But, I suspect that they became weekly during the conventional phase of the war. Once the tac nukes began to fly? I'd say those requirements became daily.

So, I don't think Munson was so much out of contact, as out of position. Then again, in the midst of a national crisis, I doubt he'd go anywhere too remote. He is 3rd in line for the Presidency, and there's a very good chance the two folks above you are going to buy it in the first five minutes.

Couple that with things being on autopilot after Pemberton gives the nuclear release authority before she dies in the White House, and who knows, maybe they couldn't find a judge nearby to swear Munson in? Or, he was pinned down due to a high rad count or a nuke triggered avalanche? So I don't think he was lost for that entire 22 hours. I think it more likely he was out of position and those 22 hours the government functioned on autopilot. (This is somewhat illegal because of the constitutional provisions of FEP D). Now, what could have happened there is the state governors proclaimed martial law on a state level, which Munson then just reaffirmed on the Federal level. Might not survive the Supreme Court if anybody were to sue...but then again, who the heck's suing at a time like this?

[Graebarde]

Well they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when they hit DOE, as only Education and Vet Affairs remains in the line of succession. Now I think the Vet Affairs sec would be a better choice than either of the other two in times of trouble, at least if it was the veteran that was the sec for many years. He would have SOME idea of the military side of things.

What happens when they run out of secretaries to fill the slot? I know the probabilities are super low to that happening, but...

[pmulcahy11b]

By the V1 timeline, there is no Secretary of Veterans' Affairs -- there is a VA Chief, but he wasn't given a Cabinet position until 1992.

[Panther Al]

Actually, if you think about it a moment, the point is actually rather moot.


If you go by any of the timelines, the earliest he would pop up is late summer 2000. His term is up, and thats that.


He could be more sane than anyone ever born - but if he doesn't say so before 2000, it doesn't matter.

[Targan]

So what does the constitution say about a situation where it just isn't possible to hold properly organised, fair and legal elections?

[Panther Al]

Honestly?


I don't think it says anything about that. Technically, and I am no barrister, I would say its a Constitutional Crisis, that mandates a Constitutional Convention.


Good luck with that in the TW2K-verse. My guess is KOBO till it sorts itself out, and then hold an election.

[Webstral]

Finding the Secretary of Education might be an interesting adventure—sort of a Kidnapped in reverse. The plot could be thickened by the presence of other interested parties in pursuit. Of course, some explanation for how and why the Secretary of Education survived to 2001 would have to be concocted. The same questions we asked above would apply. How would Milgov react? How would Civgov react? Where would SecEd be found? Would he be in hiding, or would he be a known quantity somewhere? If he is known for who he is where he is residing, why haven’t Milgov and Civgov found out?

[Targan]

Confirming the SecEd's identity once he's been located could also be problematic. Presumably FEMA, the CIA and the FBI would be under CivGov control and would have fingerprint and other records to assist with the positive ID process. MilGov would be relying heavily on the DIA's analysts, I think, to pull together whatever verifying credentials it could locate.

[kato13]

Personally I have never used the Milgov/CivGov split as I felt the the second in command for a department would be pre approved as a replacement once the nukes flew anywhere. That adds even more variables to replacements.

From what I just read even that appears to not be necessary. Apparently acting secretaries (usually a deputy who has not been approved for the full Secretary position as a replacement) are in the line of succession as they themselves have approved by the Senate for their prior (Deputy) post.

In my mind the one of the first acts of anyone who is sworn in as President is to elevate the second or third in command (whomever they have contact with) to be an acting secretary. The line of succession can then be rebuilt significantly.

Cabinet members in the line of succession must have been confirmed by the Senate. This means that recess appointees who head cabinet departments are not eligible to serve as president. The language in the current Presidential Succession Act is less clear than that of the 1886 Act with respect to Senate confirmation. The 1886 Act refers to “such officers as shall have been appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate to the officer therein named… .”38 The current act merely refers to “officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”39 Read literally, this means that the current act allows for acting secretaries to be in the line of succession as long as they are confirmed by the Senate for a post (even for example, the second or third in command within a department). It is not uncommon for a second in command to become acting secretary when the secretary leaves office.

Though there is some dispute over this provision, the language clearly permits acting secretaries to be placed in the line of succession.(We have spoken to acting secretaries who told us they had been placed in the line of succession.)

Source:http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...government.pdf (Page 34 corner or 36 of the PDF)

This of course counters canon but in my mind it makes things clearer on a stable continuance of government. However it could also be used to muddy the waters further if someone wishes to do so.

[Targan]

Thanks for that, Kato. That's still good information for those of us that do retain the MilGov-CivGov split in their campaigns because it sheds some light on how CivGov would have filled positions when it first attempted to reconvene government. And past a certain point MilGov wouldn't have much cared whether legitimate successors existed or not, their continuation of martial law was always on shaky legal ground anyway.

I don't doubt that the Joint Chiefs were patriots, every one, but they must have felt that during times of such extreme crisis they were in a better position to run the nation that what remained of the pre-exchange government. I guess they figured that by the time enough of the federal judicial system had been put back together and in a position to challenge MilGov's legality, it would all be moot anyway.

[DocSavage45B10]

And don't forget the possability that one of the cabinent acting presidents made the CJCS an acting secretary by recess appointment. There's no rule preventing active duty personel serving in government, just tradition.