| This dissertation examines previous instances of presidential disability and succession, and the historical implications of each case. It also evaluates congressional responses to these crises. Prior to 1967, there were several critical changes to the line of succession, such as the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, moving the line back to Congress. These events are fully evaluated to determine why the glaring problems associated with presidential disability were not addressed.;From there, it examines the 25th Amendment to determine what factors prompted Congress to act after years of ignoring the problem. By exploring the legislative history of the amendment, it highlights the political and constitutional obstacles previous reforms faced, and how such complex issues impacted the process. The issues that prevented previous attempts at reform---especially, the role of the vice president and the location of the line of succession after it---were resolved in a relatively short period of time following the Kennedy assassination. This dissertation critically evaluates why such comprehensive reforms were ultimately successful at that time in history.;Finally, this work examines the suitability of disability and succession guidelines in a post-9/11 world. After highlighting the dangerous flaws currently in place, such as an ill-conceived legislative line of succession, it concludes by proposing recommendations to address these flaws. These changes are urgently required in order to ensure stability for our nation's highest office. |
