3 ms·
Your parent has "in the case of the USA, not at all". I think what they're saying is that someone who becomes president by inheriting the role is not seen as a
by jefftk 5y ago
Your parent has "in the case of the USA, not at all". I think what they're saying is that someone who becomes president by inheriting the role is not seen as a full president, even if they formally are one.
- gumby 5y ago> inheriting the role is not seen as a full president Just in the 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson directly contradict your statement. Your statement does describe the most recent case, afore, but it’s such an oddball case it’s not surprising it’s an outlier.
- thegginthesky 5y agoGot it, but I think most democracies (for example US, Brazil, Argentina) have a line of succession either in their constitution or in the amendments that follow it. Whenever anyone takes the role of president next, they have full authority, power, and responsibilities of a president, even if in some cases they don't have the title of President. I know of a few examples that it's required to have new elections months after a president step down, which is the case of India, but even then the acting president has the full power of a president.