It's not exactly the sexiest topic, but Continuity of Government is one of those issues that our government has yet to deal with in a credible fashion. "Continuity of Government" is the term given to planning for an attack that strikes a catastrophic blow to the Presidential line of succession and/or Congress and the Supreme Court. Perhaps the most famous fictional example in recent years is Tom Clancy's Executive Orders, in which an attack on the Capitol leaves Jack Ryan in charge without a Cabinet or Congress.
September 11 brought this issue back to the forefront, and exposed the weaknesses in our current system, but little has been done to fix it. Most solutions require changes in the law or the Constitution, but there is one that the Senate could adopt today. Change the criteria for electing the President Pro Tempore.
As it stands now, the law does not adequately provide a clear and easy path for reconstituting government for any branch. House vacancies must be filled by election, the Presidential Succession Act and the 25th Amendment create the possibility of competing claims on the Presidency, and the Supreme Court could be unable to form a quorum to settle the Constitutional issues arising in such a crisis. For more information on the many issues that arise with all three branches, check out this website.
Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is third in line of succession, after the Vice President and Speaker of the House, but before members of the Cabinet. However, unlike the other individuals in the line of succession, the President Pro Tem is almost purely ceremonial. Unlike the Speaker, the Pro Tem is not the party's leader in the Senate, nor does he or she administer a department like members of the Cabinet. Even during the great occasions like the State of the Union, the Pro Tem has no role: it is the Speaker and the Vice President who "preside" over Congress while the President speaks.
Currently, the customary practice of the Senate is to elect the senior member of the majority party as President Pro Tempore. It's a gesture of courtesy for what is normally a ceremonial post. Under this practice, the last three Pro Tems have been Robert Byrd (91), Ted Stevens (83), and Strom Thurmond (98). Yet, the President Pro Tem remains in the line of succession, with only three people ahead. No matter what we may think of these men politically, would we want to thrust the burden of a crisis Presidency on a person over 80? This seems to me a recipe for disaster.
So, why not make use of this quirk of the current law, with this one position that plays no substantive role? Instead of electing the seniormost (and oftentimes oldest) member of the majority party, the Senate should select a member that it feels would make a good "emergency President" if the worst should happen. The President Pro Tem could serve as the "designated survivor" during the State of the Union and other state occasions. This has the advantage that, unlike the other positions in the line of succession, suitability for the Oval Office would be a prime consideration. For the Speaker and the Cabinet, that qualification is secondary, if it is even discussed. With the President Pro Tem, we have the opportunity to select from a pool of 50+ solely for that purpose. Should disaster strike, it might be good to have that alternative in place.
Just a thought.