Why Isn't The Senate Majority Leader Considered In The Line of Succession?
One thing I knew but never really put much thought into was the Presidential Line of Succession. While the first two, VP and SOTH, make sense, I never understood the reason for the inclusion of the President Pro Tempore over the Senate Majority Leader or simply including the Senate Majority Leader after the PPT.
For all intents and purposes, the Senate Majority Leader has a good amount of the responsibilities of that of the Speaker. They manage what bills go to debate and vote, what issues and priorities their respective chamber focuses on, serve as more-or-less the spokesman of their chamber to the other half of Congress or the White House, and serve as general representatives of their party.
Also, by the time the Line of Succession was formally created, it wasn't as if partisanship within Congress was incredibly taboo. By this time, the Speaker of the House was the "leader" of the controlling party of the House, or at least the most popular to the point where the controlling party would consolidate votes for a singular person for Speaker; Minority for Minority Leader. This is evident in 1941 when Sam Rayburn won the Speakership with 247 of the 268 total Democratic votes. So at this point of time, parties voting internally for a singular individual was the norm. My point is that the legislators who formalized the Line of Succession were aware of the partisanship of the Speakership and included it, so it's not as if they excluded the Senate Majority Leader for partisan reasons.
Additionally, I feel like it'd make sense if we talk about topics like the electoral process of the Presidency in the first place. In the Constitution, it's know that if neither major nominee is able to win a majority of the electoral college, it is to the House's privy to vote for who becomes President; Senate's job to determine who will become Vice President. However, in the case that the Senate is able to determine the VP, while the House remains deadlocked by inauguration day, the Vice President-elect acts as President until a President qualifies While the Senate can only vote between the top two vice-presidential nominees, it serves as precedent that the Senate has a direct role in who may exercise the duties of the President.
In a more practical sense, why would we want the President Pro Tempore to be in the Line of Succession anyways? That role is a title granted, not on competency or merit, but rather on who has been in the Senate the longest. First of all, in a point of age, the longest serving senator would be incredibly old at the point. Not like, tenured-professor old, but the type of old where they need an automated chair to go up staircases. At that point, would they not be considered more as a liability than anything, if they were to become the executive of the United States of America? Also, very rarely has a PPT served in Senate leadership within their lifetime, at least from my knowledge. (The only person I can think of is Henry Cabot Lodge). While they certainly do have qualification for the Presidency, if you've spent decades within the nation's highest legislative chamber, and haven't cracked at leadership, genuinely how competent can you be?
I'd also find it somewhat unfair. In this instance, a Senator from a small-state who can easily form relationships with their constituents will easily be re-elected several times, over and over again. And if they keep going at this, they may eventually serve for so long in which they will become PPT. While yes, the President-VP-SOTH, can all come from small states, they must display merit and competency in order to actually gather enough votes to win those respective positions. However, with the PPT, they can just sit around for decades and automatically be third-in-line to the highest office in the country without truly proving how well they can legislate/govern. Take Chuck Grassley. In his 45 years of office in the Senate, he only held caucus chairmanship, and for only a total of 19 years; ~42% of his tenure in the Senate. While this is certainly more than I'll ever have personally, to serve for this long and have not even half of your senatorial years be in any position of leadership is not the greatest indicator of competency, and not somebody who I would want as the third-in-line to the Presidency.
I certainly understand that the President Pro Tempore is a Constitutionally-recognized office, while Senatorial leadership isn't. However, by the time of the Line of Succession's establishment, the President Pro Tempore was already well known as the role it is today. Maybe that was more defensible in 1947 when the current version of the line was enacted. However, by modern-day standards, and maybe even back-then, The Majority Leader is and was THE central power to how the Senate actually operates, while the President pro tempore has mainly been a purely ceremonial title.