He probably means the like of succession. 1 - President, 2 - VP, 3 - speaker

Over 🎯

As I've argued numerous times on this board, Speaker isn't constitutionally eligible to be on the Executive succession list. Only Officers of the USA (e.g. executive officers from the Executive branch) are eligible. That was the intent of the Framers.

Vice President John Tyler claimed a constitutional mandate to carry out the full powers and duties of the presidency, asserting he was the president and not merely a temporary acting president, by taking the presidential oath of office. Many around him—including John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and other members of Congress, along with Whig party leaders, and even Tyler's own cabinet—believed that he was only acting as president and did not have the office itself. He was nicknamed "His Accidency" and excoriated as a usurper.

Of course this issue (Act or Become?) was mostly solved by the Constitution eventually being amended. But it didn't solve the open question over eligibility to succeed re: who is an Officer of the USA?

The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 provided for succession after the president and vice president: first, the president pro tempore of the Senate, followed by the speaker of the House. The statute provided that the presidential successor would serve in an acting capacity holding office only until a new president could be elected. A special election was to be held in November of the year in which dual vacancies occurred (unless the vacancies occurred after the first Wednesday in October, in which case the election would occur the following year; or unless the vacancies occurred within the last year of the presidential term, in which case the next election would take place as regularly scheduled) [...] Various framers of the Constitution, such as James Madison, criticized the arrangement as being contrary to their intent. (see Madions notes on the Convention as letter to Edmund Pendleton

The Presidential Succession Act of 1886 established succession to include the members of the president's cabinet in the order of the establishment of the various departments, beginning with the secretary of state, and stipulated that any official discharging the powers and duties of the presidency must possess the constitutional qualifications to hold the office. The president pro tempore and speaker were excluded from the new line, and the provision mandating a special presidential election when a double vacancy arose was also dropped.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 which was signed into law on July 18, 1947, restored the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate to the line of succession—but in reverse-order from their 1792 positions—and placed them ahead of the members of the Cabinet, positioned, as before, in the order of the establishment of their department.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Government_Commission

Excellent research and analysis here:

Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional? - Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Government_Commission

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution

u/Norman_F_Dixon was always very interested in Brookings... I think u/CHAOS_ACTUAL also commented upon NFD's research.

But because nobody has challenged the statutory moves over the years, particularly the current version, SCOTUS hasn't been given the chance to make a ruling, and even if they did, as you point out, how would SCOTUS enforce their ruling, assuming they even got it right at all? (if the 9-0 bullshit ruling in Chiafalo is any indication of our future, SCOTUS is just as compromised as the other two branches)

If he picks Frank Luntz, I'm off this train.