president Of The United States/Archive 2

      The page is fixed now and seems to be fine. 

His name is Harry S Truman not Harry S. Truman!!! "S" is his entire middle name. Rex13a 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks rex, you should add new comments to the bottom. Also the "S" thing has been discussed thoroughly on the Truman talk page. I think the discussion reached a consensus to use the period because that's how he signed his name. -Taco325i 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the picture of Harry Truman to point to the color picture that is used on his other pages. The link to that picture is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harry-s-truman-58-766-09.jpg I would do it myself, but I can not figure out how to edit that table. --Cooleymd 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

it could be a good thing to find out informations about previous census about usa presidents before mandat... it can took place in the page before the informations about salaries

I think it's a travesty there isn't a list of U.S. Presidents on this page. The gallery did a fine job of representing the history of the office and its tenants. Is there any objection to re-creating a copy on this page? Perhaps as a template? Thank you. jengod 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just went ahead and did it. Template:POTUSgallery -- have fun. :) jengod 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
why are portraits of Monroe, Grant, Hayes and Truman not included?--Kalsermar 19:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I hate those jerks! Just kiddin'... Find-and-replace error. Fixed now. Let me know if any other fearless leaders are MIA. jengod 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks perfect now.... thanks for fixing!--Kalsermar 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For new global study of ancestors of all 43 US Presidents and also showing one global family see Presidential Series as follows:

• Jesus's Presidents ISBN 0595333001,
• Mohammed's US Presidents ISBN 059537901X,
• China's US Presidents ISBN 0595377092,
• India's US Presidents ISBN 0595379001,
• The Bush Family ISBN 0595332692

(descent from all Mid East (Persia, Bablylon, Egypt-including Jesus & Mohammed), all Europe, Rome, China,India, etc); and in mapping ancestors of all US Presidents maps ancestors of all US citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.7.106 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Today the office is widely emulated all over the world in nations with a presidential system of government.

The article Presidential system lists the countries with a similar system: United States of America, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, & Afghanistan, most states in the Americas. Is this "widely"? Do they all emulate the USA? Do semi-presidential systems count? Isn't it such that many countries emulate the French system? The expression in the article gives the impression that the Americans invented the office of the President, and the rest of the world copies it, even if technically true. --Vuo 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if indeed most of the Americas has emulated the US system as well as Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines etc then I would say yes, it is widespread as most of a continent and some of the most populous countries elsewhere have it and a good percentage of the world's population is governed under a system modelled after the US system. As for your last statement even if technically true, does that not constitute reason to include it, since it is, as you state, true?--Kalsermar 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What we're missing with stating that "most of the world emulates the USA" is that the French system (semipresidential) is the model in several countries. Also, there are countries where a monarchy was replaced by a presidency. In these systems, the president's power is different from the U.S. president. Therefore, it's highly misleading to imply that the U.S.-style powers are widespread. The U.S. president is like a president and prime minister combined, and with the power to appoint the cabinet; this is relatively authoritarian and not that widespread, I think. Claiming this is the model for other countries crosses the line from being technically true to untrue. --Vuo 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Article looks like a factbook article which is not encyclopedic.
• It thus fail Wiki is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files & Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information of WP:NOT. Unless this is a list and thus become non-GA material. Lincher 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, someone was sleeping when they wrote this article...THEY LEFT OUT EIGHT PRESIDENTS
John Hanson (1781-82)
Elias Boudinot (1782-83)
Thomas Mifflin (1783-84)
Richard Henry Lee (1784-85)
John Hancock (1785-86)
Nathan Gorman (1786-87)
Arthur St. Clair (1787-88)
Cyrus Griffin (1788-89)

Please make sure they get added to the list.

63.17.72.10 03:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

These were not presidents of the United States but presidents of the United States In Congress Assembled, which is something totally different and more akin to the present Speaker of the House. This article deals with the presidents who served under the Constitution, starting with GW in 1789.--Kalsermar 13:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The President of the United States of America (often abbreviated POTUS) is the head of state of the United States. In the U.S. Constitution, the President is also the chief executive of the federal government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."
  The first paragraph says nothing about presidents elected under the constitution. Whereas there was a time period between 1776 and 1789 in which George Washington (the "first" president) did not serve, I feel that it would certainly be encyclopedic to include these important figures in the article. Perhaps we should add a section for presidents not elected under the constitution. --Thebends 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Those individuals were not Presidents of the United States of America. They were Presidents of the United States In Congress Assembled. Here's the thing -- "the United States In Congress Assembled" was the formal name of the US legislature under the Articles of Confederation. In other words: They were the presiding officers of the legislature, not heads of state. They were the equivalent of the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate. They weren't members of the executive branch, because there was no executive branch. They weren't US Presidents, they were Congressional Presidents. Totally different offices. -- Sci 18:02 12 OCT 2006 UTC

I know it has been discussed before but I'll bring it up again nonetheless. Is the Trivia section really of use to the article? I used to think it wasn't that bad but I de believe it is an eyesore that adds very little of use to the article and primarily serves to distract from the encyclopaedic value of the whole thing.--Kalsermar 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This lists LBJ as the first president born in the 20th century, But since JFK was president before LBJ wouldn't that make Kennedy infact the first president born in the 20th century?

Corrected this error. Also moved trivia to subarticle; there is even a huge Category:United States Presidential trivia so not really a need to keep all this stuff in the main article. Kaisershatner 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Per Wiki: Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination) the trivia subarticle has been dispose of, and the content reapplied here. See discussion for details. Jerry 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article makes the claim that some advocate raising the salary to attract more persons to become president. This claim is quite rediculous and requires a reference. One needs be extremely well connected and wealthy to even win the vote. Besdies, is there really a lack on incentive for becoming the most powerful person in the world? With US president on one's resume, all doors are open and as stated being a former US president usually pays as well as going coreperate. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the table that appears in the salary section of the article. Can anyone tell me what real dollars (2005) are? I assume that they are inflation adjusted values to give a comparison, but can they really be worked out to the nearest penny, as indicated in the table? Or is there some plus/minus value invovled in working these out? Either way, my point is that quoting these figures to the nearest penny is probably wrong, and certainly makes the table unreadable. Can I suggest that the figures are quoted to just the first few significant figures, in order to give a flavour of how much these guys were being paid. I would suggest replacing the above table with this one DMB 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

no reply to my comment in six days, so I will go ahead and do it

Slightly POV, no? While it is acceptable to say that he is one of the most powerful men in the world with involvement in the G8, NATO etc, the statement that he is the most powerful man in the world is debatable. For instance, does he have the same power over people as religious figures such as the Pope? It's not like he can order any country what to do, and when he is being pressured to doing things such as this to his country by other nations:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_4_36/ai_n6006940

Is it really true? By the way, I added a "[citation needed]" tag, but somebody removed it. Instead of causing controversy I guess I should discuss it here.

No, not really POV since the POTUS is considered by many to be the most powerful man in the world. Stating that this is the case is NPOV even if the notion is itself disputed by others.--Kalsermar 01:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it also important to note that the POTUS is Commander of the most powerful military in the world, which would make him/her the defacto most powerful person in the world, while the former is true. -Lordsuhn, 8 January 2007

Do we still need all the various facts listed on this page, now that we have the super sexy "Lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States" template? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Deaths

• Assassination attempts have been made on eight other U.S Presidents while in office:

-....
-George W. Bush in 2005 by Vladimir Arutinian
.......

• Every U.S. President from William Henry Harrison to John F. Kennedy who was elected or re-elected in a year divisible by 20 died in office, many by assassination. Ronald Reagan (elected in 1980) survived an attempt on his life and George W. Bush (elected in 2000) has so far sustained no similar event.

George W. Bush (elected in 2000) has so far sustained no similar event, what does that mean? He hasn't been attempted to assassinate or he hasn't died/wounded from them yet? Or what? Just few lines above it says he has been attempted to assasinate... --62.78.161.144 09:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction between his and Reagan's is Reagan had bodily harm from an attempted killing. all that happened with Bush is a grenade landed near where he was speaking but did not implode, it's a weak link to it, which is hy it says simmilar.. jj 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has weasel words. It has "...is widely considered to be..." In the seccond paragraph. Feedyourfeet 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that weasel words? Is it not a true statement of fact, whether one agrees with it or not?--Kalsermar 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:AWW it has "...is widely considered to be..." listed & because that is not a true statement of fact it should be removed. Feedyourfeet 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
i changed it to ...the American President is often described as the most powerful person on earth and he is usually one of the world's best-known public figures. As both statements are factual I hope you will consider removing the tag.--Kalsermar 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah thet soundsd good, Done Feedyourfeet 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement that Herbert Hoover's term ended on March 3, 1933 is particularly uncalled for, since he was requested to act as president on the morning of the 4th; he declined to do so, but because he held that no federal action was necessary, not because he held that FDR was already President. For more, see Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4, 1933. Septentrionalis 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that the very first entry in that section states that all of the Presidents have been Christians. Now, I may be mistaken, but I'm reasonably certain that several of them, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were deists. Unless the definitions have somehow changed, deists aren't Christians. - Dotdotdotdash 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, should John McCain not be elected President in 2008, the 1930's will most likely be the next decade in which no President was born."

Is that a little awkward, there is nothing to even say John McCain will run or be successful in 2008.

I readjusted the language. I did not remove the citation needed because, I'm not sure if that applied to the John McCain remark or the statement as a whole. Clearly, it is not possible for a decade to suddenly lose the birth of a President. If no President it is possible that no President will have been born in the 1930s, the the decade must not have a President now.--Miked84 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On the page it states that 26 of 42 presidents have served in the U.S. military. However, looking at the List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank only eleven have not served in some capacity in the military. That would be 31 of the 42. I'll make the change for now, if there is some problem with the list feel free to change it back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.1.28 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Several of the presidents with military service were in colonial militias, and not the US military. At least one (Millard Fillmore) served in the military only after being president. siafu 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the number to 29 since the List of United States Presidents by military service has 13 Presidents with "None" next to them. Jefferson and Fillmore were commanders and I don't think that counts. Pixelface 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the points states that no president has ever been an only child, yet I was reading the Gerald Ford page which states that he is the only president ever to hold office as an only child. Which of these 2 facts is correct? Juveboy 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to point that out myself. I assume the latter is correct because it focuses on Ford while this article could easily overlook that. However, there is a citation suggesting the former, so who knows? -- the GREAT Gavini 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford was the only child resulting from the union of his mother and father; both had children from later marriages. Franklin Roosevelt was his mother's only child, but had an older half brother from his father's previous marriage, thus was not an only child. The citations link to the official geneologies of Ford and Roosevelt from their libraries' web sites. 24.168.154.52 03:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoover set the record for living the longest as a former president at 31 years and several months. Since Gerald Ford left office in 1977, doesn't he have to live to mid-2008 to break Hoover's record? I believe the edit that states Ford broke the record September 8, 2006 is incorrect. Juveboy 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not listed under failed assassination attempts are Theodore Roosevelt, shot in an attempted assasination, and George H. W. Bush, subject of a foiled assassination plot in Kuwait.

These happened after the President left office. I'm not sure they count. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism sighted on October 7, 2006 12:06 EST opening paragraph "USA KILL PEOPLE......[vulgarity] reverted to october 6, 2006

Thanks for doing it. Aquafish talk 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is significant sexually-related vandalism to this article which I will attempt to clean up. Perhaps we need to lock it down as vandalism seems to be a recurring problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by shultzc (talk • contribs) .

Okay, I did a reversion. (And sorry for accidentally not being logged-in.) Shultzc 06:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a major overhaul, adding "history" of the office and restructuring it to move the trivia way down. There's still too much trivia IMO. Kaisershatner 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Exported trivia to subpage and added link to huge Category:United States Presidential trivia.

Kaisershatner 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some idiot deleted the whole article on 3 November 2006 and replace it with the words "TJ Heimlich is the president" or similar nonsense. I've reinstated the previous version. Martan 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when does the abbreviation POTUS come into play? Does anyone actually use it? I don't think it's very common . . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk • contribs) .

Source of abbreviation now added as referenced footnote. SDS 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pot1.htm
I see 1.4 million google hits for POTUS, so it's pretty common. It's the standard Secret Service code word for the President; for example, see http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2166642. Related terms are FLOTUS and SCOTUS. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree that mention of POTUS in the first sentence does not make sense and breaks the flow. Google giving 1.4million hits for POTUS does not mean it is "often" abbreviated that way (google news only gives about 30 hits, most of which seem to be informally written), and the reference for it is an uncreated article allegedly based on when the acronym was created, not how often it is used. Also POTUS is mentioned in the "Other facts" section. I removed it.spirit 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

they also had POTUS as a nickname in the first The West Wingepisode..."POTUS in a Bicycle Accident." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munkee madness (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

There is some dispute over the relationship between the terms "citizen by birth" and "natural-born."

• This must not be confused with the fact that US law recognizes certain citizens born overseas as being citizens by birth, irrespective of the theoretical argument over whether said citizens by birth are also "natural-born" in the Constitutional sense.
• the 14th Amendment does not define citizens by birth as citizens born in the US, that is a faulty reading of English. The phrases "all jets are aircraft" and "all aircraft are jets" are not equivalent. Were the Amendment to read "Citizens by birth are persons born in the US," then it would constitute a definition and would exclude foreign-born persons from citizenship at birth. But the Amendment states merely that persons born in the US obtain citizenship by birth, meaning that a consequence of birth on US soil is citizenship, not that this is the only circumstance leading that result. Similarly, the law may state that all single mothers are entitled to receive welfare, but that does not make "single mother" the definition of "welfare recipient," because one can qualify by other means.
• Current US Statutes, which are unchallenged, explicitely state that persons born overseas can be citizens by birth under certain circumstances. This is a universally accepted concept known to anyone with legal expertise, and reflects the consensus of Constitutional interpretation, which is that the 14th Amendment in no ways limits citizenship by birth to persons born in the US.
• As has been stated, there are indeed two basic kinds of citizenship, citizenship "by birth" and citizenship "by law" (although technically all citizenship is by law, be it Constitutional law or otherwise). Being born in and of itself is not really a means, otherwise all human beings would be US citizens, but rather the term denotes a class of citizenship, which is the kind obtained at birth as opposed to the kind obtained after birth. Even citizenship by birth is citizenship by law, but we conveniently use the shorthand distinction of "by birth" and "by law" as a form of legal jargon. The kind of citizenship that the law calls "citizenship by birth," is further subdivided by the means one becomes entitled to it. There are two well-known and well-established causes of citizenship by birth: jus soli ("law of soil," i.e., born on US soil) and jus sanguinis ("law of blood," i.e., one's parentage). A person who is born overseas can sometimes obtain citizenship by birth jus sanguinis, under very limited circumstances that don't usually benefit more than the first-generation born overseas, due to certain compelling reasons why said individual is likely to have strong ties and loyalties to the US, such as having both parents born in the US, being the child of a foreign diplomat or military officer, etc. The exact requirements are listed in the relevant sections of US Code.
• A person who is born a US citizen by virtue of jus sanguinis cannot be a naturalized US citizen, the two kinds of citizenship are mutually exclusive. A person born overseas cannot be both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. Naturalized citizens are only those persons who obtain their US citizenship some time after birth and after having been already born either stateless or with a foreign citizenship. Naturalized citizenship is one of the two kinds of citizenship, and stands in contrast to the other kind, which is citizenship by birth. Citizenship by birth can be obtained in two forms, jus soli and jus sanguinis.
• While academic disagreement may exist with regard to whether all citizens by birth are also natural-born citizens, or whether only citizens by birth on US soil are natural-born, vs. citizens by birth who are born overseas, the burden rests upon those trying to prove that there exists an actual difference between the concept of citizen by birth and natural-born citizen, and the historical precedent dictates that citizens by birth overseas can and have run for the office of president, and have in all cases, controversy or not, ultimately been deemed to qualify. The simple fact is that foreigners who become US citizens after they are born are defined "naturalized" citizens; therefore, it follows that, if we remain consistent with the terminology, persons who are US citizens at the moment of birth are all "natural-born," irrespective of where they were born.
• Regardless of what opinion is ultimately reached by users here, the final version should make a clear distinction between the controversy of equating "citizenship by birth" with "natural-born" citizen, and the irrefutable fact that persons may be born overseas and still be citizens by birth, which are NOT naturalized citizens, and any reference to the 14th Amendment to prove otherwise only shows both a lack of understanding of English grammar and a lack of understanding of accepted legal principles and statutes. In the former instance, the article should state only that "according to some legal theories, it is possible that citizens by birth who are born overseas might not be 'natural-born' as required by the Constitution, and are potentially disqualified from seeking the presidency," but this should not be stated as fact, and it goes against the consensus of legal opinion.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, I do not know where this "consensus of legal opinion" comes from, since the Supreme Court itself has never specifically ruled on the issue. In fact, in the numerous cases it has ruled on dealing with citizenship (both birth on U.S soil and birth to Americans overseas), there has not been a "consensus." The Court has been highly divided on the issue.
  • You miss the key difference between "natural born" and "citizenship by birth": Congress has the authority to define citizenship by birth; it cannot define natural-born. Congress has the power not only to grant citizenship by birth, but the authority to withdraw it in certain cases. Clearly this is therefore a form of naturalization, not birth (no matter what the legal term or title may imply. Afterall, the very law the defines specific birth to Americans overseas as "citizenship by birth" is titled "naturalization law").
  • The whole concept behind the term "natural born citizen" is that the person is just that: natural-born, and does not need laws to extend the citizenship to him or her. Today, we have codes that define who gets citizenship and who loses it, and the Court, for the most part, has upheld these statutes. Therefore, and as I wrote in the main article, although there is disagreement over who is a natural-born citizen, I think it is clear that children born to Americans overseas are NOT natural-born (otherwise how could Congress continue to revise the laws dictating who is and who is not, and by what age must they register and so on). Take the following cases, for example:
  • •Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (The majority opinion in this case was mostly overturned by the 14th Amendment.)
  • •United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
  • •Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)
  • •Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958): Although the 14th Amendment sets forth the two principal modes of acquiring citizenship (birth in the U.S. and naturalization), nothing restricts the power of Congress to withdraw citizenship. (This case was overturned by Afroyim v. Rusk.)
  • •Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)
  • •Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967): The 14th Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship.
  • •Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): A person who is born abroad to an American mother shall lose his or her citizenship unless he or she resides in this country for at least five years between the ages of 14 and 28. (This is no longer the case; the statute under which Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship was repealed by Congress in 1978.)
  • •Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship). However, intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship must be established specifically by a preponderance of evidence; such an intent may not be inferred automatically as a result of a person's having performed an act which Congress has designated as an expatriating act. However, when "one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor."
  • •Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
  • •Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).Todd Gallagher 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My question is, why is this section more on the nature of citizenship than on the actual requirements. I understand that the definition of a natural citizen is important to the qualifications, but I think this would be best served by a short summary and a "more info" blurb. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the picture of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, the caption reads the wrong names. Obvious vandalism.

Shouldn't there be an official white house photo of John kennedy? It's a bit strange that Eisenhower has a color official photo and kennedy doesn't.Borisblue 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice this done many times here. We need to decide on capitalization. Normally, the only time president should be capitalized is when it is used as a title. For instance, "The president only serves a four year term, though he can be elected twice," and "President Bush only serves a four year term, though he can be elected twice." I see this over and over. We need to standardize this. Capital letters always, or only when grammatically correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd gallagher (talk • contribs) . 14:52, November 25, 2006 (UTC)

See Wiki: Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut this section out of the article and reproduced it below; seems relatively trivial considering the overall scope of the article. If freemasonry is to be discussed in this article at all, I think it should be much briefer. Perhaps this would be better addressed in a separate sub-article? schi ^talk 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Masonic-American presidents

Fifteen U.S. Presidents are definitely known to have been Freemasons: George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford.

James Madison was probably a Freemason, but there is no surviving documentary proof of it. Lyndon Johnson took the Entered Apprentice degree in 1937 but never continued to become a Master Mason. In 1988, Ronald Reagan was made an honorary Scottish Rite Mason jointly by the Northern and Southern Masonic Jurisdictions of the Scottish Rite, but he never received the first three degrees of Masonry and had no privileges of Masonic membership. Bill Clinton joined the Masonic Order of DeMolay as a teenager but never went on to become a Freemason.

Abraham Lincoln applied for membership in a lodge in Springfield, Illinois, shortly after he was nominated for the Presidency in 1860. Lincoln withdrew his application because he was concerned that it would be construed as a political ploy to win votes. Lincoln told the lodge that he intended to resubmit his application again when he returned to private life.

Considering the most important Scholar Rankings (Schlesinger 1948 poll rank, Schlesinger 1962 poll rank, 1982 Murray-Blessing survey of 846 historians, Chicago Tribune 1982 poll rank, Siena 1982 poll rank, Siena 1990 poll rank, Siena 1994 poll rank, Ridings- McIver 1996 poll rank, CSPAN 1999 poll rank, Wall Street Journal 2000 poll rank, Siena 2002 poll rank, Wall Street Journal 2005 poll rank), the average ranking of the Masonic U.S. Presidents is 15.7, which would place them among the best third of their class (top 36 percentile).

Again, someone typed some personal attack on the article. It is deleted. I suggest we should lock the page to prevent more problems. 71.146.129.148 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the list of presidents, someone has typed in "44th President Barack Obama" (not corrected).

I'd like to know where I could find information on the rights/privelegs of ex-presidents such as their entitlement to still be reffered to as 'Mr President' and the intelligence that they are given/allowed access to. Algebra man 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am studying all American Flags; What has eloded me is the history of the flag of the American President?? (This my first post; I apoligise if I've done anything wrong)BritVic (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 

Someone changed Incumbent to Incompetent, again. Which, funny as it is and possibly true, is not in keeping with making an objective encyclopedia page. This article really has to be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.116.95.69 (talk) 02:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted the page and made it about Saddam Hussein. I am going to delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.143.58 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Nevermind. No need to delete. Fixed now.

This article needs to be protected from vandalism. I checked the page and found that some one had removed the name "Georege W. Bush" and replaced it with "Adam Darwish" in every place the name appeared in the article. I corrected it, but I think this article needs to be put on protected status or require users to sign-in before they can edit it. Ddb1965 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Still more. President is hillery bush and the president is a belly dancer? I'd correct it, but I can't figure out how to get to it.

Janet from Tucson

There is some good info, but there seems to be nothing on the life (while in office) of a president. There is no mention of the presidential anthem, Hail to the Chief. Jason McHuff 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to the large amount of vandalism of various degrees by new users and unregistered IP addresses, I believe it would save us a lot of trouble to semi-protect this article. --Admiral06 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it gets vandalized fairly often, I don't think the level of vandalism on this page has yet reached the point where that kind of restriction is really required. It's not like we're spending all of our time reverting vandalism. Until it reaches an oppressive level, I would keep this article open for everyone to edit.--Aervanath 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what, after keeping this page on my watch list for a few more days, I see Admiral06's point. I'll post it on WP:RFP. --Aervanath 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the list of officeholders accompanied by pictures/paintings, I would think that Presidents such as Bill Clinton should have their full first names used (i.e "William" in this case). How do people feel about this? Blaiseball 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaiseball (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

We should do this only when American usage does; James Madison, but Jimmy Carter; never Stephen Grover Cleveland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can see points on both sides. I think it's best to go like this: just follow the White HousePast Presidents page. If you follow the link, you'll see that Jimmy Carter is listed as just that, whereas Bill Clinton is actually listed as William J. Clinton. If you Google their respective presidential libraries, you will see that the libraries follow the same convention. Though it may seem inconsistent in terms of listing full names/nicknames, it is consistent with regards to how they actually want to thought of.--Aervanath 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question moved to the Reference Desk. This isn't really the place for this sort of discussion, and you'll probably get a better answer there. -- Vary | Talk 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I thought that originally the presidential term ended in March. I'm not sure about the exact day, but the article makes no mention of this. Im.a.lumberjack 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take that long to look up. What does the original U.S. Constitution say?--Aervanath 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you're right, see List of United States presidential inaugurations. But next time, just look it up yourself, ok?--Aervanath 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me (twice) that my responses above seem to be somewhat "churlish". My apologies. In the future, I shall point inquiries of this nature to the Wiki Reference Desk. --Aervanath 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure your responses to this user were with good intentions, but this seems like a harsh attitude to take for a legitimate question. If you don't like to look up things for people, simply don't. The question was not posed TO YOU. If somebody doesn't know how to, have the time to, or want to look it up themselves, why can't they just post the question on a talk page? There are plenty of other editors who would be more than happy to answer such a question. Jerry lavoie 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't changed the article, but it should be noted that in Canada William McKinley is thought to be mainly Scots. (The Mac/Mc difference between Scots and Irish that Americans believe to be the case is thought of as an Americocentric, bigoted, anti-Scots, Ireland-at-all-costs urban legend.) --Charlene 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a list of wars, and the (futue) Presidents who served in them. I know many were in WWII, and none where in Vietnam etc. - Matthew238 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I beg to differ. Clinton was impeached ... or is there something regarding his impeachment that is factually incorrect? You need to be more specific regarding your claim. --Mike Beidler 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely he was impeached. Impeachment is the act of charging with a crime, not the outcome of the trial. Although he was acquitted by the Senate, he was indeed impeached. Check the definition, please.

What they said. Although popular usage means "removal from office," impeachment is simply a formal accusation of wrongdoing. The private-citizen equivalent is indictment; a grand jury determines whether there's enough evidence to proceed to trial, but that does not mean that the defendant will be found guilty. -- A. 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that the maximum number of years a single person can save as President is 10 years (minus 1 day). While for all practical purposes, this is mostly true, I think that it actually would be possible to serve 12 years (minus 2 days), just not consecutively. Here's how it could happen:

1. President Adar dies or otherwise leaves office just after the end of his second year.
2. Vice President Bartlet takes over and completes the remaining 2 years of President Adar's term.
3. President Bartlet runs for re-election and wins, serving a complete 4 year term.
4. President Bartlet runs for his second term and loses. (Or he opts not to run at this time.)
5. A member of his own party, Clark runs for President and selects Bartlet as his running mate. (This could either happen in the same year, or maybe 4, 8, 12 years later.)
6. Clark wins the election, becoming President, and Bartlet becomes Vice President again.
7. President Clark also dies or leaves office just after the end of his second year.
8. Vice President Bartlet becomes President again, serving the remaining 2 years of President Clark's term.
9. President Bartlet runs for re-election and wins, serving a second 4 year term.

Granted, Bartlet would start to look a little suspicious if he managed to succeed not one but two Presidents who died in office, but theoretically, this would still be possible, though highly unlikely. Can any constitutional scholars come up with a reason why this wouldn't work? (And is it obvious from my name-choices that I watch too much TV?) Lurlock 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• By this argument, Bartlet could serve any length of time as long he was elected Vice President and then succeeded to the post, right? He needs never stand for election as President even once. 151.193.220.27 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the problem with extending it beyond the ten years is that it would Constitutionally be possible to serve as President for unlimited terms as long as each term in excess of one was less than 2 years. Only terms that exceed two years are counted as a term, and a person can only serve as vice president if he is eligible for president. So if you want to go through the detail, then fine, but we need to try to keep it simple. Ten years is really the only feasible limit a person is going to have.Todd Gallagher 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's also the problem of the twelth amendment, which says that the veep must be a valid candidate for the presidencyEnlightened Bystander 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• As far as I know, you can serve as President for an infinite amount of time as long as your terms are not consecutive. For example, Bartlet could serve as President for ten years, then be replaced by Fred, then run for reelection four years later, defeat Fred and serve another eight years. 75.67.142.56
  • Not true. According to the wiki article, it's specifically you can't be elected twice, and if you've served two or more years as a replacement, you can't be elected more than once. Enlightened Bystander 18:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean you can't be elected more than twice. The rule has only been in place since the Eisenhower administration, however. --Chr.K. (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Couldn't one argue that one can serve an unlimited number of terms as long as one is elected Vice President first? Emperor001 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One could make that argument. However, the Presidential candidate pretty much selects the VP candidate. You think any of them would pick a former president as a VP? What interest would a former President have in the VP position? Schoop (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but that makes it merely practically very unlikely, not theoretically impossible. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about adding a discussion of Rutherford Hayes and the 1876 election. As you may recall, Hayes was essentially appointed to the Presidency by a special bipartisan Electoral Committee in exchange for agreeing to make some concessions to the repatriated Confederacy (see Compromise of 1877). I was originally going to add it under "Unelected Presidents," but since he was chosen by the Electoral College, he's not really "unelected." Plus, of course, that threatens to open another can of worms. Any thoughts on where / whether to include this? -- A. 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary at all. Under Elections, it mentions that Rutherford B. Hayes didn't win the popular vote, and links to the article about the 1876 election, which in turn links to Compromise of 1877. I think that's sufficient. Dan0 00 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. If somebody wants to know, they can find it. -- A. 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), at least 35 years of age, of Caucasian descent, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.

this cannot be correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.241.6 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of it is - except for the "Caucausian" bit, which was vandalism, and which has now been fixed. - Eron ^Talk 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, (i was the anon above), had to create an account but got tied up. ZeroWashu 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I'm working on a cricket article and looking for a source to quote for John Adams's view that since cricket club leaders could be called presidents, so could the head of the republic. I seem to remember it in McCullough's book, but that was a library book that I don't have handy. Can anyone site a reference for me? Thanks.--Eva ^bd 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Intresting BBC article about the holders of this title - before George Washington --195.56.14.113 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools. See Urban Legends Reference Page for more details. You may also want to explore web sites and news reports arguing that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, that aliens landed in Rosewell in the 1940s, 9/11 was a CIA or Israeli conspiracy, and that Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas are illegally occupied by the USA. History can be fun when you suspend your critical thinking skills. 64.31.89.137 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an April Fool. See President of the Continental Congress. However since this is covered by another article, and this article links to it, I don't thonk we need a list of presidents before Washington, because apart from the similar name the two offices have nothing in common. One is head of the executive branch, the other was speaker of the legislative branch, and the had different powers and responsibilities, so a list of office-holders does not belong here. Richard75 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tremendous respect for Snopes, but they really have this one wrong. The President of the United States in Congress Assembled was the head of state even if he had less power in certain areas and more in others than the Presidents under the (second) Constitution. The laws passed by our unicameral government are still in force as are the executive orders of these early Presidents. President St. Clair, for example, signed the Northwest Ordinance, and the US Constitution itself. Even the parts of the Articles of Confederation that are not contradicted by the Constitution are still in force. Lincoln enforced the "perpetual union" clause of the Articles of Confederation and explicitly cited this as the constitutional authority to wage the Civil War. To say a person who was the legal head of state and held the office of President was not "President" is absurd. To mock more rigorously scholarly people by compairing them to conspiracy theorists is insulting. 12.10.223.247 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this here while browsing this morning... this section makes up about a third of the length of the article, but is mainly a collection of long lists. Half the facts aren't really notable; anything that is important can be converted into prose or put into a more appropriate article. Even better, just delete most/all of the section. Is there any reason all those lists need to be there? Comrade Tux 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything, they should be put into a separate article. Far too much info; you're right. Jmlk17 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about the President, but I don't see anything here about his roles as Chief Diplomat, Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Commander in Chief, Head of State or about his White House Office. This seems to me like a serious oversight. 75.67.142.56

Do you mean that they aren't covered enough or that they aren't there at all? Because all of those except White House Office are given and linked to in the lead, the ones that apply to the president anyway. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some roles are mentioned, such as Head of State and Commander and Chief. However, the article doesn't elaborate at all on the duties he performs in these capacities. Other roles are missing entirely, such as the influence he wields in determining Congress's agenda.

Most of the President's powers and responsibilities that are enumerated in the constitution are mentioned, but none are expanded on. Others are missing entirely, such as his obligation to give the State of the Union address.

In addition, the biggest oversight that I can see is that this article says almost nothing about his advisory bodies or his role in the Federal Bureaucracy. It says absolutely nothing about the Executive Office of the President, the White House Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of Sicence and Technology Policy, or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, all of which are extremely important in advising and assisting the President. His cabinet is mentioned once by name, but nothing about it is explained, nor is the President's relationship to the Executive Departments.

I'm sure that much of this information can be found elsewhere, but it seems to me that an article about the President of the United States should have extensive information about the President's roles in government. This article seems to be mostly on the President's privledges, salary, and the Presidency's history, all of which are important elements as well.

I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgable on this subject, although I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. Therefore, I think that a seasoned Wikipedia editor should expand this article and include information on the topics I mentioned, or at least links to where the information can be found. 75.67.142.56 21:18 10 May, 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think this article should include more information about the actual duties and responsibilities of the President? I do. Eenyminy 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'll just correct it myself. Eenyminy 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should. See the discussion above - Comrade Tux 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone notice in the second paragraph of the article it states

"The current president is still Stephen Colbert."?

Then later in the same paragraph it says G.W.B. is the current president. And Stephen Colbert has never been president. ???

Eenyminy 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That bit was vandalism. It's been removed since. Comrade Tux 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The heading structure in most of this article needs to be changed. Really, "general description"? What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, most of the prose currently under "general description" could be re-structured into "election and term of office" and "privileges of office", along with a new "duties" section to elaborate on that (which is REALLY needed). "Life after the presidency" could be integrated into some other section or left alone. "Presidential statistics" and "other facts" are sprawling lists and shouldn't even be there; "office-holders" could be left alone or deleted and have list of Presidents of the United States linked. If there are no objections after a while, I'm going to be bold and do it myself. Comrade Tux 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been two days. Normally, I would wait a bit longer, but there don't seem to be too many regular contributors to this article. I'm going to go ahead and make those changes now - if there are any problems, feel free to fix them. Comrade Tux 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm working on it. It'll take a while though, as it'll probably amount to a re-write of most of the article. I'll stick parts in when they're done. Comrade Tux 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's done, and I've put it in. As the diffs don't show a whole lot about what I did, I'll explain here.

I put the article under a different heading system - trivia is gone, general description is broken up, etc. The lead now has four paragraphs instead of three; a few sections, like election, are longer, and a few, like term of office, are shorter. Quite a bit of the article is worded differently, as well.

There are also a couple more images, and as a result of more level two headings, the order of sections and images is now somewhat different. Change it as needed, as it may not be ideal as it currently stands. That huge table with presidential allowances is gone - I don't think Clinton's phone bill or Bush's stamp usage is very relevant. If there has to be something about it, say that "former presidents cost taxpayers $xx million a year".

If this is going to pass a GA or FA nomination, though, then more work needs to be done. The biggest issue is the lack of references, which I hope to fix soon. My prose isn't the best, so that needs to be fixed too. There are also minor things like multiple internal links pointing to the same article. There is something I overlooked or left out, so please fix it, because I probably won't notice unless someone points it out. Here's a permanent link to the old version for reference. Hopefully I did all this right... and hopefully someone is reading this? Comrade Tux 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Until about March 12, this article had a section on the powers of the presidency, which seemed to be removed by accident in one of the vandalism shuffles. Is there any reason why this section should not be reinstated? --Robert Merkel 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Had no idea it was removed. Didn't find this article until about mid-April... found the section in the history, put it back. Comrade Tux 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the trivia about the fact that George W. Bush is the worst ever president. That's pretty important to add. After all he has killed more people than any other president and spent more money than all other presidents combined. How more irresponsible can you get? Gonezales 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't see it because that would be one of the most severe violations of the neutral point of view policy I've ever seen. - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is a neutral point of view - someone has to be best, and someone has to be worst. It is a lot harder to pick who is best than it is to pick who is worst. The funny thing is that other than having a hard time linking Iraq to terrorism, the presidents biggest concern is what type of legacy (he) is going to leave. Gonezales 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For one, it's not really relevant to this article. You may be interesting in Criticism of George W. Bush, where a properly sourced statement along the lines of "Jimmy Carter believes GWB is the worst president in history" would be appropriate. However, we cannot flat out say "GWB is the worst president" because one man's opinion doesn't make it so. Put it this way, millions of people around the world believe Santa Clause exists, but their belief doesn't make it true. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No other president that I know of has ever been openly criticised in many places as the worst ever. Doesn't that mean something? And by the way, Jimmy Carter didn't 'believe it', he said it and said later that he was maybe being careless or misinterpreted. Didn't Rolling Stones put him on the cover as the worst ever? Gonezales 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See historical rankings of United States presidents - he's usually ranked in the middle towards the bottom. He isn't rated as the worst president ever, despite what he's done... Comrade Tux 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gonzales, do you mind explaining what authority Rolling Stone magazine has over _anything_ that is not related to pop music? If Rolling Stone magazine is your authority on all things political, then maybe you should consider not ever editing any politically-related Wikipedia entry. 192.80.61.168 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (MichaelBrazell, public computer)

Usually in the middle? There were only two surveys, one taken just after election when he still had morons thinking that he was good (70% approval), and the other in 2005, which is before his legacy became so apparent. See the 2006 survey for example where 34% picked him as the worst since WWII (second worst was 17%) and the one in 2006 which had 29% saying he would go down in history as a "poor" president (second was 10%). There are always going to be incumbent party members who say that the incumbent is great and non-incumbent party members (and others) who say the person who is not of their party is terrible. You have to filter past those party line opinions to find the truth. Gonezales 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it has changed, it's still an opinion - Republicans are always going to think he was great. Hardly NPOV... and it's not relevant in this article anyway. This is about the OFFICE, not who thinks who was the best/worst/etc. The trivia section should be gone, anyway, once any notable points are integrated into the article. Comrade Tux 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that he "killed" the most people ever? If you are referring to people who died in war, ignoring the fact that he did not kill them for a moment, it is still by far not the most people ever killed in a war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.91.237 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum, everyone. Comrade Tux 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To Gonezales - someone has to be best, and someone has to be worst. That might be true if there were some objective, rational measure of such a thing. I doubt very much that such a beast exists, because "best" and "worst" are such loaded, objective, ill-defined - and in this context, meaningless - terms. -- JackofOz 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the "winner-take-all" system in place for presidential elections, there have been many instances where the Electoral College winner failed to win a majority or even a plurality of the overall popular vote, as most recently occurred in the 2000 election. This has recently occurred three times in a row, in the 2000 election as well as the 1992 and 1996 elections.

This is incorret. Only four times has the winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote.

Oops, I think the word "even" is misleading there - in both 1992 and 1996 Clinton won a plurality, but not a majority. Gore had the plurality in 2000. Comrade Tux 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe, as the article suggests, that the original Constitution called for one vote for president, one vote for vice-president. It called for two votes for president. At the time the Constitution was written, there were no national political parties; the Framers assumed that partisanship would be by state, and that electors would follow the instructions of their state legislatures. Therefore each elector, in casting two votes, was expected to cast one for the state's favorite candidate, but required to cast one for a candidate from a different state. Probably the most commonly chosen "second choice" would become President, and the next most common, Vice President. But the task of getting the constitution ratified--or opposing ratification--called for national organization, and that created national political parties. Partisanship wasn't by state after all.

I think the unforseen emergence of a two-party system also diminished the Vice President's power. As President of the Senate, the Vice President ought to have had influence like that of the Speaker of the House over the Senate, which would have covered national policy (treaties, cabinet appointments, judgeships) as well as national law. But it was easy for the majority party in the Senate to create operating rules that gave the Vice President no real control.

I don't see a reference to the president's power to commute (as used on Scooter Libby). What gives a president this power? (and should that be in the article?)

Felixcatuk 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Art. II, Sect. 2, U.S. Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Todd Gallagher 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This section heading was added by anonymous user:218.102.76.136 with no further comment. After seeing this, I added a reference to POTUS in the lead, when user:Southern Texas disagreed with the change and removed the reference. I wanted to take it to talk to see what everyone else thinks. I would point out that SCOTUS uses its respective acronym in the lead, and FLOTUS further down the page. The term POTUS draws 1,050,000 Google hits. I certainly think its notable, as it's widely used. Can anyone else provide some feedback? --Ybbor^Talk 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is at all necessary. Its just putting an abbreviation. It adds no information and is unencyclopedic. We don't need to be putting abbreviations in the lead of any article. It adds nothing.--Southern Texas 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems to add information to me. In fact this article from the New York Times seems to fufil the criteria for notability for the term to have its own article (perhaps POTUS (phrase), akin to Democrat Party (phrase)?), surely a mention in this page wouldn't be too unreasonable. Let me ask you this: would you agree that the term is notable? --Ybbor^Talk 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ybbor that the acronym POTUS is very well-known, at least among anyone who has undertaken at least a little study of American political science or the institution of the Presidency. There is even a book by a former White House speechwriter called POTUS Speaks. Also, if I recall correctly, many technothriller novels frequently depict federal officials using the term POTUS to refer to the President (because the acronym is so well-known among current and former employees of the federal government of the United States). Omitting POTUS from the lead of this article would be nearly as asinine as omitting UC from the lead of the article on the University of California. --Coolcaesar 09:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are readers who've never heard of the acronym, and so I think it would be appropriate to mention it in the lead. It is used fairly often in the media, after all, and the redirect might be insufficient in some cases. A side note, Google isn't a very good measuring stick; this article is one of the highest hits for "POTUS" yet the phrase is not in its text at any point - instead it matches "President of the United States" to "POTUS". There are likely other pages like this as well. Comrade Tux 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've put the acronym back in the lead. --Ybbor^Talk 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear fact: there is no factual basis for supposing that Washington added this phrase - nor for the next nineteen presidents. NO historical accounts - including contemporaneously-published accounts - mention anything of the sort in relation to Washington's oath of office. It is, however, a fact that a legend has arisen, and that is what should be in the article. Info999 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As this is a dispute, and the "...so help me God" is clearly a falsehood and a legend, and (as you pointed out) the article isn't about the oath, all references to the legend have been removed as being irrelevant to this article. The article about the oath discusses the legend, and that's enough. Info999 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that he did not say it? I have several sources that say he did. http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/ specifically states it. Just because there is no primary source that accounts for it means nothing. We have historical account that Jefferson Davis said it in 1861, long before the so-called "first" you cite for the president of the US. Do we think that Davis just made it up, pulling it from his rectum, and that US presidents now follow his example? Before we follow this assumption first promulgated off an atheist website, the origin of the legend, if it be one, should be examined.Todd Gallagher 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have it backward. If you would like to include something in an article, you must provide at least one verifiable source. If that thing that you would like to include is not only in dispute, but is (as in this case) NOT verified by contemporaneous sources, then you'll need more than some Senate staffer repeating the unsourced legend (and I'll bet that all of your "sources" are just repeating the legend, and are not actually sources). Not only that, but if anywhere, the legend belongs in the Oath article, not this one. Please do not keep adding this inappropriate item without discussing it here - and, if you can, please bring a verifiable source. Info999 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess that gets into the question of reliable sources. This is not original research time. Further, it should be noted that this phrase was not just made up. I have already cited where Jefferson Davis used it, and now, in just a few minutes of research, I have found that Andrew Johnson at least used it in the oath he prescribed others take. Amazing he would have others say it but not say it himself, at least according to you. There is record of the oath being used in Texas as well as soon as Texas was admitted to the Union. This predates the Civil War as far back as the 1840's. Then we have federal law which required military officers and justices of the Supreme Court to use the phrase "So help me God" in their oaths passed by Congress as early as 1789 ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=199 ). Someone had to have set the example for this.Todd Gallagher 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has claimed that anything was "just made up." No one is claiming that no president ever appended the phrase (and by the way, in all of this, the only relevant actors are presidents of the United States...it doesn't matter if Jefferson Davis or Josef Stalin ever added the phrase, so let's be helpful and limit ourselves to the subject at hand, OK?). The issue here isn't really even whether or not George Washington added the phrase - and again, all contemporaneous sources say that he just uttered the oath as the Constitution required, and nothing more - but whether this information belongs in this article. It does not. It does belong in the Oath article, and even in Washington's article. And regarding wiki policy, the verifiability of the information is in dispute - so please stop violating policy by reverting until this is settled.Info999 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've found a number of reliable sources which say George Washington was the originator of this phrase:

No, you haven't. You've found number of places on the web that repeat the legend, but NONE are sources for the event itself. Since it is in dispute, and since no actual sources (you know, the ones who witnessed the event and published their account at the same time) even mention the phrase, you have not produced any sources for the claim. You have, however, produced reliable sources to claim that there is a unverified legend that Washington appended this phrase; again, however, it doesn't belong in this article!Info999 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• PBS Online News Hour — "George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath, and almost every president has added it since."
• Meridian Magazine — "Not inconsistent with this view, President George Washington initiated the tradition of taking the Presidential oath of office, which swears or solemnly affirms fidelity to the US Constitution, with left hand on the Bible, right arm to the square, and the recitation of those closing words, once again, "so help me God." We call this a promissory oath."
• A supreme court decision — has an extensive summary including:
  • Steven B. Epstein, Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 2083, 2110 (1996) — "When President Washington completed his constitutional oath of office ... he added spontaneously 'I swear, so help me God'."
• The Washington Post — "George Washington, first man to take the oath, added the words, "so help me God."
That's just to name a few. There are a litany of other newspapers which say similar things. --Haemo 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we get some reliable sources asserting that he didn't say it before we start edit warring? --Haemo 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need reliable sources to say that he didn't say it, because all of the reliable sources don't even mention it. Can you please provide me with a reliable source that verifies that Ronald Reagan did not say in his second state of the union address, "Mommy, please give me some more Jello"? No, because no contemporaneous source (the newspapers, the eyewitnesses, the videotape) even suggest that he said anything of the sort! Two hundred years from now, if some legend has grown up saying that Reagan said that (perhaps as a result of this post?), the wiki editors (god help them) who claim that he said it will have to provide a contemporaneous source that verifies that anyone at the same time that he was supposed to have said it ever even suggested that he said it. The same is true with this legend. There is no verifiable source to claim it as fact. Besides, even as a legend, it doesn't belong in this article! I'm not arguing with you as to whether or not he said it, or whether or not a legend exists that he said it. I'm debating whether or not even the mention of it - legend or otherwise - belongs in this article. Info999 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous interpretation of reliable sources, and directly contrary to the linked policy. Multiple reliable sources say "Washington said that". One would think that if they're all wrong, and this has been a long-misunderstood "legend" which has been widely accepted as a fact that there would be some sources telling us that "hey, you were wrong". The "you can't prove a negative" argument is extraordinarily weak given that you're asking us to accept, without any evidence that numerous prestigious and reliable sources are wrong about a very important piece of American history. --Haemo 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina required its use as early as 1776. http://www.teachingushistory.org/1776Constitution.htm#Citation . Todd Gallagher 06:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this, members of Congress didn't have the phrase in their oath until the Civil War; the Vice President of the United States article says the same for that office. Also, the atheist website you made reference to above has quite a few links that quote recitation of the oath without the phrase. Perhaps detail should be given at the oath article, and only have a brief mention here? Comrade Tux 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"And regarding wiki policy, the verifiability of the information is in dispute - so please stop violating policy by reverting until this is settled." Uhh . . . exactly, so stop removing it until it is settled.Todd Gallagher 20:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the facts and the rules on purpose, or just to have your own way? The policy is that if it's in dispute, and you revert, you're in violation...you have reverted an appropriate edit now several times. This is not something I want to bother an admin about, but I will if I have to. Please stop reverting. Info999 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please cite any reliable sources which dispute that George Washington added "so help me God" to his pledge? Because right now, I'm not seeing any, and I'm seeing a "dispute" which constitutes of another editor saying "it's an urban legend" against a whole bunch of sources which say "it's a fact". --Haemo 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, I don't think you're getting it. (First, the contemporaneous sources for Washington's inaugural aren't readily available through free web sites. Someone would have to take the time to look them up manually.) In any case, NONE of them even suggest that Washington said anything other than what the Constitution requires. Not one. Even the idea that he had said anything extra wasn't published for decades. This makes it at the very least suspect, and at worst false. I don't have a problem with editing the Oath article to include that the issue is up for debate - I have a problem with including extraneous information in an article (any article), especially information that has not been verified - and more especially, information that pushes a POV. Info999 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

All this clamor for a contemporaneous source seems to violate WP:OR. which excludes primary sources. "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account...is a primary source." I think the references Haemo provides are more than adequate. --Ybbor^Talk 01:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If someone were to claim in wiki that you once ran through the streets of your town naked holding a hello kitty banner screaming monologues from john hughes movies, the best that they could say is that it is alleged that you did so, unless they could cite a contemporaneous account that verifies that you did so. The only thing those sources above document is that people keep repeating a legend that was never documented as fact.Info999

For purposes of Wikipedia--which is in some senses a tertiary source--it would be sufficient if they could cite a "reliable" source--as defined by Wikipedia policy. That includes things like major newspapers. Thus, if the Washington Post and PBS reported about the naked run, it could be included in Wikipedia as fact. I recognize that there may be dispute about this issue, but Wikipedia policy is to state the consensus among reliable sources even if primary sources are absent. Krinsky 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much wrong with saying something along the lines of "tradition holds that 'so help me God' is added to the oath," as it is backed up with reliable sources. But is an entire paragraph devoted to this really appropriate? As for reverting, the article should just be left alone until there is some consensus either way, otherwise this will end up protected. Comrade Tux 07:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

All modern-day presidents say: "So help me God." It has been this way for at least 100 years, even by Info999's own account. So it should be included. Insert a simple line after the oath quote that says: "Presidents traditionally include 'So help me God' at the end of the oath." Plain and simple. Then link this to the oath article and include the paragraph there. I have no problem with that. Todd Gallagher 07:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Todd really doesn't know how to play nice, does he? Here in wiki, we TALK about changes that are in dispute, and when we agree we put the changes into the article. I'm going to chalk it up not to bad faith but to ignorance of the regs. It's poorly worded, is insignificant and irrelevant to the section and to the article. But someone has to stop this truculence, and it doesn't seem to want to stop on its own. So I'm done with changing it. Here's some final reasons, though, why it's wrong to have in this article: recent tradition also holds that the president's spouse holds a bible during the oath (didn't always, by the way); very recent tradition also holds that the president repeats each sentence or phrase after the chief justice says them out loud (didn't always, by the way); very very recent tradition also holds that the oath is taken on the west steps of the us capitol (used to be the east front); why not place these "traditions" in the article also? Why are they not as important? They are all visual and audible images surrounding the inauguration that are much more ingrained in the American psyche. Besides not being relevant to the article in question, could it be that the people who are pushing the inclusion of the phrase somehow place a greater emphasis on the supposed meaning of the phrase, and are not simply interested in neutrally documenting a subject, but pushing their POV? Info999 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here. We have several reliable sources for the attribution. If there is any reliable source that questions the account -- then we can add a note that there is some dispute and cite the sources that question it. Requiring a contemporaneous source to validate what other reliable sources have stated is essentially requiring Original Research. If there are no reliable sources that question the account, then we have no basis for challenging the other sources. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Wikipedia does not require a contemporaneous source for any given claim — we only require a reliable source. If this is an urban legend, then surely there must be some reliable sources which call it as much — especially given that it's so prevalent as to be reported as a fact by university professors, the US Senate, and innumerable news agencies. Arguing that you cannot produce one because that's trying to "prove a negative" is ridiculous. --Haemo 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The biography for Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Gerald Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his name has been nominated for deletion as being non-notable. You can make your comments at Wiki: Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"However, debates in Congress have been raised concerning this decision. Following the increase in terrorism and threats to the president in general since 1997, lifetime protection is being reconsidered." <---This statement needs to have a cited source, becuase it sounds like hearsay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.78.74 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Senate does not ratify treaties. The Senate grants its consent with a 2/3 vote, and then the President ratifies it. This is not a meaningless distinction; the treaty is not in effect without Presidential ratification, and the President is not required to ratify a treaty even if the Senate votes its consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.92.119 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.