Talk:President of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Untitled

Note: The pre-May 2006 edits to the talk page are preserved in the page history of this page.

Trivia section

Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There have never been more than five former presidents alive at any given time in American history. There have been three periods during which five former presidents were alive:

There have been six periods in American history during which no former presidents were alive:

  • April 30, 1789 – March 3, 1797: until the first President left office, there could be no former presidents, alive or otherwise.
  • December 14, 1799 – March 3, 1801: from the death of former President George Washington until incumbent President John Adams left office (no former president would die until Adams and his successor, Thomas Jefferson, both did so on July 4, 1826).
  • July 31, 1875 – March 3, 1877: from the death of former President Andrew Johnson until incumbent President Ulysses Grant left office (no former president would die until Grant did so in 1885 although incumbent President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881).
  • June 24, 1908 – March 3, 1909: from the death of former President Grover Cleveland until incumbent President Theodore Roosevelt left office (no former president would die until Roosevelt did so in 1919).
  • January 5, 1933 – March 3, 1933: from the death of former President Calvin Coolidge until incumbent President Herbert Hoover left office (no former president would die until Hoover did so in 1964 although incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt died in office in 1945 and incumbent President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963).
  • January 22, 1973 – August 9, 1974: from the death of former President Lyndon B. Johnson until incumbent President Richard Nixon resigned (no former president would die until Nixon did so in 1994).

Herbert Hoover had the longest post-presidency, 31 years. He left office in 1933 and died in 1964. Still alive today is Gerald Ford, who has been a former president for 29 years, as of 2006. James K. Polk had the shortest post-presidency. He died on June 15, 1849, a mere three months after the expiration of his term.

Between the birth of George Washington in 1732 and the birth of Bill Clinton in 1946, future presidents have been born in every decade except two: the 1810s and the 1930s. Between the death of George Washington in 1799 and the present, presidents or former presidents have died in every decade except four: the 1800s, 1810s, 1950s, and 1980s.

Salary

Presidential Pay History
Date established Salary Salary in real
dollars (2001)
September 24, 1789 $25,000 $249,952.22 (1800)
March 3, 1873 $50,000 $710,401.18 (1873)
March 4, 1909 $75,000 $1,419,792.55 (1909)
January 19, 1949 $100,000 $707,627.96 (1949)
January 20, 1969 $200,000 $979,236.86 (1969)
January 20, 2001 $400,000 $400,000 (2001)

This is the table that appears in the salary section of the article. Can anyone tell me what real dollars (2001) 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 14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)-

No comments in 4 days on my suggestion, so I will go ahead and do it. DMB 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the figure for the 1789 Presidential salary is different in the text ($270000) that that in the table ($250000). I assume that the latter is correct, but does anyone know? NoahElhardt 06:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Pay History
Date established Salary Salary in real
dollars (2001)
September 24, 1789 $25,000 $250,000 (1800)
March 3, 1873 $50,000 $710,000 (1873)
March 4, 1909 $75,000 $1,420,000 (1909)
January 19, 1949 $100,000 $708,000 (1949)
January 20, 1969 $200,000 $979,000 (1969)
January 20, 2001 $400,000 $400,000 (2001)

Bush in office until 2009?

I have removed a reference to Bush leaving office in 2009. I do not believe that anyone can forsee the next four years. Although it is likely that he will serve a full second term, the possibility still exists that he may leave office by resignation, impeachment and removal, physical incapacity, etc. Since Wikipedia is supposed to report facts only, shouldn't it be listed that Bush's presidency is until "present"? Jwinters

I agree wholeheartedly with this - Wikipedia is not a political platform - it's an encyclopedia ; at the moment, we should simply be stating that Bush is still in office. I have put this page on my watch list and shall continue to revert any reference to 2009 back to "In Office" ; this is the way the table presents data for the List of British Prime Ministers - this page should be no different. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 17:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is nonsensical. The standard way to deal with this is to state that his term will run until 2009. That leaves open the possibility that the term may be aborted due to death, resignation or removal from office. It is fundamentally wrong to state simply that someone is 'in office' as that blurs two distinct categories of people - those like presidents elected for specific terms, and those like the UK PM who once s/he kisses hands (ie., are appointed) remain continually in office until they resign or die. (The holding of general elections is of no consequence in so far as parliament does not elect the PM, let alone elect them after each general election. They continue on automatically until they resign, die or are dismissed.) Bush is not in that situation. He has a definite cut off point, January 2009, so that needs to be made clear, just as it needs to be made clear that Blair if he chooses and he does not lose a general election, could be in power well beyond 2009. (In theory he could be there in 2019 or even 2029, whereas Bush cannot be there after January 2009. That's the difference). FearÉIREANN 17:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is nonsensical : the column on the table is labelled "Left Office" ; past tense. How can you label a column in the table with a date in the future if it's meant to designate an occasion that occured in the past? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 17:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Saying that Bush "left office" in 2009 is as nonsensical as saying that Bush, then Gore, then Bush won Florida in 2000. If the timeline says "present" under "left office", and Bush leaves office early, the timeline would only be out-of-date. If the timeline says "2009" under "left office", and Bush leaves office early, the timeline would be inaccurate. I'm trying to prevent the possibility of an inaccuracy. The whole point is to report what is, or what has happened, not what is likely to happen. The fact that he cannot serve past 2009 can br inferred from the rest of the article (1 - Bush took office in 2001, 2 - He can only be elected to a maximum of 2 four-year terms). Jwinters 19:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The standard way of saying this is that "his term" will run out (or expire?) in 2009.

This requires a reference to the US Constitution. To answer this question, as that is where all the presidents and all other government powers are derived thou the people of the United States. The People of the United States of America -> There State Constitution -> The United States Constitution-> (3 Branches of American federal government): the US Congress, The US President, and the US Supreme Court.


US Constitution link: http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml


US Constitution: “Article. II. Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. “ http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

From this, we can determine that the president’s term must end in 4 years, as also do his powers. This is again repeated specifically in the 20th amendment, section 1: “ Section 1. The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. ”

As the last guy stated, the 22 Amendment of the United States Constitution, prohibits a president from being elected to serve more than 2 terms. So I think I should be stated clearly in addition that he can never run again, just to alleviant some peoples apparent paranoia.


Amendments: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Featured article status and miscellaneous objections

This was once a featured article.

See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#President_of_the_United_States to learn what needs to be done to re-establish this article's status.

It isn't there anymore. I finally found it but since it took so long I will copy the debate here:

Article should make more prominent mention of how presidents get their position in the first place (preferably at the beginning and nicely integrated with the flow of the text). Currently we have to make do with obscure links at the end to U.S. presidential election and U.S. Electoral College. -- Dissident 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. jengod 01:34, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC) This objection seems to have been addressed. What's the procedure for re-listing the article? Can anyone just add it back if there are no further objections? --Minesweeper 22:27, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC) I beg to make an objection (or rather, objections). Firstly, the Article does not seem to mention that the term limit does not apply in the case of terms lasting less than two years. Furthermore, it does not note that the term limits are relevant in the case of elections; an individual who has previously served two terms may suceed to the Presidency in the case of a vacancy. Secondly, the Article misrepresents the facts relating to the Twelfth Amendment. It states, "Since the ratification of Amendment XII in 1804 clarified the electoral process, the President and Vice President have been elected together as a ticket through the constitutionally mandated U.S. Electoral College." After the ratification of the Amendment, despite the statement in the article to the contrary, the President and Vice President are elected separately - not as a joint ticket. Thirdly, the article states, "The winning candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes." I object because the article does not state that a winning candidate can win in the House of Representatives if there is no majority in the Electoral College. Fourthly, I object to the structure of a sentence: " Thus, in order to raise the salaries of other federal employees, the President's salary had to be raised to avoid surpassing the President." It would seem, reading the sentence, that the President's salary was surpassing his own, and therefore had to be raised - which of course does not appear logical. -- Emsworth 03:33, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

[unsigned qn by User:Mullickprashant moved from near top to bottom, where it is morelikely to be read & answered. --Jerzy(t) 02:39, 2004 May 15 (UTC)~]

Form of address for presidents

I have an OLD book here (can't seem to locate a date on it) that says one of the "official" ways to refer to the President is "His Excellency, The President of the United States." I may be American (and proud!) but I'm not calling any president "His Excellency," that's just too much for me.

I asked a question about this before in a different forum after having seen an original death announcement for Lincoln, which referred to him as His Excellency. It seems that some effusive people, unaware that the president has no such title, would refer to him as Excellency. From time to time, some people from other parts of the world will address the president as Your Excellency (in letters and suchlike). Of course, this has never been formal usage (although for a while, they did consider whether the president should have some title, such as "Elective Majesty".) - user:Montrealais

His Excellency is actually not a title but a Style, ie a formal manner of address. There is no written Style for the US president but there is a spoken one, 'Mr. President' , which is the same as 'Your Majesty' (UK), 'President' (Ireland), 'Your Holiness' (Holy See). 'Excellency' is a standard style applied to heads of state in republics. It may have been that one was introduced once and then dropped, or people just presumed like everyone else that the US president was addressed that way. If you get an invitation to the White House to meet some visiting head of state, the WH Protocol people will tell you to address them by their appropiate Style. JTD 08:17 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

    • Under the Congress of Vienna and generally recognnized forms of address, ANY head of state carries the title of "excellency" as well as the head of government (e.i. prime minister, premier, etc.) in some non English speaking monarchies. The fact that American protocol does not officially reserve "excellency" to the president does not mean he or she can not be address as such without breaking American social etiquette. It is a title of courtesy (which means it is not official or required. The style "excellency" is also an appropriate courtesy title when addressing state governors and several states have officially reserved the style to the governor including Massachusetts and Vermont. The Congress of Vienna also reserves "excellency" for ambassadors and other high ranking diplomats, this title is NOT accredited to the ambassador by his or her government but by the government and people of the host nation in which the ambassador is stationed in. Officially American protocol is to address any ambassador or high ranking diplomat (e.g. foreign minister, European Union head of delegation, Secretary General of U.N., etc.)as "excellency.

As for not addressing a president etc. as "excellency" remember that it goes with the office not the person. You are honouring the highest office in the land or showing respect for an elected official by addressing him or her as "excellency."

Sorry for the poor formatting; I got the list from http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/. Looks like they've got more info, and I'd bet that info is in the public domain and therefore copyable?

An important question. Could you research this and report back?

The info at that site seems to come from copyrighted sources. information here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/copyright.html

I can find no link between that address and http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/, however they are in the same folder and clearly contain information on the same subjects mentioned in the book on the U.S. presidents. The info above may fall under the Feist v. Rural decision, i.e. that factual information, even in collections, in many instances is not copyrightable. I guess the question would be whether any of the "expressive" content of the author is present here; you should probably ask [[User::Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]], as it seems to be an area he's knowledgeable in.

The actual text of the biographies there is indeed copyrighted by the WHHA, a non-governmental entity that is entitled to own copyrights, and so you can't copy any of that text. Simple factual information like where a president was born, what other offices he may have held, the names of his family members, etc. can certainly be learned from that site and written up here in your own words. There is no "creative selection" or "creative presentation" problem because we're including every president, in natural order, and presenting the information in our own way. Copyrights apply to "creativity", not "research". --LDC

President Washington came across this problem shortly after assuming office. They decided that the correct form of addressing the President would be "Mr. President", as the didn't want him to be addressed as a King(!).

Andrew Johnson's party

Is Andrew Johnson considered a Republican?

Johnson's political allegiance was complex. - Woodrow 22:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Republican party made a shrewd political move when they brought a Democrat in as Vice-President to Lincoln. That didn't change Johnson's party affiliation, though, nor his ideals (as is clear from the later struggles between the Republicans and President Johnson). Although he ran on a Republican ticket, he remained a Democrat. Most histories ([3], [4], [5] for example) list him as a Democrat. SWAdair | Talk 07:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Is there a reason why he's given the republican colour in the timeline table? And shouldn't John Tyler be treated the same way - also a Democrat VP elected on Whig ticket who then succeeds and falls out with his nominating party.
Would it help to have another colour for such Presidents to distinguish them from those elected onb that party's ticket? Timrollpickering 20:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Johnson should be a listed as something like independant. He was a unionist in 1864 and when he ran with Lincoln it was a republican ticket. Due to the fact that it is complex we should make it independant.

Having just read The Republican Party: 1854-1966 by George H. Mayer, the situation is a little more complex than is often made out. The Democrats left in the Union split over the Civil War, with the "War Democrats" forming a defacto coalition with the Republicans. The "Union Party" was an attempt to fuse the two together, though in many states it worked in practice as little more than the Republican Party under another name. However in some a few War Democrats were included on the tickets, most obviously Johnson in 1864.
Johnson, like Tyler before him, fell out with the party that had nominatd him once he inherited the Presidency but the splits were wider and broke the Union Party back into its constituent elements. Consequently for much of his term Johnson was effectively all that was left of the Union Party. Can I suggest we use a different colour, either for Johnson alone, or else also for Lincoln's second term? Timrollpickering 21:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson is recorded in history as a Union Democrat, he was placed on the ticket to widen to vote. - Uvirith

Presidents under the Articles of Conf.?

So, it seems to me that it would be nice for this list to be in chronological order. That would require the presidents under the Articles to come before the presidents under the Constitution. Does anyone have any objections? -- EdwardOConnor

Well, since those guys weren't really Presidents of the United States (under the most common interpretation of what it means to really be the President of the United States), it makes sense to have them listed as they are, in a side-note. Perhaps they should even be moved to a separate page. --[[User::Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]
I guess I don't understand the common interpretation then. What it not the United States that won indepenence from Britain? It seems strange to think that it came about upon ratification of the Constitution, many years later. Mere anarchy was not loosed upon the land in the interim. (Note that it would be correct to say that I'm attacking a strawman here. :]) It seems to me that any reasonable interpretation of the phrase "president of the United States of America" has to take into account that both American governments have had such a position. Would it be correct to not list Arthur Griffith before Eamon de Valera on a hypothetical "Presidents of Ireland" page, merely because he was not president under the current Constitution? -- EdwardOConnor
Actually it would.
  1. Griffith wasn't President of Ireland, his title was President of Dáil Éireann, and deV would still go ahead of him because deV was his immediate predecessor in that office, though from August 22, 1921 to Griffith's election, it has been called President of the Republic.
  1. The 'Irish Republic' Griffith was president over was a different state, with a different name, covering a different land-mass. So Griffith was not President of Ireland, the head of state of the Republic of Ireland, he was Arthur Griffith, President of Dáil Éireann of the Irish Republic. JTD 08:17 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
The "presidents" under the Articles of Confederation were not the chief executives of the United States. They were the presiding officers of the Congress; the better analogy under the Constitution is to the Speaker of the House (or to the President pro tempore of the Senate). In other words, we do not list Presidents of the United States before George Washington because there were none, only Presidents of the Congress. Mateo SA 05:24, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. Further, the full title of those presidents was, "President of the United States in Congress Assembled." But the term "United States in Congress Assembled" was the formal name of the legislature under the Articles of Confederation! They were nothing more than the presiding officers of the legislature; they certainly weren't the heads of government or heads of state. -- Anonymous 10:30 29 March 2006 UTC
Perhaps keep them in a separate list, but put that separate list before the "traditional" president listing? Aitchison was really briefly the President, so he should probably stay on this page no matter what ultimately happens to the others.
This sounds reasonable to me. -- EdwardOConnor

Presidents' religious affiliations

Why are religious affiliations on the main list page? On a president's own page, sure, but on the main page? Party affiliation makes sense, but here, religion is no more relevant than shoe size, IMO. -- [[User::RjLesch|RjLesch]]

Agreed. -- EdwardOConnor
Religious affiliation is indeed more relevant than shoe size or boxers or briefs (MTV viewers' voting criteria notwithstanding :-). One's religion can give insight into one's philosophy, worldview, etc. As for why I added them -- I did it because I happened to have collected the list out of an almanac several years ago. <>< [[User::tbc|tbc]]

I think this claim needs to be shown, not merely told. I'd be interested to see an explanation of how Nixon's Quakerism influenced his decision to bomb Cambodia, for example. But until then, I think religious affiliation should be removed or moved somewhere else. - Tim

<AOL>Me too!</AOL>. Seriously, I think this gives prominence to a politician's religious beliefs beyond what they deserve. In any case, just listing somebody as, say, Catholic, says nothing about whether they were actually devout or just turned up to church on Sunday for the cameras. Oh, and if I recall my American history correctly wasn't Lincoln Jewish (thus making "none" more than slightly inaccurate)- another example of why this listing shouldn't be here. --[[User::Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]]
No, Lincoln became a Christian at Gettysberg. See Tbc/Abraham Lincoln.

But in the same vein, listing someone as "Republican" doesn't tell you if he was a devoted party hack or just someone in whose lap the nomination fell because nobody else was available/willing to run at the time - see Zachary Taylor for an example.

Here's an analogy for you. When listing the winners of a season MVP award, do you list the team they play for, or their religion? --[[User::Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]]

Al Smith lost a presidential election in the 1920s because he was Roman Catholic. John F. Kennedy faced accusations that as a Catholic president he would do as Pope John XXIII would tell him to do. Joseph Lieberman may not be elected president in 2004 on account of his jewish faith, because just as Smith lost on account of the 'fear' that he would do a 'foreign power's bidding' (ie the Vatican) as a catholic president, just as Kennedy faced similar accusations in 1960 but just about overcome them, so Lieberman if he becomes the Democratic nominee will face accusations that he would be the 'Israeli man' in the White House, 'giving' his allegiance to a foreign state. So religion is not as irrelevant as shoe size. Religion matters a hell of a lot; look at born-again baby Bush and his policy agenda. It may

  • shape the vision a leader has of society and how he wants to lead it;
  • affect his electability;
  • positively or negatively shape his stance on policy matters.

No accurate article on the POTUS can possibly leave out religion, if it wants to be credible, because apart from anything else, it gives a interesting indication of American attitudes to the religious backgrounds of its leaders; what does the fact that only one president out of forty plus was a Roman Catholic? Is that more or less than proportionately should be the case? I may be wrong, but I don't think there has been a single jewish president. Yet there is a sizable jewish population in the US? So why no jewish president? You cannot possibly ignore questions like that in this article. They are key indicators of public attitudies that helped shape the office of POTUS. JTD 08:17 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)


The Article of Confederation did not have an executive branch of government, only a congress, the presiding officers were similar to the vice-president's position or the speaker of the house.

Moving to "President of the United States"

Are there any objections against moving this to President of the United States? The "of America" seems like unnecessary overkill, given that we probably rarely want to link to the page using that text, and it doesn't add any valuable disambiguation. ---Eloquence 13:32 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I guess it depends whether we're thinking of "english" wikipedia as UK/US english or what people call "international english". The usage of "United states" or just "the States" to mean USA is pretty common in the Anglo-Saxon countries, but not really standard for people who use English as their second language.

I oppose it because the United States is not the name of the country. The correct name of the country is the United States of America. Rmhermen 13:46 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I am in Germany, and here we often just call the US the "Vereinigte Staaten", so it's not really that much different. I'm not aware of another entity that is referred to as the "United States". There are, of course, the United Arab Emirates, but that's not even close. As for "correct name", even the White House website routinely refers to the "President of the United States" and rarely to the USA. The CIA World Factbook also calls the country the United States. Also see Google: United States: 6.5 million hits, United States of America: 2 million hits. --Eloquence
I agree. There is no need for 'of America'. Our article on the US is at United States due to the fact that 'United States' is the conventional short form of the name of the nation. It is also the common name which conforms nicely with our naming conventions. --mav 14:12 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I am a stickler for technical accuracy, but I do think in this case 'of America' is going to far. There is accuracy and there is ludicrously cumbersome accuracy.

          • OK, The OFFICIAL NAME of the UNITED STATES IS the United States of America, referring to the United States of America as the United States is short version for the name of the country. As for "technical accuracy" in the entry above, technicially the next time you talk or write about England under your logic you should refer to it by its official name of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," I don't think most people refer to Great Britain with it's official name, but just U.K., United Kingdom, Britain, Great Britain, etc. Remember most nations of the world have a long official name, it is used on money, passports, government offices, embassies, documents, etc. Only a few such as Canada and Japon offically refer to their country just with its name, but still Canada unofficially uses "Canadian confederation and it's the same with Japan and "Japanese empire." One could even make the argument that "United States" is more politically correct because America/American can ably to ALL of the Americas (NORTH AND SOUTH) as well as any person from the Americas (Candians, Peruvians, Brasilians, etc.)

Par Example of official country names: Federal Republic of Germany, Russian Federation, Peopele's Republic of China, Arab Republic of Egypt, Commonwealth of Australia, Union of the Republics of Serbia & Montenegro, etc.



One question: re the Continental Congress. Did any international states have diplomatic representation with the new American state? If so, to whom did they accredit their ambassadors? If it was the President of the Continental Congress, that would mean that he was a head of state. You don't have to be an executive figure to be head of state. If you are the diplomatic representative of your state on the international stage, even if your 'day job' was simply to chair congress, you are still a head of state. Does anyone know if the presidents of the Continental Congress fulfilled that role? JTD 08:17 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Ranking" the presidents?

The standard table for each of the presidential entries has a "Rank:" field (e.g. Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th president), which refers to their order of succession. This has been annoying me for some time, because I'm pretty convinced that "Rank" is the wrong word to use here (as it implies a qualitative judgement). However, I'm not sure that I have a useful replacement. If forced at gunpoint, I'd say "Order of succession:", but I'm not sure I like that either. Anybody have thoughts or suggestions here? -- RobLa 20:19 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

How about "Number"? dml

Hmmm...not bad. I think it's better than "rank". I'm going to hold out and see if someone has a better suggestion, but that's the best one I've heard. -- RobLa 23:05 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

A rank is a list of numbers ranked in order. As each president in turn increased the number by one, that list of presidents here as elsewhere is described as a rank, starting at number 1 and increasing in order by one. Number doesn't indicate order so is inaccurate. Rank isn't. That is why, for example, one refers to a taxi rank, a row of taxis each of which increases the total number preceding by one. So rank is the most accurate word to describe their position in the line of presidents. ÉÍREman 00:16 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I reccomend Order of succession:", "rank" is inappropriate. Iesuf Taitsevski

Order of Succession is unworkable. 1. it is too look. 2. Monarchies use the 'word' succession; republics don't. Rank is the normal word used to describe a president's position in a list of presidents, not just in the US but France, Germany, Italy, Ireland and many other states. ÉÍREman 00:23 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Order of Succession could be confused with Presidential line of succession. Rank could be confused with comparison polls (most noteably one done by the Chicago Tribune in 1982 and one done by Arthur Schlesinger in 1962, in which historians were asked to rank the presidents. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with number, but instead of having the result be 9th, it should read 9th President of the United States. IMHO, Kingturtle 00:38 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

You point about rank has some merit. It shouldn't be interpreted that way, but someone might. I think 9th President is enough. The full version I think would be too long. ÉÍREman 00:46 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Both the Oxford Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary attribute a value judgement to "rank". Specifically, from Webster 1913 (since I can copy it): "Degree of dignity, eminence, or excellence; position in civil or social life; station; degree; grade; as, a writer of the first rank; a lawyer of high rank". I have to say I've never heard the term "taxi rank", though I don't doubt it's commonly used in Europe. That particular usage implies the definition of "rank" which is "To place abreast, or in a line", as in "rank and file", and thus "first rank" would mean "first line" rather than "first in line".
Based on this conversation, I think I would prefer "Order: 21st President" -- RobLa 06:29 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Trivia - related presidents

How about an addition to the trivia section? Familial relationships between Presidents? The Adams' the Roosevelts and the Bushs spring to mind. If any Presidents are related to OTHER heads of state (from other countries) that should probably go in as well. Are any of them descended from royalty? --Dante Alighieri 02:37 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Bush apparently was a distant relative of Diana, Princess of Wales. FearÉIREANN 06:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See [6] --Jiang

As mentioned above, this page (and Vice President of the United States of America should be moved just as the main US article is at United States and not United States of America. --Jiang 10:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the lists of President of the Continental Congress and President of the United States in Congress assembled to be on this page? Currently the sections on this page are at least as long as the actual articles on those topics. Rmhermen 00:04, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. The "United States" was not created by the current constitution. It is an important footnote to mention that a different style of president existed in the United States prior to the current office. FearÉIREANN 18:38, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about adding a section on the lines of how the electoral college system works in the US? It seems strange that the article makes no mention of how the President is elected. -- Alex.tan 13:33, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First Ladies

The change of wife to spouse when referring to First Lady is incorrect. To date no non-marital spouse of a president has existed. If they did the US would then have to decide if they would be First Lady. However given the power of the religious right, it is questionable whether a president would decide to give the title to a girlfriend. As to what happens when a female president has a male husband, or a male president has a boyfriend, that is something that will only become an issue if and when it happens. As of now FL refers to only the wife of a president or to another family member so designated. It does not apply to a non-marital sexual partner and this article should not imply in language that it does. I have put back in wife as it is correct, spouse prejudges what may happen in other senarios. As we don't know, stating that FL is the President's spouse is imprecise, of questionable accuracy and POV. (BTW IMHO I see no reason why it should not be applied to a non-marital female partner but that would require a policy decision that has not as of yet been taken and is not likely to be until the issue arises in practice.) FearÉIREANN 22:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV, just inaccurate. Other than that I agree, though. Onebyone 22:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is stating as fact that non-marital and marital spouses both could be called FL. Personally I have no problem with that, but it is inaccurate and redefined the sentence to suggest an equality, which is a POV and inaccurate. :-) FearÉIREANN 22:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wife is definitely the word to use for this particular sentence. Spouse would imply that, in the event of a woman president, her husband would be the First Lady. Although I like the idea of a man being a lady, I don't think the idea would fly well with the rest of the nation. Kingturtle 22:37, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There were some presidents who were either widowed, or unmarried. Their female relatives served as first ladies. Roseba 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Titles??

My friends and I were debating:

When a female becomes President of the United States of America, what will be the title of her husband?

Separate and aside from that question, if Hillary Clinton were to become President, what would Bill be referred to as? Well he still be call President Clinton? or The former President? or The President First?

I don't know. Maybe 'First Man'? But probably just Mr. Clinton. --mav 05:33, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In some states with female governors, the husband is usually referred to as "First Gentleman." --pm06420 21:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hillary would be called Madam President; Bill would be called President Clinton. I think the title "First Lady" would fall into disuse at that point. Gender neutrality is typically adopted as official parlance once the gender barrier is broken in a particular position or office. For example, until 1981 the Supreme Court of the United States used the honorific "Mr. Justice Lastname" to refer to an Associate Justice. When Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the bench, the Court started using "Justice Lastname." --68.226.91.122 03:06, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"First Gentleman" seems reasonable to me, though I'm sure that "Mr. First Gentleman" will never be used as a form of address the way that "Madam First Lady" is today.

Here in Washington, where we have a female Governor, her husband is refered to as the "First Gentleman." I'm reasonably sure that that style would hold true for the husband of a President as well. However, as far as Bill Clinton is concerned, it is my understanding that former Presidents should be refered to a "President (name)" for the rest of their life.


Seems to me that First Gentleman sounds accurate, as the gender opposite of 'Lady' is, as far as I can tell, 'Gentleman.' However, as with Clinton, it seems to me that they will always be called by the title 'President' and it doesn't seem right that if their office expires, they suddenly become 'Ex-President' or 'Former President.' 67.162.149.163 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Executive branch: 4 million people?

I believe that, in discussing the size of the Executive Branch over which the President presides, this article makes an inaccurate statement:

To carry out this responsibility, the president presides over the executive branch of the federal government — a vast organization numbering about 4 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel.

There are two problems with this statement. First, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only about 2.7 million Federal workers — 1.87 million in "Federal Government, Excluding the Postal Service" plus 845,000 in "Postal Service Workers". Also, the military is listed as numbering 664,000 in the first report, although some larger numbers from 2001 in

Natural-born-citizen requirement

Article II doesn't strictly require a president to be US born, it allows a "citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of [the] Constitution". All thought this is no longer relevent, do you think it should be mentioned in the Requirements to hold office section? Dmn 22:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The statement "Citizen of the United States at the Time of the Adoption of the Constitution" was made for one reason. There was just a revolution. A new country can't have Nationals before it has been formed. Without this clause, George Washington couldn't have assumed the Presidency. I know it's technical, but it's done for the purposes of continuity. A person who was not born in the United States cannot become President. With the possible exception of a son or daughter of a former President. LotteryOhYah 05:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does a candidate for US President have to be a natural born citizen? I am trying to find information on what the arguments for this are? [unsigned qn by User:Mullickprashant moved from near top to bottom, where it is morelikely to be read & answered. --Jerzy(t) 02:39, 2004 May 15 (UTC)~]

(For the sake of precision, i think you might find that others could theoretically be put on the ballot in some places. (Not clear offhand whether that would be illegal in itself, but presumably the Electoral College's action, in voting them in would be found to have been invalid.) It sounds like you already realize it's in the Constitution, which is the short answer. [wink] Check out Federalist Papers for an idea as to which of those essays might discuss the original reasoning. As for today, the best reason is bcz it would take a constitutional amendment to change it, even if the old reasons were bad or no longer to apply. And that is a big deal; much more so i believe than in most other countries. --Jerzy(t) 02:39, 2004 May 15 (UTC)

The "natural born citizen" requirement was included to prevent the newly founded United States of America from being sabotaged, so to speak. It was a new, young country, using a new system of government. They had gained their independence through war. The last thing they wanted was for someone with allegiances to Britain or elsewhere to have access to the presidency, and potentially destroy what they had fought so hard to create.

Many people, by the way, misquote this requirement by saying that the president must be a "native born citizen" or that the president must be "US born." The requirement is to be a "natural born citizen". The Constitution, however, never defines what "natural born" means. Based on other laws drawn up at the time which make reference to the term "natural born", most Constitutional experts agree that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is a US citizen from the moment of his birth. This would include someone born in the US AND someone born abroad who received his US citizenship through his parents, by descent. Ultimately, it would take the US Supreme Court to decide.

There's talk abuzz of amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become president. I think that the US is mature enough to allow this, personally. At the current time, it would probably face significant opposition from many in the Democratic party, as it would open the presidency to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Steggall 23:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was considerable controversy when George Romney was running for President because he was born in Mexico to US citizen parents, but there was absolutely no discussion when John McCain was running, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. So nothing has been decided about this. Though at the time, many people said Alexander Hamilton couldn't be President because he wasn't born in what became the United States, though he was an citizen at the time of the creation of the Constitution. RickK 23:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Stegall, you say "most Constitutional experts agree" as to what it means to be a natural-born citizen. I'm unaable to come up with one that doesn't agree to the jus soli and jus sanguinis definition. It may be that people doubted Romney's citizenship qualification as to becoming POTUS, however, they were simply mis-informed; there is no legal controversy here, anyone born in the US or born of US citizens is a natural born citizen for this purpose, period. Reimelt 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Presidential photos

Hi, I have received somme comments about why have I been replecing the photos of the presidents with the Official Portraits of them that are hanging on the White House. I think it is much more elegant to have the portrait of the Presidents, since it is tradition that every president should have a portrait made. But if anyone has problems with it, please feel free to talk about this. If people believe it should be better to to have the photos, well so be it. Cheers. Coburnpharr04

I have no objections to this, but we should not be orphaning photos so I've kept the photograph on top and the painting linked below. Of course,we can do it the other way around. Comments? --Jiang 02:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about a compromise? We put the White House portrait in the table, and the photograph in the section of 'Presidency'. Mos encyclopedias do have an area that a table with the presidential facts and the White House Portrait. What say you guys? User:Coburnpharr04

Both versions are headshots, so I don't see the value of displaying both. --Jiang 05:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[from user talk:Jiang]My opinion: The lead image in biographical articles of modern persons should be a photo, not a portrait. By all means include the portrait as well, but further down. Official portraits are inevitable idealized versions of what people look like, and readers should be given a realistic image. Adam 06:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A couple of things. 1) I prefer the photos at the top of the article as they more clearly identify the person (IMO). The portraits are somewhat idealized, and in some cases (Clinton and Reagan) just not very good. I've no objection to displaying the portraits lower in the article though. 2) Some of the images recently uploaded were in GIF and BMP formats. These are generally poor choices for photo/artistic type images. This type of image should be in JPEG format. (Isn't there advice on this in the style guide?) I realize the white house site may use GIFs, but for me that only argues in favor of using a higher quality photo JPEG. At the very least, the GIF and BMP images should be converted to PNG format. older≠wiser 14:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Format preference is found in Wikipedia:Image use policy among other places. Rmhermen 16:20, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I add my opinion to those who are not overly fond of the whitehouse paintings replacing what has been there before. Some of them are good, and IMO would make a nice ADDITION to the article, but should not in all cases REPLACE what is there before. Many editors have contributed to the illustrations from many sources, I've scanned a few images from old public domain era sources which I otherwise have not seen on the web. I don't think these should be replaced with the copies of the exact same images that can be seen on whitehouse.gov. At the very least, I strongly urged that the old images be MOVED-- either down in the article, or to the talk page-- rather than removed from the article to become an orphan. -- Infrogmation 12:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not very wikiwise, so please excuse any faux pas... I added the office term dates beneath each of the presidential pictures. ~ aristotle334 September 27, 2005

Dead presidents

The list of periods when there were five former presidents alive and the list of periods when there were no former presidents alive seem to me to be rather arbitrary and not very useful trivia that just polute the page. Maybe move them to a seperate page and link them from the presidential trivia lists section? -- SvdB 02:36, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

I second that emotion. jengod 03:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
Pollute the page? Why? It's no less arbitrary than any of the other trivia items. --68.226.91.122 02:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
These trivia are the result of coincidence, and never had nor ever will have any influence on anything in the world. SvdB 17:14, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Hamilton and eligibility

The article says The natural-born citizenship requirement has been the subject of some controversy in recent years. The clause was apparently written by political enemies of Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis, and was thus not a US citizen at birth. Can this be right? Wasn't Hamilton "grandfathered in" by the rest of the clause, that says "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"? -PRiis 20:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

be bold and change it. --Jiang 23:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've boldly removed this sentence: "The clause was apparently written by political enemies of Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis, and was thus not a US citizen at birth." There's good info on the origins of the eligilbility clause at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/facfa/history.htm --PRiis 03:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cabinets

If any of you have time and are interested in contributing to the President pages, I'm working on getting uniformly formatted lists of Presidential Cabinet members in each POTUS article, under the subhed ==Jefferson Administration== or ==Roosevelt Administration==, etc. If you have any time, there is a template below.

Sources of the material include:

--Jengod

Please don't include the president in the list. It's redundant. If we add the VP, then it's no longer necessary to have the VP listed in the first biographical box on the upper right hand corner. the first few VPs (Jefferson under President Adams) can't really be considered members of the administration. --202.181.207.71 15:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jefferson Administration

OFFICE NAME TERM
President Thomas Jefferson 1801–1809
Vice President Aaron Burr 1801–1805
  George Clinton 1805–1809
Secretary of State James Madison 1801–1809
Secretary of the Treasury Samuel Dexter 1801
  Albert Gallatin 1801–1809
Secretary of War Henry Dearborn 1801–1809
Attorney General Levi Lincoln, Sr. 1801–1804
  Robert Smith 1805
  John Breckinridge 1805–1806
  Caesar A. Rodney 1807–1809
Postmaster General Joseph Habersham 1801
  Gideon Granger 1801–1809
Secretary of the Navy Benjamin Stoddert 1801
  Robert Smith 1801–1809


Timeline section

Has anyone looked at this thing lately? Seriously? I can understand what it's supposed to say, but you can't look at that thing and tell me nothing's wrong with it. SNIyer1 made some changes to the Timeline section. I basically reverted his changes, then added some information to clarify the issue:

  • For example, before SNIyer1's edits, one line said:
    • John F. Kennedy was the first president born in the 20th century.
  • SNIyer1 changed this to:
    • Lyndon Johnson was the first president born in the 20th century, even though John F. Kennedy was the first 20th century born president.
  • What SNIyer1 was trying to point out was that LBJ was actually born before Kennedy. However, the first listing is more accurate. This can be seen if you add some implied words to the line:
    • John F. Kennedy was the first person to become president who was born in the 20th century.

Mateo SA 00:53, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Problem:

The page contains the following vandalism: Matt S 0wnz0rs j00 4ll. I was unable to edit it out.

Title for former Presidents

I seem to remember reading (somewhere!) that once a President leaves office, he (or she) is not allowed the title 'President' but instead reverts to the highest title he (or she) previously held - thus Bill Clinton is today Governor Clinton, and not President (or Ex-President) Clinton. If I am not mistaken, General George Washington specifically requested this, as it is the norm for all other official positions that the person who held them may use the title after they finish serving - could someone please confirm it? I am trying to find my source but I simply do not remember where (or for that matter when) I read it. Thanks, cevonia 13:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what the precise rule is, but I've never heard Clinton referred to as "Governor Clinton" since he left office in 2001. "Former President Clinton" is the standard in the media. I'm not sure what he is called directly -- in office, it's "Mr. President;" not sure how you address a former president. Funnyhat 01:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CNN uses the "Former President Whoever" style. e.g. [7], [8]. Reverting to a previous title is just silly, since they no longer hold that title, either. -- Dpark 01:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They are almost invariably called President <name>. However President is no longer a title. It is what is called a style, in effect an honorific prefix that shows a formal respect for them for holding the highest office in the land. Similarly deposed monarchs are often called King <name> even though they aren't officially king of anywhere. For example, the deposed Greek monarch is still called King Constantine of Greece. That is why at the papal funeral there were references to President George W. Bush being accompanied by "President Bush" and "President Clinton" and comment was made about the absence of "President Carter". The 'President' reference is purely honorary. But they can never ever be called 'President of the United States', just as King Constantine should not be called 'King of Greece'. FearÉIREANN 02:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CNN clearly doesn't use that style. Neither do a number of other news agencies. Some of them do, and I think that's the official whitehouse preference, but it's not the only accepted style. -- Dpark 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

11 1/2th President

  • I distinctly remember seeing on the children's historical TV show a reference to an "11 1/2th President". The circumstances were that the guy who was to be named president wasn't on hand at the moment or something. There was this great song and everything. And the question is: does anyone here remember that guy's name? -Litefantastic 01:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't remember his name (David Atchison? I'm not sure), but he became President for a day when Zachary Taylor refused to take the oath on a Sunday. Since Polk's term ended at noon that day, the president pro tempore of the Senate became President until Taylor took the oath the next day. Apparently he slept all day. --Zakharov 19:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a source for this, but that's actually nothing more than an urban myth. While it's true that Taylor refused to take the oath on Sunday, the fact remains that the office of the presidency still passed on to him regardless of the oath. RPH 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this myth is comprehensively busted by the authoritative snopes.com.Peeper 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationally Elected?

"The President and the Vice President are the only two nationally elected officials in the United States."

This sentence characterizes the act of electing as a national act. Yet it is fair to say that the election of the President and Vice President has at least as many federal as national characteristics, a subtle, yet crucially important point politically. The apportionment of electors among the states is partly federal (treating each state with equal weight) and partly national (treating each citizen with equal weight); when the House and Senate exercise their contingent powers, each state is granted equal weight; in the manner of choosing the electors, each state conducts its own separate election, a federal, not national, arrangement; in the process of casting electoral votes, the electors meet separately in their respective state capitals, again a federal arrangement.

I suspect that what the author meant to convey is that the President and Vice President are the only elected officials in whose election citizens of all states participate, nationwide. Would it not be more correct to replace the words "nationally elected officials" with "officials elected nationwide"? Pgva 09:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two sections both named "Presidential Elections"

Might it be worth merging the two together...? --Rebroad 16:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed the second to "Past and future Presidential elections". I think putting that table at the top would be poor style, and moving the other section to the bottom would put things in a strange order. -- Dpark 04:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the Air Force One picture

Ok, is it just me, or does anyone else notice something wrong with this picture....?? --Rebroad 21:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • What do you mean? It's a featured picture, comes fromn a government source, I added it to fill in the blank space and because I thought it was a strong symbol of the power of the presidency.--Pharos 21:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's just that I've never seen the American flag with the stars at the top right before. Didn't know you could do that! --Rebroad 15:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually the standard depiction of the flag when pictured on two sides of a moving object. The left-hand side will have a 'correct' orientation, and the right hand side is reversed. This gives an impression of a flag flying away from the direction of motion, as a real flag would. The same is done with flag shoulder patches on the uniforms of American soldiers. I imagine a similar thing is done with the flags of other countries.--Pharos 18:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Numbering

I've added a comment to the effect that the <n>th President is actually the <n-1>the person to hold the office, as Grover Cleveland is counted twice. This seems both true and relevant (although trivial). If strongly disagreed with, it can be removed. Transitional Events seems an appropriate place, but maybe there is a better.

This has been deleted from Transitional Events; maybe it is better in Other Facts? It has been deleted without comment, but I have reinstated it for the moment: is it considered incorrect, irrelevant, or misplaced?

Splitting this page up

This page is too large. Do you think it would be a good idea to move the list of presidents to a separate page and link to it? - Mpnolan 02:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think the timeline, while a nice graphic, could be dropped. It seems redundant given that there is a complete list of presidents above it. Funnyhat 01:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-rich Presidents

Is anyone up to listing something about financial status of Presidents? It might be less than clear-cut, but it might also be interesting to many readers to read about how many Presidents have not been rich, or not born to rich families, or were not high-born gentlemen. Sivamo 02:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) That is a little to subjective. All presidents, when they became president, could be classified as rich or upper middle class. In addition regarding birh origin, some came from families who lacked finacial standing but had politcal and social standing. The issue is even more confusing with farmers since depending on your point of view could be considered mostest or wealthy. In addition some presidents became after their presidency. Clinton was born into very humble origins. However in his post presidency he is one of the richest former presidents. After the Bushes and Kennedy, arguably the richest. Some clearly where not rich (at the time of taking office), Clinton and truman, had relativly little wealth espessally clinton, who only made $32,000 and did not own any realestate (though his wife a fairly good income, which ended when they took office). Besides them all presidents (at least all twentieth century presidents) where in financial positions that, if not rich, where well above average. Though it is an intresting subject and should be explored. Truman unlike clinton did not become rich after retirement, and was dependent his public pension (the only president to be such). At the time of gaining office, The Bushes, Reagan Kennedy, FDR, Hoover, Johnson where milioniares. The others where, comfortable in varying degrees. Twentieth century presidents who where clearly born into elite families where TR Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt, Kennedy both Bushes, Taft. Presidents born into middle class family; Carter, Truman, Coolidge Wilson, Johnson, Harding, Mckinly. Presidents born poor, Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, Ford.


In terms of family back ground.

List of presidents

I really, really, really think the list of Presidents should be reposted in this article. It's where people expect to find it, and for most readers it's the core of the article. jengod 01:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I made the list into a separate article because it was nominated on WP:FLC, where the general feedback was that it was only featurable as a stand-alone article. So I created Template:Presidents of the United States, which was then transcluded into both President of the United States as well as List of Presidents of the United States. However, someone subst:-ituted it into the list article, and the list article was subsequently edited. I've since nominated the template for deletion. One solution would be to withdraw that nomination and paste the changes made to List of Presidents of the United States back into Template:Presidents of the United States. On the other hand, transclusion for non-message text is generally frowned upon. I don't know what the best solution is, but what's wrong with having the list in a separate article? The POTUS article itself is quite long already. --MarkSweep 03:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I much prefer having the list of office holders in a separate article. I would also move the timeline into list of Presidents of the United States or its own separate article. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just removed the entire list again from this article. The reason is consistency: Someone just fixed a mistake in list of Presidents of the United States (George Clinton was also VP under Madison), which is not reflected in the present list. I think it would be a major chore to keep the two lists consistent without using templates (as I originally did, before learning that use of templates for transclusion of text is discouraged). If anyone wants to revert my deletion, please also make sure that you keep the table here consistent with the separate list article. --MarkSweep 14:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheney missing from list

Why are we missing Cheney from the list of presidents? He served on June 29, 2002. offensive in context 15:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because Cheney never served as president. He assumed presidential powers during a Saturday afternoon while Bush was having a medical procedure done. Not the same. He wasn't sworn in. -- Dpark 16:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Election without a plurality of votes

Hi. I recently added Kennedy to the list of presidents who were elected without a plurality (under "transition events") based on the information I read at U.S. presidential election, 1960. User:Golbez reverted my change almost immediately.

I don't know how strong the evidence that Kennedy lost the popular vote is, and the above-mentioned article doesn't include a lot of information. In particular, it doesn't explain why Alabama voters weren't given the choice of voting for Kennedy. It does, however, include enough statistics to make me think that there's a good chance Kennedy really did lose the popular vote. Does anyone know more about this? Has anyone ever attempted to figure out just how many votes Kennedy got in Alabama?

Officially, Kennedy did not lose the plurality. The picture at the 1960 election article states that very well, he officially had a higher number of votes. That Alabama screwed up doesn't change that fact. Kennedy got exactly as many votes in Alabama as he got, irrelevant of if he was on the ballot there. You can't GUESS how many people MEANT to vote for him. (Didn't we go over that in 2000?) And this discussion would probably belong more on that article, since it is about it. I agree that this is notable information for that article, but it doesn't mean he lost the plurality. --Golbez 21:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
OK, now that I look at the specifics in 1960, I see what a fustercluck that election was in Alabama. Hrm. Based on that, it looks worth a mention, separate from the list of "presidents who won without a plurality". However, I still point out that the official number presented by the National Archives puts Kennedy ahead. --Golbez 22:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
You're right, the official number does put Kennedy ahead—but, as the 1960 election page points out, the Alabama election was sketchy. I think it's worth a mention somewhere, and I can't think of where to put it except under presidents who have been elected without a plurality of votes. If you have a good idea for where to put it, please edit the article. I'll try to think of something, but I don't have any ideas at the moment. 141.211.62.20 21:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

The article contradicts itself on Andrew Jackson. It states that Van Buren was the first president of non-British descent, and then goes on to state that Jackson was predominately Irish in heritage. If Jackson was Scots-Irish, wouldn't he count as of Scottish descent, rather than of Irish?

I think he was actually of Ulster descent. From limited experience it seems that word is more common in British books than American ones. Do we really want to get into the debate about whether Ulster or even Ireland (rarely called "West Britain") is "British"? Timrollpickering 09:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I've avoided the issue by talking about Anglo-Celtic origin rather than British descent. Everybody prior to van Buren was of English, Scottish or Irish background, which collectively are known as Anglo-Celtic. This is an essentially ethnic grouping, whereas "British" is politico-historically determined (eg. Northern Ireland is British politically, the republic of Ireland is Irish politically, but the entire island of Ireland is Anglo-Celtic ethnically). It's just an accident of history that Washington's grandmother (for example) was not a Chinese woman who had become a British citizen. Had that been the case, he would still have been "of British descent", but certainly not "of Anglo-Celtic origin" (well, not fully anyway). I think the latter is a much more useful way of thinking about these things than the former. Cheers JackofOz 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"POTUS"??

I've never seen it abbreviated that way in my life, I'll go ahead and remove it in a while if no one has any objections --Kennyisinvisible 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I object, I've seen it lots. Just can't recall where. But I have friends who use it all the time, so they must've gotten it from somewhere. Just like "SCOTUS" and "FLOTUS". (I see SCOTUS a lot more, though) --Golbez 04:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Actually it's pretty common. Pollinator 04:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's quite common; it's often shown in books (and a few movies) about the White House. The odd thing is that federal government employees use it (among with all the other funny acronyms that Feds use), but most ordinary Americans do not. Still, I think POTUS should stay, simply because it is so well-known among Feds and anyone with even minimal familiarity with the workings of the federal bureaucracy. --Coolcaesar 06:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It's given as "since the Truman administration" here, and a USSS thing. It's older than that - it was a piece of journalists shorthand c.1918 at least. I assume the feds picked it up from there... [9] Shimgray | talk | 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that acronymns like SCOTUS and POTUS are conservative made names. They have no significant history in any textbooks. In college USSC was the abreviation for the US Supreme Court. This is just another example of the way republicans like dumb down the literacy of this nation. mpa

US President: The most powerful man in the world?

Does anyone else have a problem with the inferrence of imperialism and possibly dicatatorship here? I have a problem with anything that suggests that the US President's authority extends beyond the powers given to him in the US Constitution. User:MPA

Well it only says he's "considered by many" to be the most powerful, not as a fact. I don't really have a problem with it. --Kennyisinvisible 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
*Agree. This might be reformulated.
User:Matusu

The "Most Powerful Office" in the world, would be better stated. It is said given the military and economic power of the United States. It's not meant to imply domination, but rather a level of international respect that comes with the job. Of course, there's something of a historical nature in saying it as well, given the battle over communism etc.

Most powerful man implies that the office is limited to persons of male gender. Change to Most powerful person (Otherwise it might as well read Most powerful white man) Dev1n 2:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Or most powerful white, Christian, straight, rich .... man. JackofOz 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess that I just don't see a reason to write this down anyway, since the Legislature was created to be the most powerful agency in the country. It is the Legislature that gives the Executive Branch the tools do anything. The Legislature controls the resources and and finances, not the President. All laws begin in the Legislature, not the Executive Branch. Therefore the President is only as powerful as the Legislature wants him to be. Thus the statement is FALSE! I will delete it if no one can rebut this. mpa
I disagree. Even if the Legislature did have overwhelming authority over the Presidency (which it hasn't, aside from brief periods, for the past half century) that's not the issue at hand. When people say that the POTUS is the most powerful man in the world, they're referring to the fact that he's the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military. Sure, the Presidency may technically have less constitutional powers than the Legislature, that does not take away from the fact that he can still nuke/order an airstrike with only the briefest of head's up to Congress and is the direct commander of all forces involved in a theater of battle. Also, much like the phrase "leader of the free world," this particular saying is a Cold War euphamism. There are bound to be countless people who disagree with the "free world" statement, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people call the presidency that. The exact same is true for him being the most powerful person on Eath. As it's such a well-known and accepted phrase, pardon me, but it'd just be stupid to remove it. RPH 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular vote

Four Presidents have been elected without a plurality of popular votes.

Can we honestly say Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe has a pluraility given that it was mainly done by a college appointed by stae legislatures? Timrollpickering 12:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Periods when no former Presidents were alive

I've removed the trivial case, because on reflection, this is not even a trivial case. By definition, the first possible time any person qualified to become a "former president" was on the date on which the first president left office. Prior to that, it was not possible for there to have been any "former presidents". Putting it another way, the span of time during which it has been possible for there to be former presidents alive, and the span of time since the inception of the USA, are different periods. The former post-dated the latter. So, there have been only 5 such periods, not 6. Cheers JackofOz 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

March 3rd or 4th?

When did the Presidents & VP's ,before the 20th amendment (Washington to Hoover) 1789-1933 ,terms of office expire March 3rd ,the day before their successors took office, or March 4th the day their successors took office? :October 20th ,2005

Someone has been changing all the dates of the presidential terms to the 3rd instead of the 4th. Does anyone have a reference for this, or what? Wnissen 13:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
March 4th is Correct.

the President's & VP's who served (1789-1933), terms of office end March 4th of the year they left office (Noon EST, March 4th, to be exact). The very momment their's respective successors took office. (Comment by 142.176.117.186, moved from its previous position in a new section to a reply)

OK, I get the assertion, but to be perfectly frank the haphazard editing and lack of citation mean that this change is going to get detected as vandalism. Is there a reputable document you can point to as a source? Wnissen 05:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a perfect reference to this, the United States Constitution, Article II: section #1 of the Constitution says that the President & Vice President are elected to a term of 4 Years, that's 4 years ,not 4 years less a day.
I have the Constitution, I'm well aware that the term is four years. I'm saying, is there any source you can point to on the web who lists the date as the 4th? Like, a presidential history page, or a newspaper article, or something? Wnissen 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I have some sources, Encylopedia of Knowledge, Teachers Paradise.com and Reference.com/Encylopedia. Futher more, when I edited President of the United States terms (1789-1933) to end March 4th, I noticed in the section Former Presidents, that Wikipedia ,listed the time periods when their was no living former President. I've noticed that March 4th is the date used the momment the (no living former President) time period ends, (the momment a President leaves office). Also under Former Presidents, March 4th ,1861-Jan 18, 1862: living former presidents are= Martin Van Buren ,John Tyler ,Millard Fillmore ,Franklin Pierce & James Buchanan = Thus Wikipedia's site President of the United States indicates that James Buchanan left office March 4th, 1861 NOT March 3rd. And finally, the Dolley Madison Digital Edition -Biographical Introduction- ,by Holly C.Shulman: under -Montpelier Years- it stated that Madison left office (as President) on March 4th, 1817 Not March 3rd.
Obivously ,my suggestion that March 4th as the correct date has been shot down again. Though I strongly disagree with March 3rd, frustratingly I've found sources with conflicting dates ,some say March 4th others March 3rd. I leave it to Historians & US Presidential descendants to take their pick. I enjoyed our discussions on this topic. 26 October 2005

Here's the logic behind the March 3 date:

While the 20th Amendment specifically gives noon as the start of the Congressional and Presidential terms, the ordinance of the Congress of the Confederation that set the time for the start of operations under the Constitution omitted any reference to time of day. (See 34 Journals of the Continental Congress 253.) Legally, when something takes effect on a given date, and a time of day is not specified, it takes effect at midnight.

The reason there are duelling sources on this matter are two issues: first, traditionally inaugurations weren't held until noon, and so government business couldn't be conducted between midnight and noon on Inauguration Day. Secondly, now that people are used to the noon start of Congressional and Presidential terms post-Lame Duck, they (incorrectly) assume that it also held prior to the passage of the Lame Duck Amendment.

If you'd like a government source for the March 3 date, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress pretty uniformly ends Congressional and Presidential terms on March 3rd prior to the passage of the Lame Duck Amendment.

Does that help?

— DLJessup (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It helps like you wouldn't believe DL. This was something that kept catching my eye, but now I can relax. Thank you for putting my doubts to rest. 27 October 2005

Introduction to the Senate

I've often wondered why it is that when the President attends the Senate to make the State of the Union address, he's announced by the Sergeant-at-Arms (or whomever) in words something like "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States". Well, of course he's President "of the United States"; where else could he be from? Why doesn't the guy just say "Ladies and gentlemen, the President"? And if he's going to specify "of the United States", why doesn't he go the whole hog and say "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America"? Who's to say he's not the President of the United States of Mexico? JackofOz 16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's tradition.. What do you want? Also, visiting heads of state ARE known to attend the speech. You could ask why even modern Congress uses ancient parliamentary rules? Because they do. And yes, it's the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives. Staxringold 16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the President doesn't enter the Senate, but the House Chambers. He is introduced to the Speaker of the House thus: "Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States." Its his title, and, as was said, is tradition. It may also be, however, to avoid confusion with the President Pro Tem of the Senate. He is also refered to as Mr. President (see Reagan transfer of power). In that letter, he refers to Strom Thurmond, the current President Pro Tem, as Mr. President.Mattweng

Race/Gender

Maybe it would be worth mentioning (at least until 2008, hopefully) that no 'minorities' or women have ever served as President. Maybe include something about which woman came the closest to that office (or who would have been legally able to do so if nessecary). i dunno, maybe this is just angry-west coast-flip flopping-liberal me getting mad about the "White Man's Club" that is the Presidency.

Two women and two African Americans (counting Condoleeza in each category) have served in the third (after Vice President) most important position of the United States, that of Secretary of State. This is part of the line for the Presidency. These Secretary of States were: Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. The Secretary of State handles foreign policy, unless the President chooses to.

It should be noted however, that in order to serve as President, they would have to be born in the United States, and meet the residency requirements. As well, there have been various minorities who have been appointed to cabinet level positions. The law does not specify in any way that a minority or woman can't be President. I hope that temporarily eases your concern slightly for now. LotteryOhYah 05:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have to correct you: There have not been any minorities that are third in line to the President, after the Vice President. If you are referring, and I think that you are, to Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, they are not third in line per se. They are if the VP can't serve (or dies) and the President nominates them (with advice and consent of the senate). Otherwise, if the Pres. can't serve (or dies) second in line falls to the House Speaker and then a list of other elected people, per the US Constitution. mpa

Discussion of United States National Requirement

I'll take our "it can also be argued."

It can also be argued that the President holds the most important office in the country and that this office should be reserved for United States Nationals, who were born in the country. This protects the country from another country sending a citizen to the USA in order to take over the country. The son or daughter of any American citizen who was born in the United States would be allowed to hold the Presidency.

and simply state:

The requirement does, however, protect the United States from interferance from other countries. Another country could send a citizen to the United States and through subterfuge get them elected.

LotteryOhYah 06:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Should the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment be mentioned in the section "Requirements to hold office"? I wonder if there were previous amendments on that subject, or regarding other requirements such as age?

I wonder also how many people ran for President (or VP) despite not meeting the requirements, and which states have laws requiring meeting those requirements in order to be on the ballot, and which don't. Some people who have run who did not meet them are: John Maxwell (American Vegetarian Party) and Róger Calero and Arrin Hawkins (Socialist Workers Party (USA). One wonders what would happen if they were elected. Esquizombi 13:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment is not part of U.S. law. Do you mean other "proposed" amendments? Rmhermen 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I realize it's proposed, hence "previous amendments". So, yes. Esquizombi 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Office-holders section

The section has a problem with <small> tags showing up. I've fixed the first cell in the section as an example. Shawnc 23:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry is 44th president?

Anonymously (oops) changed John Kerry to George W. Bush in 4th paragraph while someone else cleared up the meaning of the text. Vandalism.

new trivia list?

since we have all those lists down at the bottom of the page, why not one which lists presidents who appointed the least or most supreme court justices?

Timeline Program

What program do you use to make timelines like the one on this page except it would be horizontal?Icelandic Hurricane 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Transitional Events

A lot of the material that was added in this section recently is already covered in Tecumseh's curse, which is already linked from the article (although it could use a brief description). Should it be removed, or is it OK to have redundant material? Schizombie 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It does seem out of place with the rest of the facts within that section. If I could think of a smooth way to work a link to it in there, I would. Turnstep 04:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Too much vandalism, including very crude profanity on an article read by schoolchildren (received complaints). David.Monniaux 09:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

After 3 days, I've unprotected now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

POTUS' Oversea Powers

I posted a small section on the Prez's influence in home vs overseas. it got removed. anyone know why? personally find it fairly insightful to the duties and activies of the POTUS.

-shaoquan

I removed it because it was poorly written and seemed to be a lot of Original Research. Plus, the giant map graphic was a bit much for a page that is already too big. If you'd like to add a large section to this article, you can post it on this talk page and see what other people think about it, and perhaps get enough improvements where it would be welcomed on the main page. As a general rule of thumb, large established articles like this one are very unlikely to have overlooked sections and rarely need more than a few minor edits, as a consequence of all the work that has gone into them over the years. Also, you can click on the "Page history" link to find out why your edits may have gotten changed, assuming people left edit summaries (in this case, it was me, so I did). Hope that answers your question. Turnstep 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Presidnet Bush doing his job?

President Bush started ok but his ideas are just crazy. Do you have anything to say, you can feel free to comment here.

Before you do, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and specifically that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, nor a soapbox. --Robert Merkel 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Crappy article

I find this current version of the article worse than when I read it several months ago. It's full of trivialities while what I consider to be the most important part, the presidential powers and duties, is condensed into one short paragraph (which doesn't directly talk about the powers and duties but about the limits on power) and the rest moved elsewhere. DHN 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Standardization

After looking at the Us president articles they seem to be a bit random. I really think they should be standardised along with other articles on figues of history and politics.

John Tyler in presidents, not a president

John Tyler is listed as a president on presidents bios (check bottom of GW Bush page), but he's a Vice President, should I remove it or is there a reason to have it there?

uhh..... he was a President; so no, you shouldn't remove him. He was the first Veep to ascend to that office following the death of the elected president (Harrison). RPH 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, kinda makes you wonder how dependable ANY of this stuff is, considering the people editing.  :->

Other Medical Issues

I agree that some of the trivia is not all that important, but the note that FDR was the only President with a serious medical condition is wrong, JFK also had very serious medical issues throughout his life which I believe constitute a serious medical condition on the scale of FDR.

George Washington Didnt Accept his Money?

False. I read in a reliable source book specifically made about presidents that states that he did accept his money.

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Winning the Vote: How Americans Elect Their President" is available for free download at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/elections/cover.html

It includes a background essay and lesson plans. If you think visitors would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Not sure where this would fit under...

but I thought that the presidential football was pretty friggin' important! ANYONE that has the capability to fire nuclear weapons at the press of a button is noteworthy in my book!

The Seal

High Resolution PNG version

I noted the current JPG Seal is a low resolution image and lacks a considerable amount of detail, so I created this Image:US Presidential Seal.svg out of vector I've had for sometime now. It doesn't look right in Wikipedia (though its fine when opened in an empty page). Since this maybe a browser specific problem, I'll appreciate if someone can take a look at it and comment. If you need the original vector I have (in CDR format), please e-mail me. --Fizan 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the white background from png verion of the seal. Thanks --Oblivious 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson's religion

I'm very sure that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist, making the first statement under the heading "Other Facts" obsolete.

Actually, he was a Deist, which is a form of Christianity. JamesBenjamin 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead link?

  • "Presidential Speeches Archive". The American Presidency. Retrieved October 7, 2005.

I've removed the above link as the site is completely dead. If it ever returns, someone can put it back in the article. JamesBenjamin 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5
  1. ^ Library of Congress. "Presidential Inaugrations: Presidential Oaths of Office."
  2. ^ Excerpt from Coolidge's autobiography.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1137096927"