Talk:Article Two of the United States Constitution

Actual text

Shouldn't the text not be quoted in the article in addition to the conclusions of the constitution's meaning? Lord Metroid 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications of Vice President

Itt was stated under presidential qualifications that, according to the 22nd amendment, no one can be elected to the Presidency more than twice (which is correct) and that the same standard applies to a former President elected to the office of VP (which isn't correct). Specifically, the sentence said:

"The Twenty-second Amendment also prevents a President from being elected more than twice. Presumably, this also means a former two-term President could not later qualify to be Vice President."

Since no former President has run for or been elected to the office of the Vice President since the passage of the 22nd amendment and in light of the fact that there is a distinct lack of judicial opinions on the matter, it would be appropriate here not to provide such a conjecture. sebmol 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, going by the actual text related to the Natural-Born requirement, there doesn't appear to be anything specifically related to the position of Vice-President:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

If australia was to become a state, would I, a natural born australian be eligible for president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Natural born citizen

moved from article page:

While the "natural born" clause has never been challenged, in theory, "Adoption of this Constitution" could mean anyone who is a United States Citizen at the time the Archivist of the United States officially declared the current version of the Constitution, modified by the most recent Amendment, valid could become President.

Why was it included?

Is it possible to determine why this was incorporated ? Was it simply to ensure no English person could become president and cede power back to England? "Native Americans" were still relatively few in number at the time of the authorship of the constitution , this clause will have excluded many Irish, Italian etc. immigrants at that time and many many more today. Does it not imply all non "natural born" citizens are either not to be trusted or are of less ability - or is there no such concern within the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.131.19 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was included primarily because Alexander Hamilton's political opponents didn't want him to become President. Hamilton was born in Bermuda and thus not a natural-born US citizen.

As to the other matter of the paragraph which has been removed and re-inserted - it doesn't matter if it's NPOV, it is factually incorrect. There is no debate. Every reliable authority on the United States Constitution believes that persons born in U.S. territories are natural-born citizens. That's why the statement about the "dispute" sat uncited for two months - because there is no authority to back up that claim. John McCain is a natural-born citizen and there is no controversy as to his eligibility to be President. JTRH (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Factually incorrect were the words I was looking for. It had seemed odd to me, but I'm glad that there is another source to back that feeling up. NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hamilton comment above is inaccurate because Hamilton was a citizen by the time Constitution was adopted. He was certainly eligible. (24.44.63.141 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Section 2, clause 2: Appointments

Is there any precedent of Congress abolishing a presidentially appointed office while that office was not vacant (this, of course, gives Congress a means of firing an officer it doesn't like despite the objections of the president)? If so, I believe a sentence or two on that topic is appropriate in the article. Karlhahn 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Missing clause"?

A subheading under "Section 2: Presidential Powers" is titled "The missing clause: Executive Privilege". I see no reason why this extension of presidential power should be elevated to the status of a "Missing clause" (or is it lowered by pointing out that the Constitution doesn't provide for it?). NPOV and clarity both suggest that this topic not be presented under this heading. Harold f 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objection in the last month, and consistent with the above, I have changed the title and first sentence from

The missing clause: Executive Privilege

The question of what information the President may withhold from the courts or Congress is contentious and undetermined.

to

Executive Privilege: A missing clause?

Presidents have claimed the power to withhold information from the courts and Congress, but no clause of the Constitution speaks of such a power, and questions regarding this are contentious and undetermined.

I think that this makes no change in the statement of fact, but removes inappropriate implications. Harold f 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

commander-in-chief

The president is not the highest ranking officer in the military. He is not a part of the military. Rather he is a civilian who is the civilian commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, plus the state militias, The intention, as stated in Federal Paper No. 69 (http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/overview/federa69.html) "First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union." Gary Wills, a conservative historian, wrote: "The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines. That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket). We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past by caudillos." From the WashingtonPost address blacked. The distinction of the American system is that the military is answerable to civilian. Wills cites Eisenhower. What his article does not say is that Eisenhower resigned from his 5-star rank on May 19, 1952 to run for president. After he served two terms he applied for reinstatement as a 5-star general. Jmc9595 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks :) NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vice presidential succession

If the VP is not a natural born citizen (or otherwise ineligible) and the presidency is vacant for whatever reason, is the VP passed over to the Speaker? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A person cannot be Vice President if he/she is not a natural born citizen. Andy120290 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we go one step further and ask, if the VP also is vacant for whatever reason, and the Speaker is not a natural born citizen - will the Speaker be president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucla1989 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

expansion request

The treatment of Qualifications for Office should summarize the current questions or scholarly debate regarding the natural-born citizen clause. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions or scholarly debate might lead the reader to assumptions that may not be based on facts. However, past case laws that have addressed this issue would better show the intent of our framers of the constitution with the "natural-born citizen" clause. Presumably, the history of this clause could be better found by also looking at English common laws or law of the land, where our framers derived their language.

Gender-specific pronouns

Sure are alot of them in this part of the U.S. Constitution. Whether "he", "his", or "him", they are provocative and suggest that the founding fathers did not envision a "she" becoming POTUS. It would be interesting to know how constitutional law scholars/experts interpret these Articles. For the record, I have no issue with a woman being our President, and in fact would vote for any woman running for POTUS simply because it would be cool to see happen. However... since the Supreme Court has already determined once who the lawful President should be, there is a precedent that they are within their power to determine this again should any issue come up. 24.247.170.144 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The courts (from top to bottom) have routinely held that the use of gender-specific pronouns is a function of the English language not having a good history with the use of neutral pronouns, and that they should not be construed as providing any gender-specific limitations. This issue has never come up in the context of the relevant portions of Article II, but frankly I would consider it beyond belief that any court (Supreme or otherwise) would deviate from this entrenched approach. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since this issue routinely comes up, I figure it might be a good idea to include a line or two about this in the article. Anyone have any case citations for this? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice that Article One of the United States Constitution also talks about "he" in reference to members of the Congress. The only "case citation" possible would be if someone went to court asserting that the Constitution only allows males. That would be an interesting find. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)