Talk:President of the United States/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

President's Age

Would it be interesting/useful to put the age of each president when they took office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmalec83 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Bird information

I have removed somewhat idiotic information concerning Big Bird from the page. It was formerly found as "As we all know, Big Bird is the president of the United States. He takes care of the country" or something like that, right before the first sentence. Again, I've taken action and removed this. Mel (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gender

Couldn't one argue that the president must be male? Article II says "he shall hold his office" and one of the Amendments said "his office". Wouldn't this make Hilary ineligible? Should an amendment be passed to change all he's in the Constitution to he/she's? Emperor001 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, one cannot make that argument. "He" and "his" are acceptable pronouns for a generic person in the English language. There is no widely accepted alternative. The "singular they" usage is relatively recent, and is not accepted by all grammar experts. "His/Her" and its cognates are also not widely accepted. "Gender-Inclusive" language was not an issue in the 18th century when the Constitution was drafted. And no, no amendment is needed. If someone were to make that challenge (that Hillary Clinton is not eligible), I think it would be overruled on 14th Amendment grounds. Schoop (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And plus, what if McCain is elected and then assassinated, making SARAH PALIN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!?!?!?Italic text

I like Lady Bird Johnson, and that is totally irrelavent, but here is my fave. clip on her: [[File:<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/19717771#19717771" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>]]

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.181.205 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an expert in American law can confirm, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some law that makes it clear that "words importing a gender include every other gender", as is the case in Australia's Acts Interpretation Act. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment wouldn't necessarily overide it. It took the 19th Amendment to give women the vote. Also, a later amendment also uses the word "his". Besides, I don't think that the founding fathers envisioned a female president. Not that I'm sexist, but I do believe in word-for-word interpretations. Emperor001 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they didn't envision a female president, and many people still don't. But if the founding fathers really wanted to make women not just unthinkable but legally ineligible, wouldn't they have been a little more explicit about it somewhere, e.g. Article XVLMDC: "No female person is eligible to be chosen as President ....", or whatever? Another point is that if anyone with constitutional expertise had any serious doubts that Hillary Clinton could be elected President (or, for that matter, Geraldine Ferraro being elected V-P and potentially succeeding to the presidency), wouldn't something have been said about it already? Why would the Democrats go through this huge year-long public process if it was going to turn out null and void in the end? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue of construction. As Schoop stated above, "he" was (and still is, technically) the closest thing in the Enlglish langauge to a gender-neutral singular pronoun. To forbid a woman from becoming President, the Constitution would have to do just that - forbid it. Here, at most we can argue that the framers did not consider it or think about it. I'm sure they didn't consider a black person becoming President either. Being white, male, protestant, etc., is not listed as a qualification. So, I agree that this argument doesn't merit mention. Judicata (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution doesn't give ANYONE the right to vote - the states do. The 19th amendment prevents the states from restricting the right to vote based on sex. Several states permitted women to vote prior to the passage of the 19th, mostly west of the Mississippi. Illinois permitted women to vote in 1912, New York in 1917. The 19th wasn't passed until 1919. The fact remains that in the English language, use of the pronoun 'he' to refer to an indeterminate person does NOT prescribe that the person is male. This was true in the 18th century, and it's true now. Schoop (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution specifically uses the word "person" in the section on qualifications. The use of "he" in sections of Article 1 setting out the qualifications of office for senators and representatives does not disqualify women from being senators or representatives. In each case it requires the person to be an inhabitant of the state for "which he is chosen". Of all the problems with the document, the use of gendered terms is very low on the list. -Rrius (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dangling modifier

The text says "while in office" the White House serves as the official place of residence for the president. The White House itself is never in office. I can't fix this because editing of this article is restricted. 64.26.116.205 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There, I removed the "While in office" since it was redundant anyway. If the president is not "in office" he wouldn't be president and therefore wouldn't be entitled to live there. Dr. Morbius (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

President, not president

Can someone correct it in the first paragraph? (Line 9)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.57.177 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "under God" from the Oath of Office section

On this page it implies that "under God" is actually part of the oath of office, where the dedicated page for the oath clarifies indicates that while traditional, it is not officially part of the oath nor Constitutionally required. Recommend removing "under God" from this page, for both accuracy and consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.108.18 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Be Cautious Next Time!! >:|

To the original writer of this article: I had to complete one of your sentence fragments and correct one of your facts. There have been forty-three men as President as of 2007, not forty-two. Eenyminy 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was probably written ages ago by a whole lot of people. However, there were forty-two only: Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the forty-three, because of his two non-consecutive terms. C omrade T ux 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There were actually 7 other presidents before George Washington, George Washington is only cited as the first because he was the first one to serve under our constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.28.8 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads of State of the United States

Per reading the article (and common sense) the President of the United States is the Head of State. However, prior to the US Constitution, who served as Head of State? And, should there be a List of Heads of State of the United States? --myselfalso 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Prior to the Constitution there was no national executive under the Articles of Confederation; the federal government was only a Congress with very limited power. Going before that, it would be George III. C omrade T ux 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't true; under the Articles of Confederation, there were seven elected Presidents of the United States. John Hanson was the first, serving from Nov 1781 to Nov 1782; following him were Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788). And the official title all seven men held was in fact President of the United States of America.Info999 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So there was no "Head of State" of the US between 1776 and 1789? --myselfalso 05:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could say that the President of the Continental Congress was head of state, even though he only presided over a body of limited power. The Congress at that time had executive, legislative, and judicial powers, despite them being very limited. According to the article, the position was similar to the modern Speaker of the House, but since Congress was the only federal institution, I guess he becomes the national head of state. C omrade T ux 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a refrence to the information regarding previous people (before washington) that held the title of "President of the United States" President_of_the_United_States_in_Congress_Assembled#List_of_Presidents Potatoj316 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Residency requirement

I'm familiar with the Constitution and the 14-year US residency requirement, however, I never put much thought into it. Using Wikipedia, I counted 10 Presidents (from John Adams to George H. W. Bush; 4 born before the Constitution) who served as Ambassadors, Ministers, Liaison, and Supreme Allied Commander on foreign soil less than 14 years before their Presidency, including James Buchanan who seems to have been recalled from Britain to run for President.

Should the legal basis (whatever that may be) be mentioned in the article, or is their Ambassadorship, etc. considered to be on American soil?--Tim Thomason 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Embassies are considered by international agreement to be the territory of the ambassador's home country, not the host country. Soldiers overseas on assignment are not considered to have changed residence either - they can and do vote via absentee ballot, which you cannot do if you reside overseas. Schoop (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications

The "Qualification, disqualification and common practice" section inaccurately claims that people who have been impeached and convicted are categorically disqualified from the presidency.

The current text reads: "Under Article One of the United States Constitution, no Presidential candidate can have previously held the office and been removed by conviction for an impeachable offense." As best I can tell, this is based on Article I, Sec. 3, which states that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." However, this language establishes disqualification as a *limit* on the punishment for impeached federal officers, not a necessary consequence of impeachment. The Senate's practice confirms that disqualification is not automatic. The Senate considers disqualification as a discrete issue, subject to a majority vote, rather than the 2/3 vote required for conviction. See the GPO's annotated U.S. Constitution, 2002 Ed. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#2002), at 611 & nn.772-73 for sources.

It might be better to say that "Under Article One of the United States Constitution, disqualification from the Presidency is a possible consequence of impeachment and conviction for federal officers." Matth942 (talk) 06:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you can be elected after impeachment and conviction. Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted as a federal judge and is now a congressman.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but as I wrote, disqualification from federal office is a "possible" consequence of conviction. The Senate doesn't have to impose disqualification upon conviction, but Article I specifically gives the Senate the power to do so if it wants. This is described in some detail in the GPO source I cited, as well as in the Wikipedia article on impeachment. Matth942 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

not all Presidents were christian

The article says that all presidents have been Christian, though this is not true as some early presidents were agnostic or atheist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.144.208 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 216.96.144.208 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Source? It is widely acknowledged that many intellectuals of the time, such as Madison and Adams, were Deist, but I have never heard anything to suggest atheism or agnosticism. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens said this on "Real Time with Bill Maher" recently; I don't have a source for it but I imagine one exists? Chrysanthememe (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Chrysanthememe

What is the source for the statement that all presidents were Christians? I think the most that can be proven/sourced is that all presidents were member of a Christian church. No idea if this is true though. Jefferson for example surely wasn't a Christian in the 'traditional' sense. So it depends how you define 'Christian'Bawm79 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording in "Salary" section.

The last section of the "Salary" section currently reads, "Overall the vast majority of U.S. presidents were very affluent upon entering office and thus were not dependent on the salary." I'd like to change both uses "were" to "have been." To my mind, "were" suggests that we are talking only about a phenomenon that occured in the past, whereas "have been" would (correctly) indicate that the phenomenon has continued to the present day.

The new sentence would read, "Overall the vast majority of U.S. presidents have been very affluent upon entering office and thus have not been dependent on the salary."

Thoughts? Chrysanthememe (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Chrysanthememe

Semi-Protection

I noticed a recent spike in vandalism over the past few days while looking at the history log. Perhaps it is time to reapply semi-protection? NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a request at WP:RFPP. Happyme22 (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

55 terms for George Washington??

The sentence "Since the adoption of the Constitution, forty-two individuals have been elected or succeeded into the presidency, the first being George Washington, serving fifty-five four-year terms altogether." could be read so that George Washington served all those terms. IMO "Since the adoption of the Constitution, forty-two individuals have been elected or succeeded into the presidency, together serving fifty-five four-year terms. George Washington was the first to hold the office." or someting along those lines would be less ambiguous. Pe1pbu (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please change the dangling participle, it's poor grammar. Thx. Davidac18643 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, the sentence puzzled me until I read this discussion topic. Can someone please edit this sentence so it reads more clearly? Benjo (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) - Canberra, Australia

Why can't everyone edit this page?

Probably for very good reasons, this page is apparently not open for all to edit. I can imagine all sorts of reasons, such as anti-vandalism, but it would be nice to have this verified so I know it isn't my account or settings that block it. Pe1pbu (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected due to vandalism. You must be autoconfirmed to edit the page. For more information, see WP:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users.

Who are the editors of this page? Benjo (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC) - Canberra, Australia

Registered users such as your self. There is a four day wating period for new accoutns before they are allowed to edit semi-protected articles. Sorry, its the result of vandalism and our effort to curtail. Was there something you wanted to add? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TomStar81, Yes - see my/our comments above under "55 terms for George Washington??" Benjo (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC) - Canberra, Australia

math error?

wiki reads " the first being George Washington, serving fifty-five four-year terms altogether" I'm sure he wasn't president for 220 years. Am I just reading this wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.188.125 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Living Former presidents

The vice president article has a section for vice presidents that are currently still alive. I was wondering if this article could include the same?Hebephrenic (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

What's up with "For other uses, see ƪƪ,a,g,g,e,r (disambiguation)"? Osxadvocate (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications for President

In your article you really didn't tell what the qualifications of the president are. Like his age and being a natural born citizen etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.110.171 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, see the section called " Qualification, disqualification and common practice", which existed before you asked this question. -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential Successors

There are four widely announced presidential nominees competing in the 2008 elections, two from major national parties:

Democratic Party: Barack Obama
Republican Party: John McCain
Libertarian Party: Bob Barr
Independent Party: Ralph Nader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.58.216 (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All Presidents were Christian?

I am not so sure about this, I can think of at least one President that had no religious affiliation, Lincoln.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.187.173 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Lincoln was in fact a Christian. As a child, one of his favorite books was the Bible. Look it up! -- Hannah; 7:38:21 pm (PCT); 10, October, 2008

So? How does that make him a Christian? -- Zsero (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When Lincoln assumed office he had no religious affiliation, but as the civil war went on he began visiting veterans homes. In the veterans homes he become more religious because of the religious spirit of the soldiers.

It doesn't matter, because John F. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So we know that, at the very least, JFK was Christian. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First off People who are Roman Catholic are Christian so why wouldn't It matter. Secondly Many people Like the Book Harry Potter, But that does ot make them Witches. 65.35.66.53 (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not African-American by definition

Quoted from the Qualifications section: "Every president to date has been a white male, but this may change in the next election with Barack Obama, the first African-American nominee of either major party, running for the Democrats."

Although many people (including Barack Obama jr. himself) refer to him as African-American, I submit that he is not African-American by definition for the following reasons:

The Wikipedia African-American page states that the term African-American is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. African Americans are the descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States.

1. Senator Obama is descended from the Luo tribe through father and grandfather, that would make him Nilo-Saharan.

2. Being that his father Barack Obama was born to a tribe in Kenya, it is safe to say that Barack Obama Jr. is not descended from American slavery.

3. As is commonly known, Senator Obama's mother Ann Dunham is of course Caucasian, which further designates him as Biracial.

In Conclusion, without DNA testing, it can be roughly determined that Barack Obama is 50% European and 50% Nilo-Saharan. He is only considered African-American through social identification and not through direct ancestry. If he were to go into the history books as the first African-American president, it technically could be disputed. Rkm3612 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You paraphrase of African American is incorrect, resulting in an incorrect impression of the scope of the term "African American" as is your apparent idea that being biracial excludes him from being African American. Since my relatives came from England and the Netherlands, I am a Dutch-American and a British-American as well as more generally being a European-American. Likewise for Obama, who is a African American and a Kenyan American. Rmhermen (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, thanks. My intent is to show that Obama is not descended from (or related to) American slavery (which are primarily Sub-Saharan) and that his Grandfather's Luo tribe is related to a Nilo-Saharan language. My conclusion is still that Obama is socially identified, but is not directly related to African-Americans descended from American slavery. So if Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will be the first African-American and I believe the first Multi or Bi-racial, but he will not be a president descended from American slavery. Rkm3612 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The popular conception of what is an African-American is simply a descendent of any black african group (be it nilo-saharian or other), and I think this conception should prevail. Thus, Barack Obama is, trough his father, African-American. Also, you don't need to have slave ancestors to be called African American, as otherwise every new immigrants from this continent would not be African American by your definition.

{{edit protected}} Quoted from the Qualifications section: "Every president to date has been a white male. President-elect Barack Obama will be the first non-white president." Since the president-elect has some 'white' ancestry the quoted text would be more accurate if it were replaced with "Every president to date has been a white male. President-elect Barack Obama will be the first president with black ancestry." {136.159.16.107 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)}

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this article should be consistent with that on Obama, where this point is repeatedly made and the overwhelming consensus is that usage of the term African American encompasses him. (Note that the article African American directly addresses this point as well.) This article should not be out of sync. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications for President Question

Most people are familair that you have to be 35 yrs old, and natural born, but I've heard that according to FindLaw.com, which is cited the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama's birth, state, "If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16."

Apparently, Obama's mother was 18 so doesn't meet the five years requirement past 16, and left almost imemediately after his birth. I'm not certain the father was in the US at all, but reamined in Kenya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.134.135 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is for births overseas; Barack Obama was born in the US. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rius is correct, these rules only apply to those who were not born in the 50 states after they were ratified.

So by default, McCain's mother who gave birth to him in Panama South America, applied to this rule. His father being a 2nd generation US Navy admiral could debunk any american roots, but whether he qualifies for president being born in a South American territory remains to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not have to be born in a state. Being born on US soil is sufficient. As such, McCain was born a citizen regardless of parentage. In addition, both of his parents were citizens, so a provision like the one referred to above would probably not matter. Finally, even if it did, military personnel are often considered resident in a state of their choosing. If there was no specific law for military members at the time, that residency would probably have been enough. -Rrius (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

obama was not born in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.170.226 (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama was born in Hawaii. Stop listening to ridiculous rumors 75.141.234.236 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then where is his birth certificate?--24.74.41.41 (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to passing muster with factcheck.org and the mainstream media, his birth certificate has been found satisfactory by right-wingers such as Rush Limbaugh and the editors of WorldNetDaily. This is frankly silly, and the idea that there was some secretiveness about the birth certificate is bizarre. In Hawaii, as in other states (I would guess most if not all), access to birth certificates of living people is basically restricted to the people named on them. -Rrius (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I do believe that if you aren't born in a U.S. state, then you are not automatically a U.S. citizen, but instead become merely a U.S. national. Believe it or not, there is a small distinction made in immigration law. Of course, I think this whole attack on Obama, because he was born in Hawai'i and because they (his attackers) have no access to his birth certificate due to simple privacy laws, is a bit ridiculous. Also, the fact that Obama hasn't released his BC is irrelevant, except those who are attacking him. Burden of proof is on you guys (those attacking his eligibility) to obtain evidence and present it. You don't make demands of the person you're attacking. Do you seriously expect them to assist you? Foofighter20x (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are automatically a citizen at birth if the nationality law says you are. The law says if you are born outside the US to citizens who meet certain criteria, you are a citizen. People born in DC and Puerto Rico, and perhaps elsewhere, are also born citizens. Also, to repeat, Obama released a copy of his birth certificate months and months ago. -Rrius (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't saying you were wrong. Just was recalling a provision of U.S. naturalization law. In fact, I suggest everyone party to this discussion go review the following: 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 8 U.S.C. § 1403 (for McCain), 8 U.S.C. § 1405 (for Obama), and 8 U.S.C. § 1408 (this is the one I was recalling). Foofighter20x (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It says here that anyone elected President must be a natural-born citizen of the US. Here is the excerpt of Article 2 of the Constitution that pertains to this issue. Please note the use of "or".

"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."

"Or" is an exclusive conjunction which means that only one of the conditions listed (unless another conjunction like "and" is used) needs to be valid in order to fulfill the requirement. Therefore, based SOLELY on this article, anyone elected President needs to fulfill the following conditions: 1) A natural-born citizen ...OR...a Citizen (ie: naturalized) of the US AND 2) At least 35 years old AND 3) Had residency in the US for 14 years

Since the 3rd condition doesn't expressly state or imply CONTINUOUS residency, then the implication is that a person who was NOT born an American, but has spent 14 years of his/her life living in the USA and has gained citizenship is just as valid a president as a natural-born one.

If you can show me something else in the Constitution that amends this information, then please do. If not, please correct the error in the section about Qualifications which COMPLETELY ignores this point.125.163.208.245 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't logged in. ReveurGAM (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

THE "OR" CLAUSE reads "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" to account for those people who were in the US at the time of Independence. I do not believe that Mr. Obama is over 277 years old (2008-1776 + 35 years-old-to-be-President). Kirkrr (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)kirkrr

By statute, Hawaii from 1911 to l972 permitting the obtaining of a birth certificate after the age of one year by submitting an affidavit of the parent(s) or even the individual. No one has verified, publicly, that the Birth Certificate identifies Hawaii as place of birth, and the currently viewable "Certification of Birth" is not a legal Birth Certificate. By statute, even if it does certify Hawaiian birth, it does not guarantee place of birth. However, the original birth certificate would indicate both hospital and delivery doctor, neither bit of information is on the CERTIFICATION printout. Kirkrr (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Kirkrr

However, failure to produce a valid birth certificate may be relevant, given US law (assuming that no proof of US birth - birth certificate - is presented - a CERTIFICATION of BIRTH as it does not include information that validates PLACE of birth and is not a legally binding document - the immigration and naturalization law is in force).

The immigration and naturalization law from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, very clearly stipulates: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." (current law changed to "age of 14"). Obama stipulates his father is a British citizen from the then British colony of Kenya, and that his mother was 18 when he was born. Kirkrr (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Kirkrr

On McCain: There were no medical facilities in the Panama Canal Zone until 1941 - the local hospital was outside the zone. McCain was born in 1936 to US citizen parents, but the law of the day did not automatically provide citizenship. My father was in the nearly identical situation, born outside the US to 2 US citizen parents in 1913, and had to be naturalized to become a US citizen. Kirkrr (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)kirkrr

Naturalized citizens are NOT Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. Obama may/may not have made a great President, but clearly neither he or McCain are legally qualified to hold the office.

20th Amendment - "...If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the PRESIDENT ELECT shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." The Democratic Vice-President Elect Biden may be the new President, based on the rule of law. Kirkrr (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Kirkrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkrr (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is silly, Obama presented a birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu and a link to a copy is provided above—end of story. For McCain, you present no evidence, only bald assertions. I can provide a ref saying that not only did the law in place already made McCain a citizen, but Congress retroactively clarified the situation a year later. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of foreign languages

This sentence in the last para of the "Qualifications" section is incorrect: "While most early Presidents could read and write Latin (as was customary for educated people of the time), none had command of a spoken foreign language." What about Jefferson, who spoke French fluently? [See Wikipedia article on him.] Madison was probably pretty good too, since TJ shipped French books (e.g., Montesquieu, Rousseau) to him while serving as Minister to France (and while Madison was working on the Constitution & Federalist Papers). [See Dumas Malone's biography of TJ.) I don't know about other early Presidents, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others who could more than hold their own in a foreign language. Scott Thompson

I removed the lines about Presidents Bush and Carter knowing limited Spanish, because if you are going to list them that way, you have to see whatever other Presidents also spoke "limited" Spanish. I do not believe that Presidents Reagan (California), HW Bush (Texas), and Clinton (Arkansas) had no knowledge whatsoever of Spanish. I can see putting President Bush 43 back in since he is often heard making significant portions of speeches in Spanish, but the word limited opens it up to any President with even a rudimentary grasp of Spanish.

Further, the comment about Senator McCain not speaking any languages while Senator Obama speaks an Indonesian dialect is unsourced, and contradicts a direct quote from Senator Obama "While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual. 'I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!' he said" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/como-se-dice-ob.html (the context of this was the importance of teaching American kids to speak foreign languages). I am absolutely certain Senator Obama picked up "limited" use of the dialect if he grew up there for any portion of his life (as well as bits of pidgin, Hawaiian, and others from Hawaii), but I am equally certain that Senator McCain has picked up at least limited use of Spanish (he represents Arizona, after all) and Vietnamese ("lived" there for many years).Kingsley911 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 152.157.170.226 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin van Buren's First language was Dutch not English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylpickleh8 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Religions of the various US Presidents

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Qualification and Common Practices section this part here needs revised:

Every president to date has been a Christian[citation needed]; all but one have been Protestants, with the most common denomination being Episcopalian; John F. Kennedy has been the only Roman Catholic. Ronald Reagan was baptized a Catholic, but he was reared in the Disciples of Christ faith by his mother.

Not all of the Presidents were Christians, many were deists, such as Thomas Jefferson. There is also reason to speculate that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist, however, there is no proof that he was, just as there is nothing to say that he was explicitly a believing christian. I would change it to something like: "Every president to date has had a Christian upbringing..."

I just thought it should be a change worth noting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likwidsolutions (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to make such a change, but first, please provide sources for the proposition that some were actually deists. -Rrius (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of the considerable discussion of this subject at Religious affiliations of United States Presidents I'm eliminating the unsourced blanket statement that all Presidents have been Christians. Please coordinate with the religious affiliations page and with the pages of the individual Presidents when editing this material to avoid contradictions between wikipedia pages. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson was not even a president........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.170.226 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Thomas Jefferson was not even a president? Excuse me?? Do your homework please, Thomas Jefferson most certainly WAS a president, he was the THIRD president to be exact. Here, allow me to go ahead and paste the link to the wiki article for you; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.7.69.14 (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

However, he was certainly no deist. The best term that exists for his religious beliefs is Unitarian. As for formal affiliation, he attended Episcopalian churches, but in the late 18th century Unitarianism was a common heresy in the Episcopal Church. -- Zsero (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The book Facts About the Presidents, by Joseph Nathan Kane, 1960 edition, lists "Religion" or "Religious denomination" for each President, which by itself assumes Christianity as a given. Under Washington it says Episcopalian. Under Adams it says Unitarian. Under both Jefferson and Lincoln it says, "No specific denomination." There has never been an overtly non-Christian President, as such, although some accused Jefferson of not being a "true" Christian; and some have tried to label Lincoln an atheist, which is funny considering his use of "under God" in the Gettysburg Address, and other references to God in his comments over the years. Maybe that was just P.R. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Washington nor Jefferson were Christians by the usual definitions of that term. They attended Episcopal churches, but their own beliefs were Unitarian, or as close to it as makes no difference. They believed in a God Who pays close attention to human affairs, listens to prayer, rewards virtue and punishes sin, but they did not believe Jesus is that god. Patrick Henry got a lot of grief for hanging out with these heretics, was accused of sharing their beliefs, and had to defend his own Xian orthodoxy. -- Zsero (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny for Episcopalians to call someone else heretics. Ask a Roman Catholic what they think of the Church of England in that regard. Meanwhile, I think you would find that few Presidents really make a thing out of their religious beliefs, except when it serves a political purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Every religion (except perhaps Unitarian Universalists) has doctrines and therefore a definition of heresy. If you think it's funny for a denomination that is regarded by some other denomination as heretical to itself denounce heresy, then the Roman church is in the same boat, having been condemned by Orthodoxy as heretical. (Though actually the split happened when the Patriarch and the Pope each excommunicated the other, and it's not clear which one acted first.) Since I don't even pretend to be a Xian, I've got no dog in this fight. -- Zsero (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that you're the one that brought up heresy. Twice, yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And your point is? -- Zsero (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That so-called "heresy" has nothing to do with the question of what religion the Presidents either followed religiously, so to speak, or simply attended. Nothing to do with anything, really. Heresy used to be like a capital offense. Now it's like a parking ticket. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? You're not making any sense. It is a fact that Washington and his crowd were denounced as heretics. It is a fact that while they attended Episcopal churches their beliefs were Unitarian, or as close to it as makes no difference. It is a fact that Unitarianism was a common heresy in the Episcopal church of the late 18th century in America. Your POV comments about how funny it is for religions to have doctrines are not relevant to the article in any way at all. -- Zsero (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Heresy" only matters if it can be punished in some significant way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Once again you utterly confuse me. It's as if we're speaking separate languages. Your statement sounds to me exactly like "zebras only matter if they can be ridden", or "rain only matters if it can be caught". -- Zsero (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You're getting warm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Immigrant parents

A previous version of this article contained this line:

"Only one president was the son of two immigrant parents: Andrew Jackson. Five presidents (Jefferson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, Hoover) had just one immigrant parent each."

This is an interesting and timely bit of information. Was it removed because a source could not be found, or was there just some editing lossage here? -Miskaton (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama hasn't been President since January 9th, 2001. Someone needs to fix the infobox (for some reason I can't edit the page).

Bush is still president

Can't change it yet, until the inauguration. 140.247.243.250 (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we can now. Yes! 121.221.33.231 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Very funny. Or did you not notice the date of the original post? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh...what? 121.221.33.231 (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlquin

No, Obama's not President, he IS president-elect.

Obama is NOT president.

He IS the president-elect. If there is a reason to revert naming him please discuss it here. -Kez (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you not add the photo of Obama? There is two photos of Bush up at the moment, he is not succeeding himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mu301nh (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That was because someone played around with the relevant template in an attempt to create a successor field and wound up giving both the same image. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, im glad he finally is. Sorry guys we've changed it now. 121.221.33.231 (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Speaking of pathetic, did you not notice the date of the original post? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been warned in the other articles to cease this. Stop this pointless harrassment and insults or I shall report you. 121.221.33.231 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Query: you (121.221.33.231) have been replying to posts made long ago. BB pointed this out to you. What's to warn about? Seems BB was being helpful... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He made the same nonsensical comments on my talk page. He's got me mixed up with someone else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You insinuated that his post was pathetic. Personal attacks are not permitted here. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the user's original post here [1] said the previous editor's post was "pathetic", and I was simply echoing his words (minus the obscenity). Then he redid his post. Maybe you'd prefer "trolling", since that's what 121.221.33.231's post clearly was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-election edit war syndrome

Please see the draft policy Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome about the general mess articles like this often get into as a way forward on the endless reverts that are starting here. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the article is all messed up because someone didn't close the infobox properly. I can't seem to edit it because I'm guessing it has been locked. Can someone please correct this? Feudonym (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The mess appears to be at Template:Infobox Political post rather than the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've set the protection to a reduced level so that only anons and new accounts can't edit. This is because most of the "[So and so] won change this now!" types edits tend to come from such users who don't respond to messages pointing things out. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Episcopal Church

There is a link to Episcopal Church near the end of the Qualification, disqualification and common practice section; it should be Episcopal Church instead. Apparently I cannot edit the page despite there being no notices about page protection. Sakkura (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation Typo

{{editprotected}}

In the following sentence in the Religious Affiliation section:

As many as thirteen Presidents have been identified by at least some historians as holding either Theist views[citation needed] notably including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

I believe "either" should be "other". Unimath (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Change made. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

wrong president

Barack is president now not george bush anymore--Lerdthenerd(I cant be bothered to log on at the moment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.82.4 (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, George W. Bush is President until January 20, 2008. Barack Obama is currenly the President-elect. Here is the wiki article where you can learn more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect MrDestructo (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, George W. Bush is President until January 20, 2009. PS, seeing as the article is locked; would somebody fix the Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

John Tyler

Would somebody elaborate on Tyler's service in the Provisional Confederate Congress? He was a member of the Provisional Confederate House of Representatives. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the Provisional Confederate Congress was a uni-cameral legislative body. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He was also in the House of Representatives of the bicameral Confederate Congress. -Rrius (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Next President

Although Barack Obama has been elected, his election does not make it certain that he will be the next president, as anything can happen in the next two and a half months. The electoral college hasn't even voted yet, and even then there is a month to go until inauguration. It would be more accurate to say something like barring any unforeseen events, Barack Obama will be the next president. I forget exactly where, but it says somewhere where it says Obama is the next president and will be inagurated on January 20. 21:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

noncontroversial grammar change

In a recent edit, an admin added in:

The appellation "leader of the free world", frequently used...

Should it not be:

The appellation "leader of the free world," frequently used...

NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Declining edit. Per WP:PUNCT, the Wikipedia manual of style seems to prefer external punctuation. --El on ka 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you Elonka. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

All wikipedia Admins seriously need to get lives

Appointed Positions

I seem to be having difficult finding positions appointed by the president. This might be good information for a lot of people looking to get involved. I am still looking for a definitive list we can link to. But wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating anyone else's efforts. Dracocat (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of appointed positions from 2004: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/about.html Perhaps a link or footnote to this would be appropriate from the main body where it talks about the 7,000 appointed positions. Dracocat (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Is The President

Obama is the first African American President of the United States of America. --76.104.88.97 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed in talk, he is currently President-elect, and will not hold the title of President until he assumes office in January 2009. Can this talk be morphed into the appropriate section? K^rowe 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was not impeached

In the "Removal from office" section, it says Bill Clinton was impeached.

He was not. I don't know why I can't edit this page, I'm not that new to Wiki.

Could someone please change that, very mis-informing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh995 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Bill Clinton was impeached. When the House of Representatives votes to prefer charges then the President was impeached. This is what happened to Bill Clinton. The Senate then tries the case and in Bill Clinton's case was found not guilty so he was not removed from office. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was impeached. To impeach simply means "to charge with a crime." It is similar to an indictment by a grand jury, which sends the accused to a court trial. What did not happen to Billy C. was a conviction. As A new name described directly above, the House impeached (charged) Billy C. with criminal acts, the Senate then tried the case and acquitted him on those charges. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama in box

I saw this on the far right side a bit down,

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, became the first African-American to be elected to the office. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii making him the first U.S. President to be born outside the Contiguous United States.

Obama is not yet a U.S. President as of today, it should read, "He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, which will make him the first U.S. President to be born outside the contiguous United States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.197.141 (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical, but true.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the example provided above is a violation of WP:Crystal. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What you could do is change everything to elected instead of saying he will become President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.66.205 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in Qualifications

It says here that anyone elected President must be a natural-born citizen of the US. This appears to be a very enduring fallacy. Here is the excerpt of Article 2 of the Constitution that pertains to this issue. Please note the use of "or".

"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."

"Or" is an exclusive conjunction which means that only one of the conditions listed (unless another conjunction like "and" is used) needs to be valid in order to fulfill the requirement. Therefore, based SOLELY on this article, anyone elected President needs to qualify based on:

1) A natural-born citizen ...OR... a Citizen (ie: naturalized) of the US

AND

2) At least 35 years old

AND

3) Had residency in the US for 14 years

Since the 3rd condition doesn't expressly state or imply CONTINUOUS residency, then the implication is that a person who was NOT born an American, but has spent 14 years of his/her life living in the USA and has gained citizenship is just as valid a president as a natural-born one.

One might argue that the part after "or" was only for during the time of the creation of the Constitution because of "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". However, I maintain that this is not true since there is a comma that separates that clause from the previous one.

If you can show me something else in the Constitution that amends this information, then please do. If not, please correct the error in the section about Qualifications which COMPLETELY ignores this point.ReveurGAM (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be deleted, but I'll respond anyway. The phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" modifies "Citizen of the United States". The only citizens other than natural born citizens eligible to be president died a very long time ago. The proviso was drafted to allow Alexander Hamilton and his ilk to be elected. -Rrius (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What would you delete and why?ReveurGAM (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rrius is correct. The simple passage of time has rendered the "at the time" portion of the disjunction moot, leaving the natural-born citizen requirement as the only portion relevant both in today's politics and for the purposes of this Wikipedia article. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the first clause is an absolute bar to the office ("no person"); the other two qualifications are equally relevant today, as the disjunct is separated from the others by a semi-colon, meaning that your outline above is correct. If anyone attempting to obtain the office cannot meet all three of those still-relevant qualifications, then they are barred from the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your clarification. So, what the two of you are saying is that the commas that surround the clause are being used to mark it as a subordinate clause of the second clause, especially because it follows the OR. If that is the case, how would the sentence be written so that the subordinate clause would be true for the prior two clauses?ReveurGAM (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got to keep in mind that the document was hand written and that comma usage was not the same as it is now. I'm guessing the second comma is just a mistake, but the simplest way of figuring out what is going on in the sentence is to ask what else "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" could refer to. Since natural born citizens are a subset of citizens of the United States, it would not make sense for it to refer to natural born citizens. I wouldn't make sense to say that all citizens and all natural born citizens at the time of the adoption are eligible. -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The "at the time" clause is a qualification on "citizen of the united states." As Rrius said, in the grand scheme of things, natural born citizens are specifically addressed, which means the rest of that part speaks of those not natural born citizens. It then names citizens of the U.S.... Logic forces us to infer that it means those citizens who are not natural born. The next phrase then modifies those latter citizens. You are left with two classes eligible: 1) natural born citizens, and 2) naturalized citizens at the time the Const. was ratified. As discussed above, those in that 2d group died out long ago.

As for the comma: Rrius is again correct. Comma usage then was noticably different than it is now. Also, it's likely when Gouvernor Morris penned the final copy, the draft was read aloud to him. A common use of the comma from that era was one of the "natural pause." Where ever a speaker noticeable paused, the scribe would place a comma... Fun fact, I guess... Foofighter20x (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. I would still like to see an example where the subordinate clause would be relevant to both main clauses since I am not familiar with the comma usage of bygone eras.ReveurGAM (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Eats, Shoots & Leaves is a great book on grammar; very entertaining, too. It covers the comma and its history with reasonably good detail. As to the subordinate clause: I can't honestly see in any way how its "jurisdiction," so to speak, can possibly extend past the "or." Foofighter20x (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!ReveurGAM (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but the things you are calling "clauses" are phrases. A clause has a verb, and there is no verb before "shall". Note that "born" is being used as part of an adjectival phrase modifying "citizen". The first clause of the sentence ends at the colon. -Rrius (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clause in this sense is just a term of legal art for any portion or sub-portion of the entirety of an actual clause of a sentence, or of a sentence. I'm using the terms interchangably in my above responses. Sorry. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Highest federal salary?

The article states that the president's salary is the cap for other federal employees, but Troy Calhoun, the football coach at the United States Air Force Academy makes $500,000 plus expenses[2]. The Naval Academy pays its coach from a private athletic association, and at West Point, the coach's salary is kept secret even though he is a federal employee [3]. --rogerd (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)