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.
I've fiddled the introduction around a little. I haven't changed any content (with one exception), though I've shortened the first sentence and moved other facts further on. The exception of which I talk is that of the VP. I'm English, so my knowledge of the American voting system could be sketchy, though I am a politics student, anyway, my understanding is the POTUS is directly elected, whereas the VP only holds the position by virtue of association. Am I wrong on this? If so, by all means, change it back.
As for the above post, POTUS is much more commonly used in popular culture (I used it just now and I'm English)! A reply or talkback on my own talk page would be greatly appreciated. HJMitchellYou rang? 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You were in fact wrong. The president and vice president are each elected by the Electoral College, which is popularly elected. Thus, they are both elected and indirectly. Also, nothing appeared to be grammatically incorrect, despite your edit summary to the contrary. -Rrius (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
By the same token, an appointed VP could (has) become president, but that is probably more in depth than is needed in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether the President is the sole elected member of the executive branch is something clearly open to debate. Although modern Veeps have acted as members of the executive branch, they were historically members of the legislative branch and to this day receive their paycheck from, if not solely the Senate, than solely from Congress. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Great article on my point found here, for those with access to law review articles: IS DICK CHENEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Reynolds, Glenn Harlan. 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 110 (2007). -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether the president was the sole elected member of the executive branch is open to debate, but there is little debate that the modern vice president has a primarily executive role. Dick Cheney's novel argument that he belonged to no branch notwithstanding, the modern vice president attends Cabinet meetings, is a member of the National Security Council, performs duties assigned by the president, and deputizes for the president at state funerals and other similar occasions. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recitation of modern indicators prove nothing, nor are anywhere dispositive of the matter; those roles don't make him an official part of the executive branch. Read the article. Here's some relevant excerpts:
Despite the unfriendly political response [to Cheney's assertion], the argument that the Vice President is a legislative official is not inherently absurd. The Constitution gives the Vice President no executive powers; the Vice President's only duties are to preside over the Senate and to become President if the serving President dies or leaves office. Traditionally, what staff, office, and perquisites the Vice President enjoyed came via the Senate; it was not until Spiro Agnew mounted a legislative push that the Vice President got his own budget line. The Vice President really is not an executive official. He or she executes no laws--and is not part of the President's administration the way that other officials are. The Vice President can't be fired by the President; as an independently elected officeholder, he can be removed only by Congress via impeachment. (In various separation of powers cases, as noted below, the Supreme Court has placed a lot of weight on this who-can-fire-you test.)
...
Whatever executive power a Vice President exercises is exercised because it is delegated by the President, not because the Vice President possesses any executive power already. The Vesting Clause of Article II vests all the executive power in the President, with no residuum left over for anyone else. Constitutionally speaking, the Vice President is not a junior or co-President, but merely a President-in-waiting, notwithstanding recent political trends otherwise.
...
As Bowsher [v. Synar] states, separation of powers prohibits vesting of executive powers in an official subject to (largely notional) control by Congress and who is not removable by the President. If this is the case, then the case for vesting executive powers in the Vice President--who is a legislative official himself, and also not removable by the President--is even weaker. [Emphasis mine.]
I did read the article, and to the extent it attempts to argue the VP is not an executive official, it is completely off base. The vice president is a member of the executive because he exercises executive power. Most of that is purely delegated by the president, but some is set out in statute, such as his participation in the National Security Council. However, no member of the executive other than the president wields executive power except through delegation from the president or statutory authorization. The only meaningful distinction Reynolds attempts to draw is that the president has the authority to fire others who exercise executive power. That is neither completely true not relevant here. That is especially true since there is no reason to believe that cases that limit the ability of Congress to bypass the president in the execution of the laws would restrain the president from delegating to the vice president. Even if the VP is unconstitutionally acting as an executive official, it does not negate the fact that he is acting as an executive official. If Reynold's view isn't already at Vice President of the United States, go ahead and add it there, but it is frankly nonsense to hold it up as evidence that the modern vice president does not act as a member of the executive. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You overestimate the Veep's role on the NSC. He's there to to be a fly on the wall and to give his ADVICE; he has ZERO executory power on that panel with the sole exception being the Veep may preside in the President's absence IF AND ONLY IF the President lets him. Seriously. Go read 50 U.S.C.A. 402(a).
Additionally, the weight of history is against you; the Veep has been a member of the legislature since the nation's conception. Only since the Carter administration has there been any delegations of power, and they've been few at that. You can hem and haw and point at the current vice president and what he does, but that says nothing of the LARGER scope of things. Also, Cheney admitted to the press on 30 July 2007 that the U.S. Senate is who cuts him his paycheck, not the White House, and not the U.S. Treasury (an executive branch department).
And you can be dismissive all you want about the article, but its still a more authoritative source than you. Where's your cite/proof beyond conventional lay wisdom? Pony up, yo. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So the VP exercises executive power, at the discretion of the POTUS, surely that means he is not a member of the exec? Also, since he has the right to preside over the senate (??- correct me if my facts are muddled), does that not make the VP part of the legislative branch? More information on this needs to go into article and, if nothing else, my fidlding with the intro should be put back- it's too long as it is. HJMitchellYou rang? 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
All other executive officials exercise executive power at the discretion of the president. The Constitution vests executive power in the president, not the president and the department heads. The VP has an executive role and a legislative role. Of those, the former is nowadays the more significant one. If you want an analogy to the UK, it is the Lord Chancellor pre-2005 (which is where the idea for having a President of the Senate not chosen by the body came from). In fact, the LC had legislative, judicial, and executive roles. He was the presiding officer of the House of Lords (some old texts used the term "president"), the head of the courts of England and Wales, and a minister in charge of judicial and related matters. -Rrius (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to read the article and the Constitution again. Art. II vests executive power in the President alone. The Veep get his primary job in Art. I; his other jobs come from Constitutional amendments. The only mentions of the Veep in Art. II are the following: the Veep is elected in the same MANNER as the president (no indication is made that he is elected to the same branch); the Veep counts the Electoral Vote (but as a LEGISLATIVE official: Senate Pres.); when the Veep succeeds to the Presidency, federal law since the earliest days of the Republic have provided that he cannot execute the roles and duties of his former office (which is clearly a nod to separation of powers, which the author I referenced openly discussed when talking about Bowsher v. Synar). Congress may define the roles and duties of principle and inferior executive officers, and even employees, by statute; they've done next to nothing to marry the Veep to the executive branch, the few exceptions being the National Security Council (as an advisory role, not an executory one) and statutorily making the Veep the chair of the President's Community Empowerment Board... Wow. What a breaking devolution of policy making power there! Wooo-hooo! Community Empowerment. Foofighter20x (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is getting silly. The vice president has an executive role whether or not you or Reynolds like it. I have said more than once that the Constitution vests the executive power solely in the president, so I really don't need your repetition. If that somehow precludes the VP from being an executive official, it also precludes everyone else, meaning the only executive official in the US is the president, which is just stupid. That the VP has a legislative role does not preclude his having an executive one. In fact, every vice president since at least Walter Mondale has had an executive role. For what seems like the hundredth time, whether you and Reynolds think the executive role is unconstitutional is irrelevant to the question of whether the modern vice president has one. -Rrius (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you and I need to make a clear distinction here. Principle and inferior executive officers are just that: executive officers. They are statutory. While the Constitution presuppose the future existence of both kinds, it is still left to Congress to create the offices and define their responsibilities so they can EXECUTE the law. The Veep is neither of these two officers. The position is extra-statutory in that the Constitution creates the office, and not any act of Congress.
I see you snuck in another distinction when writing above that the Veep "acts" as if an executive official. This is not contested. The Veep can act like one all he wants, but the Constitution clearly had in mind for him a legislative role; as Reynolds called it, to be a President-in-waiting, and not a principle or inferior executive officer. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I snuck in nothing. I made the same point repeatedly throughout. He is an executive official because he wields executive power regardless of what the Constitution intended (which is not at all clear). We do not need to make the distinction you are talking about. He is in current practice a member of the executive branch and is elected. That is what was brought up in the beginning of this thread and the only thing that matters here. Your opinion about the constitutionality is, once again, irrelevant. -Rrius (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what kind of American calls the Constitution irrelevant? That's just all sorts of shades of... nothing good. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Calling me un-American? You've just jumped the shark. -Rrius (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's how you wish to characterize yourself, by all means go right ahead. Hell, you claim to be a lawyer on your userpage, which means as an officer of the Court you've sworn to uphold the Constitution... Yet, here you are calling it irrelevant. I wouldn't call you un-American, but I would point out the hypocrisy of what you are saying here with you oath as an attorney. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That is just absurd. First, I said your view of the what the Constitution says is irrelevant, not the document. Secondly, you are ignoring that practical fact based on your view of the Constitution. The vice president is a member of the executive now regardless of what some theoretical future Supreme Court decision may say. Before the Iowa Supreme Court overturned Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage was banned. Before the Iowa court's decision, the view of same-sex marriage proponents that the ban was unconstitutional was irrelevant to the fact that same-sex marriage was banned. If you have a legitimate argument that, in current practice, the vice president is not functionally a part of the executive branch, make it. Otherwise, quit arguing for arguing's sake. -Rrius (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) If calling it absurd speculation is the way you want to go, fine; but everything you've said here is far more speculative than anything I've said. And your example of Iowa's recent change is a piss-poor example for a supposed "lawyer" to be offering.
1) The SCIA overturned an Iowa statute on grounds that it violated the Iowa Constitution, which, considering the language of the Iowa Constitution the SCIA relied upon, was apparent on its face.
2) All Iowans need to do is amend their state constitution if they really feel that strongly about the issue to overturn the SCIA.
3) If Iowans so amend, then the only way the SCIA could overturn it is if they find it void on grounds of violating the U.S. Constitution.
4) If SCIA does that, it'd get appealed to the SCOTUS, who have already said in Lawrence v. Texas that there is a legitimate government interest in regulating marriage (hint: i.e., regulating it to be between one man and one woman; also, their membership hasn't changed substantially enough in terms of political balance to overcome the heads-up they gave in that dicta).
What we're talking about here is substantially different.
1) We're discussing the STRUCTURE and PLACEMENT of government officials, and from which portions they receive their powers. That's a CONSTITUTIONAL question from the start, not a statutory one.
2) The SCOTUS saying the Veep is a member of the Executive Branch is as likely as them saying that Free Speech only consists of flicking boogers at people; i.e., it'd would take the Court to clearly turn away from the prima facie structure of the Constitution, which I seriously doubt it would do based on past decision like Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. Maybe you ought to read those to see what the hell I mean, since they looked at the Constitution on its face and said, 'hey, only Congress can suspend habeas corpus,' and that 'the President can't claim an implied suspension of habeas corpus.'
Also: where did I speculate as to some theoretical future SCOTUS decision? In citing Bowsher? Helloooo, McFlyyyy, that case was decided almost 25 years ago in 1986! I seriously doubt they'd overturn such a cornerstone of separation of powers case law for the shits and giggles encompassed in your ill-founded assertion that the Veep is a member of the Executive Branch. Here's a simple test that will inform anyone that the Veep is NOT a member of the Executive Branch:
1) If the President delegates work to the Vice President, is the Veep constitutionally required to perform those tasks? NOPE.
2) If the Veep doesn't do it, can the President fire him? NOPE.
If for some reason you think that Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. has any bearing on this, you'd be incorrect too. Cheney didn't win his case because he, as Veep, was deemed a member of the executive branch, but because the advisory committee Cheney sat on was giving advice to the PRESIDENT; because the PRESIDENT is owed deference by the Courts regarding the executive process of obtaining advice from whomever he may seek it, Cheney fortunately found himself beneath the umbrella of executive privilege under the seperation of powers, and thus found himself immune from the civil discovery process.
In short, the case law is behind me on this; the Veep is no more a member of the executive branch than a USDA meat inspector is an employee of the butchery he's inspecting. Seriously, how can you be so poorly informed on these simple constitutional issues for a lawyer? Where'd you go law school: Liberty University? Say hello to Monica Goodling for everone here.-- Foofighter20x (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The case has nothing to do with my argument, your analogy is illogical, and your failure to recognize the clear reality that, despite the peculiar gloss you put on the Constitution, the vice president is in practice a member of the executive is stunning. Even were the vice president's presence in the executive unconstitutional (which neither you nor Reynolds have proven), it doesn't change the fact that the vice president has been used that way since at least the 1970s. Since all you can manage in terms of argument is absurdity and personal attack, I'm simply going to ignore anything you have to say on this topic from now on. -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Information about his presence in the executive and legislative branches belongs there, not here. -Rrius (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nice; a circular reference... Third party sources, please. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Circular reference? Where? This was a comment on where further information about the VP should be. -Rrius (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Refering to a Wikipedia article with scant academic cites, especially one YOU can go edit... Yeah, that's a circular reference. Support your claims with third party sources, as I have done. Otherwise the presumption is you're just making stuff up. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I agree with you on it belonging in the VP's page, my point about the legislative role was merely an illustration, though my question about the elective position doesn't seem to have an unambiguous answer yet. Excuse my ignorance but surely the VP is not elected since he is selected as a running mate, thus, if you voted for Obama, you got Biden whether you wanted him or not. Can the President dismiss the other executive branch members, out of interest? Also, if the POTUS is not directly elected, what's the point of putting the candidates to an election? Finally, could an independent candidate be elected? Sorry if these are really ignorant questions! HJMitchellYou rang? 13:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Each electoral college elector casts two votes: one for Pres, one for Veep. Thus, the Veep is elected. You are mistaking the President's selection of a running mate for an election when it is, in short, the NOMINATION of a candidate for Vice President. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The presidential nominee's selection of a running mate is a modern innovation. The choice of vice presidential nominee was until not that long ago an actual prerogative of the nominating convention and could result in a VP choice the head of the ticket didn't want. -Rrius (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
How about having the Introduction refer to the VP being eligible to being given "executive responsibilities"? That would be factual and would avoid referring to the VP as an "official". SMP0328. (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say "official". There is nothing wrong with the current wording as in actual practice the vice president is a member of the executive branch in addition to his role as President of the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Basic takeaway: Foofighter has an article that basically argues the VP needn't be in the executive and that it is bad policy for the VP to be in the executive because he can end up tainted by the same scandal that leads to the resignation or impeachment of the president. I have actual practice as confirmed by whitehouse.gov:
“
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.[1]
”
(Emphasis mine) -Rrius (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha... Yeah, we all know how often the White House gets its facts straight, and they COULDN'T POSSIBLY be making a political statement with that passage. Oh, no. Couldn't be that at all. [/sarcasm] The White House is not an independent, third-party source on this matter. Nice try, though. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a basic, objective fact that the vice president is functionally a part of the executive branch, and that fact is confirmed by the executive branch itself. Reynolds's opinion is just that, an opinion. Get a grip. -Rrius (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you've managed to go through this discussion without picking up the fact that the role of the office has changed drastically, especially since the Carter Administration, you really haven't been paying attention. I would suggest you go back and re-read. It is nothing short of remarkable that you don't know this already. Happy reading. -Rrius (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should take your own advice, go back and read Reynolds again, and realize that Reynolds said exactly what you just did, and YET STILL concluded that the Veep is a legislative officer, and that ad hoc tasks delegateed to the Veep by the Presidents since the Carter administration in no way makes the Veep a de jure member of the executive branch. Keep trying, though. You are quite entertaining in your adamant adherence to your faulty, conventional wisdoms. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And nothing in the Constitution prevents the VP from being a de facto or de jure member of the executive. That you now recognize the "conventional wisdoms" (which I presume refers to the fact that VP is called a member, treated as a member, and acts as a member of the executive), the question is resolved. -Rrius (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha... whatever, dude. Just because an idea is a "conventional wisdom" doesn't make it true. Cf.: the recent foreign bans on pork imports and the slaughtering of pigs in regard to the swine flu outbreak. If you honestly believe that a "wisdom" being "conventional" makes it categorically true, then you're not that bright... Nor should you even be editing Wikipedia, for that matter. Also, you'd be intelligent if you noted that the cites which support my assertion are law review ARTICLES, written by legal academia; the ones that support your are law review NOTES, written by the law school students. You really picked a winning racehorse there... The authorities back me. Hell, even the students that support your position concede I might be right. Too bad you can't. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What is it with you and ad hominems? I didn't pick the cites and don't have access to a law review data base. I don't accept things that are merely conventional wisdom, which is why I made the parenthetical point I did (I was also making a point to highlight the odd pluralization of "conventional wisdom"). The fact that the executive branch and the legislative branch act on the assumption that in exercising his executive roles the vice president is a member of the executive branch is more than just conventional wisdom. It is the way the world is in practice. The fact that a small cadre of academics question whether this should be the case is beside the point. The authorities that matter do not back you. I have a strong record of editing at Wikipedia, and your asinine suggestion that I should not be is typical of the very trait that makes your qualifications to do so questionable. You simply lack the ability to remain civil, and jump into attack mode, questioning from the word "go" the intelligence, motives, and integrity of people who disagree with you. I hope against hope that this is not how you are in real life or how you intend to practice law. If so, I hope you don't intend to practice anywhere near me. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think my problem is that I admire too much Muhammed Ali/Cassius Clay. He had him a machine-gun mouth, and it got him into trouble sometimes. Please know that most of my "insults" are just pointed, barbed rhetoric with no real underlying malintent; it's probably more out of my frustration at myself for not effectively getting my point across from the get-go. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That particular frustration was mutual. No hard feelings? -Rrius (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No hard feelings at all. I never take Wikipedia personally. It's the internet. A lot of people use the anonymity of the net to be real jerks (and I mean like 100-fold on top of whatever I do that's objectionable). -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Middle Name
The middle name is not mentioned in this article. It is, however, mentioned in the article on the Vice President of the United States. Common sense tells me that, for consistency, one of the two should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victordelpanno (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume are referring to the name in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the one at VP should say "Joe Biden" and have changed it to that. I am not going to fight for and see no reason why the choice of using a full name versus a common name needs to be the same here and there. Editorial decisions such as those are made article by article. -Rrius (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Rrius on this one: names should generally conform to common usage, per Wikipedia policy. The change on the Vice President of the United States page from "Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr." to "Joe Biden" is appropriate. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hidden material
I have moved the following material, which was hidden in the Vacancy and disability section, from the article to here:
The official Presidential anthem is "Hail to the Chief," preceded by "Ruffles and Flourishes" and is primarily played to announce the arrival of the president at state functions.[1]
Since the adoption of the Constitution, there have been forty-three individuals sworn into office as President, including those who succeeded to the office of President, serving fifty-five four-year terms altogether. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms and is officially counted as both the 22nd and the 24th President. Because of this, all Presidents after the 23rd have their official listing increased by one; i.e., sitting President Barack Obama is the forty-fourth president of the United States, but the forty-third person to hold the office.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution established the original method used by which the Electoral College elected the President. Each elector cast two votes for President. Originally, both votes were to be for people that elector would like to be the President; in 1796 and 1800, each elector voted for his party's presidential and vice presidential candidates. The candidate with the highest number of votes would become the President, with the second-place candidate becoming the Vice President.
However, the 1796 and 1800 elections highlighted flaws in the electoral system in use at the time. In particular, the tie in the electoral vote which resulted from the lack of separation between Presidential and Vice Presidential votes in the latter election was an issue. The Democratic-Republican Party's candidates, who won the election, were tied with each other, and as a result, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives in the outgoing Federalist Party-controlled 6th Congress. Federalist Representatives attempted to elect Aaron Burr, the Democratic-Republican vice presidential candidate, over Thomas Jefferson, the Presidential candidate. Jefferson eventually won after Alexander Hamilton managed to swing Delaware's state delegation's vote to him. As a result, the Congress proposed the Twelfth Amendment in 1803 and it was ratified in 1804. This amendment provides the current method by which the Electoral College elects the President and Vice President.
The United States government was non-partisan before 1792, so the Constitution says nothing about political parties. From 1796 to the Civil War, it was common for political parties to fracture and put forward more than one candidate. The classic example is the 1824 election, in which political parties officially played no role because all of the candidates were from the same party. This also was the only election in which the recipient of the most Electoral College votes (Andrew Jackson) did not become President (as he did not have a majority). The election was then decided by the House of Representatives, which elected John Quincy Adams instead.
The Civil War showed how dangerous political fracture could be for the nation, with the result that the two largest parties at the time – Democratic and Republican – remade themselves into broad coalitions of liberals and conservatives. Consequently, all Presidents since the Civil War have been nominees of one of these two major political parties.
Finally, while they are not in any way requirements:
Of the forty-three[2] persons to have been President, thirty-one had prior military service; of those thirty-one, all but one—James Buchanan—served as an officer.
Although the Presidency entails numerous foreign obligations and policy issues, many Presidents have had limited or no understanding of a language other than English. Early 19th century Presidents such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams were fluent in French, the diplomatic language of the time (John Quincy Adams spoke Dutch and German as well). However, since the 1840 defeat of Martin Van Buren (whose first language was actually Dutch), few Presidents have had the ability to speak a second language fluently; one notable exception, Theodore Roosevelt, spoke French and German. Written Latin and Greek were once commonly known to Presidents as hallmarks of a classical education, but their influence has declined over time.
The religious affiliations and beliefs of United States Presidents have been subject to considerable speculation and controversy. Most Presidents have been Trinitarian Christians; of these, all but one have been Protestant: John F. Kennedy has been the only Catholic President. More than one quarter of Presidents have been affiliated with the Episcopal Church, the most common denomination for U.S. Presidents.
James MacGregor Burns, noted presidential scholar, has categorized Presidents into three categories based on how each enacts policy:
Madisonian Model: The President relies on Congress to lead in setting policy. The President mainly administers policies set by Congress.
Hamiltonian Model: The President should be heroic and above partisanship. He should rely on the Constitution and public opinion for support. The President should lead in all areas and ignore Congress if necessary.
Jeffersonian Model: The President should lead through his party. He should act similar to a Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. The party, influenced and led by the President, sets policy. The President assists the party with getting their platform enacted.
This material was marked as "Garbage to be sorted and distributed". I believe it's better to have it here, rather than having it hidden in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
^Grover Cleveland was both the twenty-second and twenty-fourth President
Failure to qualify
The Twentieth Amd requires Congress to qualify the president-elect; if they fail to do so, then the office is technically vacant and the Veep *ACTS* as president. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President is to "act as President" until there is a qualified President. That part of Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment replaced a provision of the Twelfth Amendment which said in such circumstances the Vice President was to act as he would in case of the President's "death" (i.e., he became President). Under Section 3, he becomes Acting President, with the President effectively being a figurehead, not President. SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree.
You're presupposing a disqualified president-elect still becomes the President, but in some reduced capacity and without any powers. That's not correct. He's nothing. Legally, that person goes back to being an ordinary private citizen until he can qualify (with a certain exception as provided below); that person thus holds no title or office, which precludes him from even being a figurehead. And as he holds no office, then the office to which he was unconstitutionally elected remains vacant.
You are reading the custom of Tyler and the effect of the Twenty-fifth Amd into the meaning of both the Twelfth Amd and Art II, Sec. 1, cl. 6. Those never had any such meaning, and the happenstance of history ought not be read into them.
Art II, Sec. 1, cl. 6.: What's important here are the powers and duties of the office, not the office itself. In the case a president is removed, then there's no one to execute his powers or fulfill his duties; in the case of death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers or duties, then "the same"—that is, the powers and duties—shall devolve on the Vice President. The fact the phrase "from Office" is in this clause is without consequence, as it wouldn't change the meaning a bit if it wasn't there. The essence here is that the Veep ACTS as President.
The Twelfth Amd says the same thing, but applies it to when Congress fails to choose a president in time: The Veep ACTS as President. A helpful fact is that the Twelfth actually clarified any ambiguity about succession in Art II, Sec. 1, cl. 6 a good 37 years before Tyler established the incorrect custom that was later adopted in the Twenty-fifth Amd.
This brings us back to the Twentieth Amd: when the pres-elect fails to qualify, the Veep ACTS as President. What also is of interest here is that it says the Veep ACTS as such until a president shall qualify. Congress is by no means required or under any legal obligation to put the unqualified pres-elect in office; they could pick some other person who qualifies. What is also clear is that the Twentieth Amd roundly contemplates the possibility of a president-elect not meeting any one particular of the criteria: if not a natural born citizen, or having already been twice elected, then that person is barred from office and is no longer the president-elect (as said, Congress has to pick someone else); if underage or not having the requisite residency, then the office is vacant, but can be held in abeyance until the person qualifies, IF Congress chooses to follow that particular avenue of action.
There's such consistency to all of these: the Office of President is vacant, and the Veep ACTS as Pres. The same thus holds for a failure to qualify. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The word "act" doesn't always mean the Presidency is vacant. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 would apply if there was a President suffering from a "Disability" and there was no VP. The disabled President wouldn't be forced from office because someone was Acting President. SMP0328. (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And that matters to saying a president failed to qualify how exactly? Don't get distracted or try to point out an instance that doesn't involve a VACANCY. Respond to the substance of what I'm saying, please: How is it not a vacancy if a president fails to qualify? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It matters because your comment, to me, appeared to be equating "act" with there being a Presidential vacancy. As for your question, Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment makes the distinction. If the President-elect is dead on Inauguration Day (he doesn't have to have died that day), the Vice President-elect "shall become the President." On the other hand, if the President-elect "failed to qualify", the Vice-President-elect commences to "act as President" on Inauguration Day. Note the difference between "become" and "act". If "failure to qualify" meant the Presidency was vacant, why wouldn't the Vice President-elect simply "become the President"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Because, as I said, there are at least four clear instances where the office would be vacant, but the Vice President would be precluded from ascending. That is, where the pres-elect failed to qualify on account of:
being twice-elected: if it's shown the person elected has been elected twice before, then "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." [Emphasis mine.] Congress can still pick someone else to be President.
status of citizenship: if it's shown the person elected is not a natural-born citizen, then "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." [Emphasis mine.] Congress can still pick someone else to be President.
age: if it's shown the person elected is not yet 35 years old, then "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." [Emphasis mine.] Congress can still pick someone else to be President. Or Congress could wait until the Pres-elect turns 35 and inaugurate him.
residency: if it's shown the person elected has not been a resident of the United States at least 14 years, then "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." [Emphasis mine.] Congress can still pick someone else to be President. Or Congress could wait until the Pres-elect has been a resident for 14 years and inaugurate him.
In each case, the President did not qualify, the Office of President is vacant, and the Veep acts as Pres instead of ascending to the Office. How am I wrong in saying that a vacancy can result in the Office itself where a Pres fails to qualify (the Veep may act as Pres, but is still the Veep, not the Pres)? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Where in the Constitution does the Congress get the authority to "pick someone else" under any of those circumstances? SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Twelfth. Let's imagine a person is elected by the EC with a majority, but does not qualify... What happens? Then, no person eligible to the office has a majority... Thus, the choice devolves onto the House (I've been saying Congress, I should have been saying House). The House then picks among the three top EC vote getters who, obviously, did qualify.
There are two more clear instances where the office would be vacant, but the Vice President would be precluded from ascending. That is, where the pres-elect failed to qualify on account of:
prior disqualification: if it's shown the person elected was previously disqualified upon conviction for impeachment, then "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." [Emphasis mine.] Congress can still pick someone else to be President.
disqualification for rebellion: if it's shown the person elected previously took an oath to support the Constitution and then later rebelled against it, and Congress has not removed such disability, then "the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified." [Emphasis mine.] Congress can still pick someone else to be President.
The House's options are going to be VERY limited, but they could still pick someone else... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in the Twelfth Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. is it said that the House picks the President in any of the scenarios covered by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment when there is a Vice President-elect. Do you have any reliable sourcing for your interpretation of the Constitution? SMP0328. (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You mean besides common sense? Not yet. But we've still gotten distracted from the main point: do you have a reliable source that state there is no vacancy when a president fails to qualify? If not, then I think we have a stalemate. ;) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
First, I think my interpretation is common sense; see, we both can be condescending. Second, you are the one who wants to add material to the article. That means the burden is on you to provide the reliable sourcing for your proposed addition. SMP0328. (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait... Who's being condescending? I sure as hell wasn't. Please don't read that into my statements, thank you. Now, you wanted a source:
There is an important difference between the constitutional solution provided by the Twentieth Amendment and any rough-and-ready solution that may be provided by the joint convention. Take a much less silly case than Professor Paulsen's Gus-the-Dog hypothetical. [*n612] Imagine that in the next presidential election a majority of the whole number of electors appointed vote for presidential candidate Smith. Smith is exactly thirty-four years of age as of noon on January 20, 2005, the date fixed by the Constitution for the beginning of the next presidential term, [*n613] and is therefore not constitutionally-qualified to be President. [*n614] If the joint convention rejected these electoral votes for thirty-four year old Smith as not "regularly given," the joint convention would trigger a contingency election in the House of Representatives, and Smith would be excluded from the Office of President for the next four years. But if these unconstitutional electoral votes were counted, then Smith's running-mate (who we will assume is constitutionally-qualified to be Vice President) would simply act as President, until Smith shall have qualified for the Office of President on January 20, 2006. To be sure, [*1811] this hypothetical situation could never apply to the cases when electors really go bananas - when they vote for dead persons or law professors' dogs as President or Vice President. The important point for present purposes is that the joint convention must count electoral votes contained in authentic electoral certificates because the Twentieth Amendment carefully prescribes the result when the electors shall have made an unconstitutional choice. [Emphasis mine.]
Kesavan, Vasan (2002). "Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?". North Carolina Law Review. 80 (June). Chapel Hill: North Carolina Law Review: 1653.
Vasan Kesavan backs up what I've been saying. He says:
[I]f these unconstitutional electoral votes were counted, then Smith's running-mate (who we will assume is constitutionally-qualified to be Vice President) would simply act as President, until Smith shall have qualified for the Office of President on January 20, 2006.
He's absolutely right. The Vice President would be Acting President, until the President was qualified. There's no vacancy and the House would not choose a replacement. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You ran too quickly past the first sentence I emphasized.
If the joint convention rejected these electoral votes for thirty-four year old Smith as not "regularly given," the joint convention would trigger a contingency election in the House of Representatives, and Smith would be excluded from the Office of President for the next four years.
Quibble all you want... Yes, in one sense he supports you, but taken as a whole he supports everything I've said. There's simply more substance to his support for my statements. Not to mention, you are grasping too firmly to one particular statement; it's been a rule of Constitutional construction since the time of John Marshall that you have to read portions of the document with a mindset of how the document as whole is to operate. You seem too ready to seize upon one thing and say that's that when, as we've seen above, there are in total a clause and no less than two amendments exerting their gravity on the topic.
Also, you are failing to recognize the distinction I am and have been repeatedly making: there are two grounds for disqualification that are an absolute bar: citizenship and twice-elected prior. Conversely, there are four other grounds where disqualification is met with a potentially suspended status (although absolute bar is still an option Congress could choose to exercise): age, residency, impeachment conviction, and disqualification for rebellion. The first sentence from Kesavan supports the former, the absolute bars; the sentence you have seized upon only fits the latter variety. Age and residency can be overcome, which is what I meant when I said the office could be held in abeyance. Of the other two, impeachment conviction might be pardoned by the Acting President (that's another matter entirely) and disqual for rebellion can be Congressionally removed. I don't even see why we are disagreeing as your position is merely a subset of mine. Stop missing the forest for the trees. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You are engaging in original research by interpreting Kesavan's words. Where does Kesavan, or any other reliable source, explicitly say that a Presidential vacancy would result from a winner of a Presidential election having "failed to qualify"? What you are interpreting as backing you up is regarding disqualified Electoral Votes resulting in no person getting a majority of those votes. That wouldn't result in a vacancy. The House would choose a person who would become President on Inauguration Day. SMP0328. (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Which answers the question you asked in the first place... where you wanted a source that says Congress would choose. But if you want to call this interpreting, then you are a pot calling a kettle black in seizing on that second sentence and claiming victory. As I said above, we have a stalemate; that's why I haven't changed it back. In total, we've amassed an interesting inquiry into this. I can leave it at that if you can.
I'd still like you to explain how exactly it is you think I'm wrong. We've established everything I've said here is supported by the text of the Constitution... In the case of a failure to qualify, the person elected does not take office. The Veep does not succeed to the Presidency as the vacancy is not one of the type listed in the Twenty-fifth, but instead only acts as President. Thus, until Congress selects a qualified person, the Office of President is vacant. Seriously, how is that incorrect? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In the end this boils down to whether the President-elect becomes a figurehead President or the office of President is vacant. The Constitution does not expressly say which is correct. So I am willing to agree to disagree and "leave it at that". SMP0328. (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There is something missing from the list of possibilities for failing to qualify: the oath. Talk of failing to qualify usually refers to failure to take the oath. I'm not saying that being disqualified on account of age or the like doesn't count, but the discussion has oddly missed the main thing it does refer to. I also want to note that nowhere does the Constitution "require[] Congress to qualify the president-elect". I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. There is serious academic debate about Congress's authority to do anything other than count the vote. Its ability to decide which votes are valid, and its power to "declare" who is elected are among the disputed powers. One commentator goes so far as to say that the Congress may not be able to dispute the votes in favour of someone not qualified for the office (including dead people). I don't remember where I found the beginning of the string of articles, but it might be at Electoral College (United States). -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Camp David
Why is there no mentioning, listing, or a picture of Camp David, the presidential mountain retreat, in the "Compensation" section of this article? I would surely think that Camp David along with the White House, Air Force One, and Marine One would be a benefit or "compensation" for the president to use at his disposal. --173.87.177.216 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
"So help me God" debate
The article states that "Every President has followed the precedent set by George Washington by suffixing to the end of the oath "So help me God!". The article on the Oath of office for the President it states under the heading "So help me God" that "All contemporary sources fail to mention Washington as adding a religious codicil to his acceptance" and mentions the debate over those four words. Plus an article at the History News Network by Professor Peter R. Henriques (http://hnn.us/articles/59548.html) goes further into that claim. Could someone please edit the article to note the debate instead of making it fact. 24.144.9.131 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Compensation Break-down Vs Total
The article lists the Office's compensation as $400,000 plus other monetary compensations including expenses, travel and entertainment. Depending on the whether the entertainment expense account is yearly or monthly (the citations do not specify) the Office income could be up to either $1,328,000 or $1,119,000 per year before taxes, respectively. (I qualify with "up to" because of the nature of an expense account.) This article would be better served if both the break down of compensation and total yearly income were listed. Additionally a link to an article listing US President IRS tax return records would be useful. Any help out there?
TalksterEnglish (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The presidential expense accounts are annual, not monthly. They are not truly binding, however. The law provides a supplemental expense account for up to $1 million (per year) in overruns of any category for "unanticipated needs". The salary is taxable, but not the expense accounts. For these reasons (and since it's hard to price things like having dozens of personal staff on call for you 24/7), trying to put a total dollar figure on the emoluments of the office is a pretty fruitless exercise. For the absolute definitive source, see US Code Title 3, Chapter 2, sections 102-105 and 108-110. Title 3, Chapter 2 also covers the Vice President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.84.190 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Roosevelt's four terms
Rius and Zsero have been edit warring over whether World War II should be credited for partially being responsible for Franklin D. Roosevelt's fourth, and possibly his third, Presidential electoral victory. Instead of edit warring, I call on them to hash out this dispute here. SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is Zsero's beef? Roosevelt's fourth term is widely accepted to have been at least partially attributable to WWII. If it is a wording issue, he can reword it. Removing it altogether goes too far. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If you add such a claim, it's up to you to substantiate it. You claim that the reason he was able to break the two-term limit, when nobody else had been able to do it before, was partly due to the War. I call bullshit. How do you know that? It sounds like a wild guess to me. America's been in wars before, and certainly there have been wars in the world that America was not in, but that it was possible for it to join, and that has not helped anybody else to get a third term. So it's an extraordinary claim that the war going on in Europe and China was a significant factor in FDR's 1940 victory. The fourth term is irrelevant, since by then he'd already broken the taboo, but I doubt the war was a significant factor there either; he won in 1944 because too many people had come to worship him and couldn't imagine not voting for him. He'd have won just as easily had the war been over. And it's up to you to prove otherwise, before inserting your claim into the article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, you are misreading the text. It does not say "Roosevelt violated the two-term convention because of WWII." It says that one of the reasons he was re-elected three times was World War II. No one claims it was major factor in 1940 race, though it may have been. I think you really need to read the text in question more carefully. The fourth term is quite important to a sentence that reads, "However, partly due to World War II, Roosevelt was elected four times, but died shortly after beginning his fourth term." If you think it unduly credits the war with the 1940 victory, amend it. Your current understanding of the text, though, is wrong, and itself needs amending. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentence is about the two-term convention and the fact that Roosevelt was able to break it; he did so in 1940, not in '44. The text that you have repeatedly inserted claims that the war was a significant factor in enabling him to do so. You need to substantiate that claim. I call it a wild guess, and challenge your right to insert it into the article. I don't have to prove anything; the onus of proof is entirely on you. As for 1944, I doubt the war was a significant factor in that victory either; but in any case it's irrelevant, because the claim you are making is about what enabled him to break the taboo, and by 1944 it was already broken. -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The first sentence says that George Washington set an unofficial precedent of serving two terms that other presidents followed until 1940. The second sentence says that several presidents before FDR campaigned for a third term but lost. Finally, we come to the sentence at issue. Let's take the main clause first: "Roosevelt was elected four times." I'm sure that is uncontroversial. The last clause says, "but he died shortly after beginning his fourth term." That also is uncontroversial. As a result, the controversy must surround the first phrase, "However, partly due to World War II." The key here is what that modifies: in other words, what is partly due to World War II. Your understanding is that it is the decision to run a third time. That understanding is plainly wrong from the text. What the phrase modifies is the main clause. This becomes even clearer than it already should be to anyone who bothers to read the sentence if you put the sentence in a tradition, rather than inverted, word order: "However, Roosevelt was elected four times partly due to World War II." Nothing in there says that he violated custom because of WWII. -Rrius (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, why are you even discussing the text that was there before the insertion to which I am objecting? This discussion is only about the subject of dispute, which is the new text that you keep on inserting, i.e. "partly due to World War II,". As for what is asserted to be partly due to the war, try plain English comprehension; it is very clearly not his decision to try for a third time — many presidents had tried it before — but his success. You are asserting that the war played a significant role in this success; I am calling on you to prove it, or it doesn't go in. I'm calling it a guess on your part; if you have a source then attribute it properly. -- Zsero (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I brought in the prior sentences for two related reasons. First, the sentence in question begins with the word "however", so any discussion of what it means should acknowledge what comes before. Second, the only way your reading could have any possibility of accuracy would be as read with the preceding sentences. As such, being intellectually honest required dealing with them. As for plain English comprehension, that is exactly what I demonstrated. The sentence says he was elected a total of four times in part because of the war. Your understanding is simply incorrect. I'm sorry if you can't deal with it, but there it is. I don't have to justify anything about the 1940 election because I am not asserting anything about, the original author is not asserting anything about it, and the text in question isn't asserting anything about it. You are simply wrong about that. Foo has made a suggested edit that I think does the job well. If you can bring yourself to read the words that are actually there (which you have failed to do with the previous language) and have no objection to it, I regard the matter as closed. -Rrius (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see the 4th election being attributable to the war, but I'm not so sure about the 3rd. In re-writing JRB37, the books I read, particularly McKenna's, stated that Roosevelt had intended to serve only two terms (which is one reason he put up such a fight with the Supreme Court--he was concerned about his legacy). I can see where the war in Europe contributed--Roosevelt had said he wouldn't seek a third term, but would allow his party to "draft" him to a third term (likely a slogan to garner support from both those being drafted before the start of WWII, and with those who admire the service aspect of governing)--but I don't see how a statement of attribution to the war would be accurate unless qualified with more detail, such as how Roosevelt also desired to finish his New Deal program. Long story short, and point being: all this extra material goes well beyond the scope of this article. All we should really care about in this article is that Roosevelt served three full terms and was elected to a fourth, and was the only president to break the two-term precedent before it became constitutionalized by the 22nd Amd, and that Roosevelt died without finishing that 4th term. Anything more than that in this article is overkill. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No one, including whoever initially wrote the text at issue, suggested that the 1940 decision to run was based on the war. It is not at all beyond the scope to say that Roosevelt was elected four times and that part of the reason for that is WWII. The text does not say he went for a third because of WWII; rather, it says the war is why he reached four. It is simple and true. -Rrius (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it. If you have a source, supply it. In any case, the issue is not why he reached four, but why he broke the two-term barrier, and you need a source that that was partly due to the War. -- Zsero (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not why he broke the two-term barrier anywhere but in your head. If you don't believe that the war was a reason why Roosevelt was re-elected in '44, that can be dealt with, but it does show a remarkable lack of knowledge on your part. Finally, for the umpteenth time, no one is claim that the 1940 re-election decision was based on the War. Please stop with that straw man. It is just ridiculous at this point. -Rrius (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Then why not say it just the way you did now, which is much more clear than what's in the article? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I said if it was a question of wording, then it should be reworded. I think what you've done is fantastic. -Rrius (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Another question about the article: which presidents unsuccessfully campaigned for a third term? I know TR tried to get elected Pres a 2nd time, but would that have been his "third" term? I'm unclear about that. His "first" term was finishing out McKinley's... Do you count that as a term, or not? Also, I don't remember any other President pursuing a third term, with the exception of Grant, but he got shut out early. Same with Truman... They may have dipped their toes in the third term pool, but I wouldn't really say they campaigned for it... Maybe more like bounced the idea around their party and lost. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Roosevelt's term would have been a third, since he served the majority (actually almost all) of McKinley's term. Nowadays he would not have been allowed to try. Other presidents who have tried for a third term include Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. How do you distinguish "campaigning" from "dipping their toes", at a time when candidates never openly campaigned for themselves? Before the primary system, all campaigning for the nomination was done in back rooms, and by people representing the candidate, who pretended to be above such things, especially if he was a sitting president.
Truman was a candidate in the New Hampshire primary; he pulled out only after he was trounced, and his polling told him he wasn't going to do much better in the coming primaries. His claims otherwise were much like a cat that falls over and then pretends it meant to do that. Wilson was an invalid, incapable of open campaigning even if that were acceptable in his day, but he still sought the Democratic nomination, and schemed to get it; he failed, but not for want of trying. What makes FDR different is that he succeeded where everyone else had failed. -- Zsero (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Uh... Grover Cleveland didn't seek a third term. He twice sought a 2nd term. And I don't mean that in some ironical humor sort of way. He ran, he won. He ran for a second term and lost. He ran again for a second term again 4 years later and won (which is why he's the 22nd and 24th President). He didn't seek a third term. ... ??? And personally, I wouldn't count it as a run unless they went beyond their party convention. I see TR as the only one who seriously attempted a third term. But that's just me. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The talkpage has it more or less clear. Back in 1896 the image of being drafted to the nomination was still an important one and even sitting Presidents liked to give the impression that their renominated was by popular demand. (Remember that even in 1952 and 1968 Truman and Johnson were never really officially in the race despite the handful of primaries already being underway by the time they made their retirement announcements and even today you get "Draft this candidate" movements to create momentum.) The 1896 election talkpage probably has it best - Cleveland didn't publicly campaign for it but any chance he had of being nominated evaporated before he could be formally proposed at the convention. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Where's criticism of the presidency?
In this article, which is about the presidency of the United States, as an institution and office (not Barack Obama, per se), but how come I don't see any mention of...
unitary executive -- how the presidency has become the dominant branch of government, with vast control over the bureaucracy, with legislative power (which should be the task of Congress. How come this is omitted?
signing statements -- how presidents beginning with Reagan (I think) have begun making statements when they sign a bill into law about how they "interpret" (or plan to enforce or not enforce) a law; the American Bar Association has said this is unconstitutional? And numerous other practices which work against the basic system of checks and balances envisioned by the Framers.
how come no mention of critics of excessive presidential power like Larry Sabato or Dana D. Nelson or Richard Labunski or Sanford Levinson about how the presidency has gotten out of control? Or mention of political scientists like Benjamin Ginsberg author of The American Lie, about how the presidency runs roughshod over Congress? Example: Obama's appointment of numerous "czars" without any input from Congress.
the Framers clearly wanted Congress to be the dominant branch; articles pertaining to Congress came first in the Constitution. But in 21st century America, the presidency is the all-encompassing branch, with some check provided by the judiciary. Someone reading this article won't have a chance to even get this point of view. There are prominent academics, newspaper reporters, and political scientists who complain about an imperial presidency -- an office so powerful that it's occupant can, at will, start wars (George W. Bush in Iraq) and keep them going despite widespread public opposition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article needs a criticism section. Microsoft has one. Congress has one. The presidency needs one too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that other presidencies do not have a criticism section it does not imply that they should not have it. Here we are speaking about this one, and I believe that a criticism section would be important to guarantee the neutrality of the article, for me, the most important Wikipedia politics. --Furado (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Furado. I was unimpressed with articles about presidencies from other countries. President of Georgia has no criticism, but it also has no references. President of Germany has only 11 references. President of Cuba has 1 reference. And, president of the United States isn't much better, with a mere 27 references; compare this with articles such as United States which features top grade writers like User:DCGeist, the article has several hundred references. I don't think we should look to articles about presidents in other countries as models for what to do regarding the President of the United States. I am not talking about criticizing particular presidents, or political parties such as Democratic Party or Republican Party but the office itself -- and there are prominent academics, newspaper reporters, political scientists who are criticizing the office of the United States as becoming overly powerful, imperious. Writers like Gene Healy suggest the presidency has become a kind of American cult; writers like Dana D. Nelson in her book Bad for Democracy who suggest all Americans do, politically, is vote for president every four years, that's it, and Americans think that by pulling a lever every four years, they've fulfilled their democratic duty as citizens. The American Bar Association has made a statement that presidential signing statements are a clear violation of the Constitution's checks and balances, and presidents Reagan, Bush I and II, and Clinton have been doing them (Obama plans to limit but not stop the practice, supposedly.) There are mainstream newspapers asking serious questions about checks and balances in the American system, suggesting serious problems, including a weakened corrupt Congress (which has a criticism section), a Supreme Court (which has a criticism section) and it also has sharp thinkers such as User:Magidin and others. To be fair, the US presidency needs a criticism section like the other branches of government have. To maintain a proper tone of WP:NPOV AND WP:BALANCE, it's necessary to include intelligent mainstream critical views in this article; and I think articles about presidents in other countries should have similar sections, otherwise I think a tag about the article's neutrality is in order. One could almost make a case that this article was like an advertisement for the US presidency, and violates WP:SPAM, but I think the proper tag should be WP:NEUTRAL unless we can add a criticism section, or include critical views in the article.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As when you asked a similar question at Talk:United States Constitution, the answer is that no one has done it. If you think it is a good idea, add it yourself. -Rrius (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't meant to sound as snarky as it came out. -Rrius (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tom as well. As for Rrius, I believe he was trying to say "be bold." ;) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Rrius, and thanks Foofighter20x. I didn't think your comment, Rrius, was snarky, but sensible, and Foofighter20x, you're right I need to be bolder. By the way, the Foofighter song "Everlong" is excellent, especially the acoustic version; do you like it? I assume you're a fan of Foofighters. I can play Everlong on the guitar but it doesn't sound quite as good as the Foofighters doing it. They're one of my favorite bands. What's particularly remarkable is how successful they've been, since there isn't any foo about (they fought it all). I'll try to work up more material, which I'll post here on the talk page first, for people to have a look-see. I'm a competent researcher, but not quite happy with my writing style (somewhat boring and simplistic, choppy) so I appreciate when others who are more skilled in the writing department (aka the rest of the world) improve my writing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
President versus The presidency
Barack Obama's picture is prominent. He is president as we know. But this article is about the presidency, as an institution, as an office, that is, it's about all presidents. My concern is that by adding a criticism section, some will confuse it as criticism of Obama, and not get that it's criticism of the office. So, I'm wondering if others have run into this issue before. Like, maybe there should be two separate articles -- Presidency of the United States, and President of the United States? Or, perhaps we might consider placing Obama's picture not on the top part of the article? My hunch is that people who've been working on this article have run into this issue and have intelligent thinking about this issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new section "Criticism of the office of the presidency"
A proposed new section entitled "Criticism of the office of the presidency" can be seen (and edited) on a sandbox page:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments? Suggestions? The idea is to get the article more balanced as per WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Further, I believe there are critics who assail the office of the presidency for being lackluster at foreign policy. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
More subsections added to criticism section. Please see sandbox and make comments. Feel free to make changes, additions or constructive substractions if necessary. If there are no further comments, the section should be added to the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It's been posted for a few days now, and there haven't been any comments. Is there a lack of interest perhaps. So I'll add the proposed section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually believe this section to be completely unnecessary. There are criticisms for everything, every office, etc. and, when compared to the rest of the article, the criticism section is heavily disproportionate. Thus the section violates WP:WEIGHT, as undue weight is placed on criticisms.
In addition, criticism sections are generally frowned upon. Simply put, they do not adhere to the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. Any information relevant to other sections within the article should be added to those sections. Excess material should be swiftly removed. Furthermore, the section is a bulleted list, which is highly frowned upon. 95% of content in Wikipedia should read in articulate prose. Finally, the {{Recentism}} is perfectly in line. This article is an article on the history of the presidency and the duties which the president has. Criticisms of those duties belong, if anywhere, in the articles about those duties.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I assure you that I am reputable on this issue. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Happyme22. I defend that the article must contain criticism to keep WP:NPV, and authorized criticism to the office of the presidency exists, but the current section is disproportionate with regard to the rest of the article. --Furado (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Responses to the criticism of the criticism section
I'd like a chance to respond to your comments. I feel they are well intentioned and sincere (and I don't think either of you is one of the four million people who work for the president) but spring from a kind of American desire to avoid self-examination and avoid criticism, perhaps a knee-jerk sensibility to want everything to be positive? That is, perhaps there's a worry on some level that exposing flaws of the national Chief-Protector-God-The-President somehow undermines national security, while in my view, not exposing the flaws undermines national security.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
About the criticism section seeming heavily disproportionate. It's at the bottom of the article and only takes up perhaps an eighth of the text; it has no pictures. But I can see how it may seem disproportionate because it's tightly written, accurate, well-referenced by excellent sources, while the rest of the article isn't. Why not get the rest of the article up to the standards set by the criticism section?Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
In my view, the rest of the article is heavily disproportionate that the presidency is good, working, rule-bound, with pretty pictures and beautiful images, smiling presidents. Here are a few of the phrases in the rest of the article which, in my view, violate WP:NPOV, and I had considered tagging them with "POV" tags but held back:Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Legislative facilitator" --- My comment: HIGHLY POV. the president doesn't merely suggest or facilitate laws like this heading says; rather, the executive branch makes laws by controlling numerous agencies which bypasses Congress and is not exposed to any kind of oversight or debate. The president controls most legislation made by numerous Federal agencies. There are over 100 agencies -- FAA, CIA, NEA, Post Office, FHA, FEMA, the alphabet-soup agencies, on and on. And these agencies make all kinds of rules and regulations behind closed doors which are not subject to debate in Congress or congressional oversight. The article doesn't even hint about this.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"The President also has the power to nominate federal judges, including members of the United States courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. However, these nominations do require Senate confirmation and this can provide a major stumbling block for presidents who wish to shape their federal judiciary in a particular ideological stance." --- My comment: major is incorrect here -- in most cases, Senate approval is a rubber stamp of a president's decision; almost all presidential nominees to the Supreme Court are approved; so the correct wording should be minor stumbling block. Only when a president chooses someone truly outrageous (like Bush picking lightweight Harriet Myers) or when there's significant controversy (Bork nomination) does Senate approval matter. A record of presidential nominations to the Supreme Court will show few instances in which the Senate declined a presidential choice.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the federal executive branch." --- My comment: FOUR MILLION PEOPLE. Being the boss of four million people, by itself, is scary; I don't remember anything in the Constitution saying the president's job was to be the boss of four million people, being in charge of their paychecks. And the wording in the article suggests this is natural, how it should be, business as usual. Highly POV.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Congress, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, must authorize any troop deployments more than 60 days in length. Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation." --- My comment: this is HIGHLY POV. The fact is that presidents run roughshod over any congressional check regarding decisions about going to war. Bush I bragged he could start a war without congressional permission (although he sought it anyway in first Gulf War); Bush II started the second Iraq war and kept at it despite widespread public disapproval. What this line emphasizes is the way it's supposed to be; presidents are supposed to ask permission to fight wars; they don't (or it's a token gesture or PR move).Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"The framers of the Constitution took care to limit the President's powers regarding the military; Alexander Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 69..." --- My comment: again, HIGHLY POV. The Framers may have wanted to limit presidential war-making power, but by focusing on what the Framers intended and not the reality (which is vast presidential control over all military matters) it gives a distorted picture.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"For ground travel, the president uses the Presidential State Car, which is an armored limousine built on a heavily modified Cadillac-based chassis.[19] One of two identical Boeing VC-25 aircraft, which are extensively modified versions of Boeing 747-200B airliners, serve as long distance travel for the President, and are referred to as Air Force One while the president is on board.[20][21] The president also uses a United States Marine Corps helicopter, designated Marine One when the president is aboard." --- My comment: it seems to be excessive focus on presidential limousines and vehicles, almost like an obsessive fan raving about a rock star's jewelry or entourage. To me, this smacks of presidential worship (see my comments below in the next section).Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
"Presidential libraries." --- My comment: more presidential worship. Generally, what these buildings represent is continued public relations for departing presidents, as a way to further manage their reputations out of office. The article doesn't suggest anything like this. It's borderline advertising and may run counter to WP's policy of WP:SPAM.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
About the comment that criticism sections are generally frowned upon. Says who? In my view, any article without a criticism or controversy section isn't balanced. Sticking to Wikipedia's fine rules about WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE will require criticism sections in anything controversial, such as the office of the presidency. A Wikipedia article about apples doesn't need a criticism section; but one about "Apple Computer" does.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
About the bulleted lists. I think it makes it easier for people to quickly see whether they want to read further into a section; it's used widely in executive summaries, research reports, presentations. A reader can read the first line of a paragraph and grasp the main idea, and decide for themselves whether they need to read the rest of the paragraph, or can skip to the next one. It's a sensible organizational style. And Wikipedia's ideas about style are general recommendations, not hard and fast rules; and I don't consider the section as a list, per se, but rather a well-organized review which is perfectly applicable here. If you'd like to remove just the bullets, I suppose I have no problem with that, but it's the structure which makes it easier for readers.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
About separating the president's duties from the presidency itself. Sorry, don't buy it. Like, there should be an article on the "president's legislative duties", and that criticism of the president's legislative duties belongs on this page, and not on the article of the president? Come on. Be realistic. This is an article about the presidency. Show all sides. Give the good and the bad, the plusses and minuses.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
About "recentism". This has been addressed. Foofighter20x's ten-year rule has been applied. And, a cynical person might look at it this way -- that somebody didn't like the criticism section (because they don't like the president, our president, being criticized) and hunted through all kinds of pages until finally coming up with the vague "recentism" thing which is more like a catch-all term for "things we don't like". Exactly what "recentism" means is somewhat vague, but with a well-intentioned idea behind it which is that the idea is not to emphasize stuff that will probably be irrelevant in ten years, and that's been done. Without thinking, you could flip it the other way: that only the past should be emphasized, and that's a distortion too; it's all a matter of judgment.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Another way to see how the "recentism" tag is bogus is think about it this way: if one was TRULY concerned about "recentism", then have a good long look at the top of the article -- who's there? Our most recent president of course -- Barack Obama. Is this "recentism" at work? Apply the ten-year rule: we know Obama will be out of office in 10 years (8 years max as we know because of the two-term limit). So, is featuring Obama so prominently on the top of this article a violation of the recentism rule? No, it's perfectly appropriate, and what's bogus is systematically trying to apply something like the "recentism" rule against our better judgment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
My general recommendation is: if the rest of the article is not up to the high writing and reference standards of the criticism section, then improve the rest of the article. Find solid sources confirming the points made. If you'd like to move the specific points in the criticism section to different parts of the article, well, that's a lot of writing and editing. My sense is: most people NEVER READ to the bottom of the article anyway. But to remove the criticism section because it has "too many references" or it's "too well written", and reduce everything back to the shoddy state of the article beforehand, seems like going backwards in time. Learn to see the criticism section as extremely positive, because ONLY by exposing the flaws, is there any kind of chance that the flaws might be fixed. Covering up stuff (like what Nixon tried to do) never works. Like Justice Brandeis once said, the best disinfectant is sunlight.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Recentism tag
An interesting criticism which is new to me. The criticism is that the section on "criticism" of the presidency is slanted to recent developments? I focused deliberately on the past half century since I was trying to get at criticism of the presidency as it is today, not as it was around the time of the Civil War. I see it the opposite way -- too much focus on the nineteenth century would be inappropriate here. And, to be fair, with the picture of Barack Obama near the top of this article -- the most recent president -- couldn't one make a case that most sections of this article be tagged with the "Recentism" claim? I don't think users need to know about criticisms of the presidency in 1850, but today. There's a history section where that stuff can go there, if needed. Last, the chart needs to stay in unless there's some solid evidence that it's wrong. It's based on material from another well-sourced Wikipedia article. If all unreferenced stuff must be removed, then good chunks of this whole article need to be chopped out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see the point of the person who put the tag in. Best to go back through your edits (both here and at the Supreme Court article) and apply the recommended "ten-year test": edit out parts that will likely be irrelevant or stale ten years from now. A perfect example of this in the first bullet under the criticism sections is the part about the book titles--in ten years, that's going to be stale information. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, this edit is just too wordy. Each sentence IDs the author making the claim, which is of itself usually great and helpful. However, with that many, you are better off just starting the sentence off with a "Over the past 30 years, critics have claimed..." and then just go into a recitation of the complaints, leaving the identity of the author to the footnote. This isn't a college paper which requires myriad examples. Articles here need to be somewhat generalized; a more specific article about these things would be the appropriate place for such detail. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
About Andy120290's Recentism tag: I think there's something to this criticism although the WP:RECENTISM article is somewhat vague. But what I think "recentism" means is when recent events are exaggerated, making them more important sounding than they in fact are, and as time passes, the events diminish but continue to be emphasized in a Wikipedia article, and as a result of this passage of time, there's a distortion. This is a cool idea, btw; I never thought of it before as a possible problem. So the criticism, as I understand it, is when editors lose sight of the bigger picture and focus on recent events which soon become unimportant. And I think this is a good criticism, generally, as a thing to watch out for. Am I understanding the basis of the criticism properly? Now, about the criticism section -- I didn't focus much on Obama or Bush, but rather the past 60 years or so; so, do editors have a problem with my choice of time frame here? My emphasis on past 50-60 years was deliberate since I think period has had the most influence on the current presidency. I avoided singling out a particular president or party as best I could. I did go further back in history, such as quoting the Framers, Lincoln's habeas corpus violation, wars (1812, Civil War etc), Woodrow Wilson (1919?) and FDR's New Deal, so there is some emphasis on the past. But I think this is a good basis for examining the modern presidency because these trends all make the current presidency what it is. So, what I'm saying is: I think this was a good choice of time frame. Or, choosing some other time frame wouldn't make sense to me. But I'm willing to explore this further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done But suggest checking over recent (pun intended) changes to see if you agree they're what you're saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Foofighter20x: "edit out parts that will likely be irrelevant or stale ten years from now." Good idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Foofighter20x: "book titles--in ten years, that's going to be stale information". Agreed. But the Dana D. Nelson stuff -- what she's saying is that people tend to worship the president, to have a tendency to make the president into some kind of hero or protector-god, and in my view, this article is presidential worship: huge salary, fancy limousine, a whole visual section on presidential amenities -- this is one reason why I think Nelson needs to be here for WP:NPOV. And her book isn't about recent events but about the history of the presidency as a whole. The rest of the article needs to be as well-referenced as the criticism section. United States has several hundred references. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Removed specific books. Applied Foofighter20x's "ten year rule". I removed many references to specific critics, but left two in -- Nelson and Sirota, since I think it's important in a few instances for readers to be able to click on a wikilink and see the actual person who's making these claims, not just an anonymous "one critic said". It gives Wikipedia more authority. Removed names like Caspar Weinberger (who I don't think will be important in 10 years) but kept a summary of what happened in, with the reference. Many other changes made (see article history).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Foofighter20x: "leaving the identity of the author to the footnote". Reasonable compromise. I did this in most instances with the two exceptions above. I don't think critics should hide behind a footnote; they said it; it got published; let's expose it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Used Foofighter's strategy '"Over the past 30 years, critics have claimed..." and then just go into a recitation of the complaints. Suggest check my recent (!) changes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Foofighter20x's comment: "Articles here need to be somewhat generalized". Agree. Will lead to much less "foo" in the article. Btw never told me favorite Foofighter song.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done --Check over my changes see if you agree.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
About the two charts -- any ideas how to make the two tables more visually appealing? Like, can we put blue and red colors for the text of the different parties (ie make Truman blue, Eisenhower red)? Or make text wrap around it? Like, the diagrams on the United States Congress with blue and red dots are, in my opinion, great looking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The presidential worship problem. This probably affects all Americans to some extent (including myself) and it's what Nelson is talking about. Americans have a tendency to make presidents into quasi-deities, and in my view, most of the current article about the US president is a prime example of what she's saying in Bad for democracy. The article is like primping a president for the prom -- cool limousines, pretty pictures, etc. I think Americans have abandoned politics, abandoned democratic involvement, and all we do pretty much is vote for president every 4 years and pat ourselves on the back that we're a democracy (one of Nelson's points), and we try to justify this lack of involvement by worship of the president; and, Nelson argues this tendency is undemocratic and possibly dangerous. I urge American Wikipedians to watch out for this tendency within us -- that we're tempted to idolize the president and, as a result, lose our WP:NPOV; and this idolatry may come in the form of resenting the addition of this criticism section instinctively, without much thought, since it's a change, different, critical, and doesn't look right or seem wordy or seem too well referenced or seem too specific. And I think critical views need to be in here in some way, not hidden or de-emphasized or shunted to the side, and critics need to be identified here too, and included in this part of the article, so at least readers have a chance to learn about critical mainstream viewpoints.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Beauty of criticism. What makes America great is being able to criticize America, being able to criticize the president, to criticize each other, to criticize each other's writing styles and such. And I think it's one of our duties as citizens to show the problems, to criticize things, because there's a chance that these criticisms might lead to constructive solutions. Barack Obama himself, in The Audacity of Hope, laid out huge criticisms of the United States Senate which I don't think I saw on the WP Senate article. And the truly great thing that emerges out of all this criticism and bickering and different points-of-view is this: a chance for progress, fixes, solutions. Truth is like a tree that doesn't get blown over in the fierce wind of reality. The other articles about presidents -- President of Bolivia or President of Ireland have very little criticism, few references, and these articles suffer as a result; they're stale. And it's the process of give-and-take which makes America great.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm all for removing the recentism tag now that the changes have been made. Also, Tom, the "ten-year rule" wasn't my idea. That came straight from the Recentism guidelines. :p -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Foofighter20x, since you brought ten-year-rule to may attention (when I read the Recentism stuff I must have missed it) it got to me, and made me think, and I appreciate your doing this, so in my mind, it's Foofighter20x's ten-year-rule, although others may have thought it up first. Thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
LBJ and his withdrawal from the 1968 Democratic primaries
I think there may be some miscommunication about this entry. There are several reasons given why Johnson withdrew from the 1968 Democratic primaries. His health. His desire to concentrate on Vietnam without partisan politics interfering. Poor poll numbers in Wisconsin. All valid citations. But the fact is that Johnson did not run for re-election in the 1968 Presidential election. He withdrew from the Democratic primaries after winning the only race he was involved in. So attributing ones own reasons into the section as a fact should be avoided. DD2K (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
POV tag on compensation section
This section emphasizes the presidents numerous vehicles and shiny limousines and it makes him look like a rock star. There is no information about costs of these fancy amenities; how expensive all this stuff is to maintain? How much does it cost to keep the limousines, Air Force One, Marine One running smoothly? How do these "amenities" get seen around the world? This whole section looks like a star-studded fan raving about a celebrity.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There probably is a number you could come up with that the US taxpayer pays yearly to maintain all the various and sundry amenities that are kept for the use of the President (even though I am sure such information is HIGHLY classified), however, how much of that number is inflated by the fact that it is being used by the President. For instance, a rock star could spend a few million to buy and maintain an airplane, but that plane would not need the security, maintenance, communications equipment, etc that are required because the plane is for the President. So if you added it all up and decided that the President has a compensation package of, say, $500million, that number would be very different than if you or I got paid that amount in a year.
More questions: why does the president need to be paid $400,000 per year when he is given all of these free amenities -- free travel, free accommodation, free food? When average Americans make only about $45,000, why does the president need such a high salary? There is no sense of the history of these perks. Who decided them and on what basis? Why does the president need so many different houses -- Camp David, Blair House etc in addition to the White House? Isn't the White House enough? It's a veritable mansion. Plus the section on the code-names of the president borders on trivia; I admit it's a semi-interesting factoid, but in light of how much stuff this article leaves out, it's borderline junk in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The President's pay is based on the indexed salaries of all the other federal employees. Due to management practice, it is thought that one's boss should be paid at least $1 more than his subordinates. Therefore, when the government's executive salary tables are increased to keep up with the times, the President's salary is raised too. As is Constitutional (Article 1, Sec 9: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law"), all these numbers (for the salaries, houses, etc) are set by Congress.
Also, each of the properties serves a different purpose. It's not like they are these great houses sitting unused and empty while the taxpayers pay for it.--Bkporter12 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed tags; while this article is far from perfect, I think overall the pluses, neutral, and minus stuff balances out, but the article could possibly use more references? When I get time I'll try to improve sections by adding references. But right now I'm working on articles about US citizenship and still need to track down stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Grammar
On the top left hand part of the page right above the Seal of the President, it says "President the United States of America." Could someone please add the "of" to it. It should be "President of the United States of America." Just noticed that.
Done Thanks for bringing this to light.--JayJasper (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone has now made it "President of of the United States of America." Could someone please change that. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there's no list of presidents by the order in which they held the office. I might have missed it somewhere in the long list of lists about US presidents, though. There are lists by whether they're right- or left-handed, how long they were in office, and so on and on and on, but no just plain list of who was president when. I could have posted this at the category page for those lists, but people looking for it will come here. It should be findable from here. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a related article?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey good find Foofighter20x!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of the presidency
I have a few suggestions:
1) Expansion of the federal government. To my mind the table given here doesn't include the infomation necessary to judge whether or not the fedral govn expanded under each president or not. The relevant figure would be the size of government as a proportion of the size of the total economy, or something similar.
I'll check into this. My initial sense is you have a point. If the federal government is growing, but so is the overall nation, and the proportion of federal govt size/spending remains the same relative to the size of the economy, that is, if everything is in balance, then it's not a criticism. Will check. My review of the source suggests your point is right. The BIGGEST growth of the federal govt came with FDR (according to my Teaching Company stuff) but expanded further still; still, I think a more accurate look at the numbers is warranted. I remember reading that through most of the nineteenth century, the federal govt was limited to perhaps four or five main agencies; it didn't have this alphabet soup of agencies (NEA, FDIC, NSA, etc etc) which now numbers in the hundreds of agencies. Still, my sense is there's a huge amount of waste and paper-shuffling in Washington, but numbers are needed. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Update. You're right, I'm wrong. Surprisingly, the federal government in terms of employees has shrunk somewhat, from 5 million to 4 million workers roughly. So the criticism that "presidents have expanded the federal government" isn't valid; I removed this section. (Although FDR's New Deal, expanding the govt to such a huge extent, is arguably still one of the big expansions of govt -- but this criticism can't be leveled at all presidents.) But there was more information about deficit spending getting out of control, and I took statistics from an excellent government source and added a new wikitable, which shows spending as a % of GDP, like it was suggested. Thanks for pushing me to check into this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2) Deficit spending The numbers here don't really make any sense - they need to be put in comparison to the totals (i.e a percentage of GDP or something like that). Here the 10 years rule would easily and sensibly apply - these numbers won't mean much in 10 years, as the relative worth of money will have changed.
Perhaps more research is needed, but I think the premise is entirely correct. Budgets have gotten way out of control, and it's not limited to one political party. There's a story in USA Today (2007) which said that each American family will be obligated to spend over $550K in the next few decades to pay for a huge range of federal and state programs (Social Security, aid packages, military spending, etc etc etc). If you're an American (I am) that means we will OWE this money. Who's in charge of government? Presidents (mostly; it's become the dominant branch of govt, with some check by judiciary); presidents deserve criticism for this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Found more information. Got deficit spending as % of GDP from govt statistics. Extrapolated from pdf file, with references. Basically, the pattern is this: after 1980, the historical pattern of mild surpluses, with deficits during recessions or wars, was broken by Reagan, who spent $ despite no recession or war (or does the Cold War count as a "war"?). But clearly spending has gotten out of control. Big issue we'll all have to deal with in next 20-30 years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3) Election advantages of incumbent presidents Whilst some of the criticisms here are valid, other are absurd and should be removed. For example, criticising "experience of the office" as an advantage is a bit like saying students who study have an advantage in exams.
DMB (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs more references. But the statistics bear out the trend: that once in office, most presidents seeking re-election are, in fact, re-elected; it isn't a 50% chance, but more like 70% or 80%. Looking at election results since Roosevelt, this pattern is borne out. Although, I'm not sure whether we can criticize presidents, specifically, since they're playing by the rules that others have made; but clearly incumbent presidents benefit from this tilt in the playing field. The more egregious part of the incumbency advantage is more sinister, something Tocqueville warned about: that presidents, in office, can use the vast machinery of government to get themselves re-elected; they can have prominent financial supporters "sleep over" at the White House to encourage further donations. The ultimate was Nixon: he used devious means (breaking the law–and then tried to cover it up) to further his re-election in 1972, and it worked: he was re-elected by a landslide; too bad for Nixon that the Watergate burglars got caught. But generally, as citizens voting for presidents, when an incumbent president competes against a challenger-candidate, it's NOT a fair contest. It's a rigged playing field, since the incumbent has huge advantages. And ultimately it's citizens who get screwed (namely: us) when this happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I accept the fact that more incumbents get re-elected more than challengers. I even accept that it is possible that being president gives some unfair advantages, as you state, and so this is a valid criticism of the institution. But please remove the phrase "aura and experience of the office" from the critisms - how can someone (anyone) be criticised for having too much experience of a job that they are applying to do? DMB (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was quoting the source. I have no particular attachment to those words. I was looking at it from the point of view of the public: if an election is supposed to be a fair contest, then shouldn't there be an equal playing field? And, to some extent, this is not only a problem with presidents, but a criticism of the structure of government. Being the president is somewhat like the "home team" advantage. Elections when both candidates are challengers are fair; when there's an incumbent president, it's like playing at the home team's stadium. It's why the Super Bowl (hopefully) is played in a neutral city.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2) Abuse of powers I notice that this section cites "a president" who used torture and other extraordinary powers-- we know who that president was, so why doesn't it list his name? The other examples in this section specifically mention a president, but the most recent case fails to mention that the president who used extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial surveillance, and torture was George W. Bush. Why not mention him by name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipnut15 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Good question. I suppose it's possible to list Bush by name. My overall concern with this whole section is that we try to keep partisanship out of it. The idea was to criticize the presidency-as-an-institution, not particular presidents; but obviously this runs into problems since it's almost impossible to separate particular persons from the office. If we chronicle the misdeeds of particular presidents, or make it seem like we're singling out particular presidents or particular political parties, then it might appear as if we're not maintaining WP:NPOV. The issue with Bush is that his presidency was so recent, and the misdeeds recent, that by mentioning only the misdeed, and not the misdeed-doer, that it would tone it down a bit. But, I can see good arguments like you make for naming him. So, I'm wondering what others think about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Update. If somebody wants to mention Bush by name, well, I think there's a valid case for it. I'm kind of neutral on this one, but please make a change if you feel strongly about this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree about mentioning Bush by name. I put his name in. I think there are enough criticisms with other presidents, of both political parties, that I won't be criticized as being partisan here. So I think, in terms of partisanship, that we're fairly being wp:npov. Found more info about abuse of power from Tocqueville, plus put quote in. Tocqueville thought the idea of the presidency was good, but that the Framers goofed by making presidents run for re-election.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Positive things presidents have done
I'm considering adding a section about positive things presidents have done. Right now I'm working on other stuff. But if people have general ideas about what to add, put them here and when I get a chance I'll research them more intensely and propose an added section. If the article gets too long, then maybe it's best to spin off a "Praise and criticism of US presidents" article to keep things manageable. But my thinking right now is: George Washington --> established principle of peaceful relinquishing of power by stepping down as general; the Adams-to-Jefferson transition also did this; Lincoln --> kept Union together & freed the slaves; T.Roosevelt established Natl Parks & began environmental movement; Roosevelt dealt with Depression; presidents ably managed major wars (WW1 and WW2); Cold War --> good outcome; Kennedy handling of Cuban missile crisis; Reagan's choices helping to end Cold War; Clinton getting budget back under control. What else?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Surprising
I was surprised to read that "Forty-three individuals have been elected or succeeded to the office, serving a total of fifty-six four-year terms". "fifty-six four-year terms". Have all these guys served their full four year terms without dying or being sacked or whatever? If so how stastically remarkable, given their ages. Did the rebel upstarts enter into some sort of Faustus pact or something? --BozMotalk 12:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What? Is your comment that the language is imprecise? Or what comment are you trying to make? If you feel there's a problem with the wording, please explain and propose an alternative.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a simple question, is the article correct in implying that none of the 56 presidential terms lasted for less than four years? If any were less than four years we should say "Forty-three individuals have been elected or succeeded to the office, for a total of fifty-six four-year terms", since those are then the terms they were elected for, for four years, rather than actually served for four years. --BozMotalk 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the article's current wording implied that "none of the 56 presidential terms lasted for less than four years" as you suggest. But I think there is some confusion, since several different ideas are trying to be said in one sentence. First, there were 43 presidents. Second, there were 56 four-year terms (although the math somewhat perplexes me: if Washington's first term began April 1789, then 56x4 years brings the year to 2013. So there have been 55 four-year terms; we're on term # 56. But obviously, some of the terms had two different presidents in them, such as Kennedy's, when he was shot, and LBJ took over mid-term. If you find the current wording confusing, suggest proposing another; I think your wording above is somewhat more accurate than the current one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually you may have given an explanation: when a president dies you say that the term continues but another person serves for the second part of it? If thats so always 4 years is possible. I took a "term" as a period served by a president which is how it is used for Prime Ministers in the UK for example. --BozMotalk 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the terminology, so to speak, of terms but I was trying to guess what was meant. But if you found the current wording confusing, perhaps another is possible?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok deleted a couple of words as above. Thanks. --BozMotalk 15:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a difference in how the elections work in the two countries (US and UK). In the US, there is a set date on which the next presidential election will occur (Nov 4, 2012), while in the UK, an election may be called at any time (subject to the 5 year rules). Therefore, there are exactly 4 years between each presidential inauguration. The time between each of those is one "term." This is opposed to UK Prime Ministers whose "terms" can vary considerably in length and may not coincide at all to an actual electoral victory (Gordon Brown hasn't survived a General Election yet, has he, though there has to be one coming up). If something happens to the President (as has happened to 9 of the men serving: 4 assassinations, 4 deaths by natural causes, 1 resignation), the Vice President serves out the remainder of the 4-year term, until a regularly scheduled election is held.--Bkporter12 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Criticism Bias and The Bully Pulpit
The criticism section seems to be heavily critical of Republican presidents without balancing out with Democrat criticism. The foreign policy and pardon sections in particular are weighted, with no mention of Johnson and Vietnam or Carter's paramilitary interference in South America or the controversy surrounding the Marc Rich pardon by Clinton. Also, there is no mention of the most significant de facto power of the office, the bully pulpit. My old government professor would be very disappointed with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.162.247 (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Done But suggest checking over recent (pun intended) changes to see if you agree they're what you're saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Thanks for bringing this to light.--JayJasper (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)