Talk:Prime Minister of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Prime Minister of the United States/Delete for an archived discussion about deleting this page.

�?\�"?¬be interested in knowing who it is that has called the occupants of these offices "America's Prime Minister": I can find little evidence that it "has often been suggested as existing in a de facto capacity". A Google search for "America's Prime Minister" comes up with "Tony Blair" as the top hit! -- Someone else 03:40 May 8, 2003 (UTC)


This article is rather presented without any kind of supporting evidence. It's all assertion. I remember the Gingrich era, and I never have heard him referred to as "Prime Minister." A term which wouldn't make any sense, since he had no executive authority at all. john 03:46 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

On further consideration, I think that having an article about an "office" that has only existed as someone's bon mot can only mislead, and I'm nominating it for deletion. -- Someone else 04:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I think this article can be salvaged. It definitely is a term used once in a while, and it has an interesting history. I think if we can work together on it, the article will be decent in a few days. If not, then deleted it after we try. Kingturtle 04:32 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I still think its potential to mislead far outweighs its potential to inform. But I'll have an edit at it.<G> -- Someone else 05:08 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I'm skeptical as to whether this can be salvaged. At the very least, I think it should be renamed, as the very title implies existence. Titles of this form should be reserved for actual positions. As to what it should be called, I have no idea. -- Minesweeper 05:33 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Rename: How about "prime ministers" of the United States or American "prime minister"? The quotation marks should alert the reader that they're not normal. --Menchi 05:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Quotation marks disappear in titles, so an alternative is double apostrophes: ''prime ministers'' of the United States or American ''prime minister''. It looks the same on non-PRE font. --Menchi 08:02 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

JJ, what was your thought process when you first wrote this article? Kingturtle 05:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I created this page because it provides information that I believe is relevant to understanding some aspects of the American government, especially the executive branch. Perhaps a title changed may be nessisary, but I think the nickname of "Prime Minister" is thrown around enough in the media to make a page dicussing the nature of the imaginary office relevant.

After all, we alreay have dozens of pages on much more nonsensical entries, such as Bush regime and so forth. This page has potentinial, so don't be so quick to dismiss it without at least attempting to understand its intended purpose.

I also must say, I very much resent the very rushed, hap-hazard editing job that totally descredited and, in my opinion, ruined much of what I was trying to do with this page. I am switching the format back to my original edit. user:J.J. 05:45 May 8, 2003

The term "Prime Minister" is rarely bandied about in U.S. politics. I'd venture to guess that it is used occassionally in written editorials and maybe within political circles in Washington. It is probably as rare as "Emporer" of the United States. Kingturtle 05:53 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
For this article to work, you're going to have to quote primary sources. Who ever called Al Haig the Prime Minister of the US? Who currently refers to Dick Cheney as the PM o' US? Kingturtle 05:55 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I just read and listen to more political media than the rest of you, but I frequently heard Cheney refered to as the "Prime Minister." I remember once on CNN Judie Woodruff even asked Cheney's Chief of Staff if America was getting its first "Prime Minister" thanks to Cheney's hands on approach in the Bush cabinet.

I also remember reading about how one of the speakers, I forget who know, it was long ago... maybe 1800's was nicknamed "the Premier" because of his political stature. I'll research this more.

We also already have a page about the Imperial Presidency which argues many of the same points as I am here. I remember hearing Donald Regan called the Prime Minister more than once. I'm not just making up far-out claims despite what a lot of you seem to think. user:J.J. 05:59 May 8, 2003

I wrote a long reply, but it got lost because the system crashed as I was posting it. To summarize what was lost, I support the article, but the claims need to be backed up with references or citations or direct quotes. It is an interesting topic. Kingturtle 07:06 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

On the Speaker as "Prime Minister", the document as is is rather misleading. There is only one country in the world which can have a powerful president opposed to a prime minister of the opposite party. That country is called France. In that country, the Prime Minister gets to appoint a cabinet, and run the government. This does not happen with the Speaker of the House. The article just doesn't make sense in that respect. I'd note, though, that there have been various statesmen who have hoped to be a kind of "Premier" in a president's administration. Seward hoped to be that in the Lincoln administration. I believe Webster liked the idea in the Harrison administration. Perhaps Hamilton under Washington. Or Davis and Cushing under Pierce. Cobb or Black under Buchanan? Blaine under Garfield and Harrison? Adams under Monroe? Clay under Adams? Perhaps adding something about nineteenth century cabinet officers might be useful. john 23:13 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the comparison between the speaker and a parliamentary PM. The comparison doesn't make any sense, because in parliamentary systems the president is a ceremony and generally non-partisan figure.

Roadrunner

The speaker was actually one of the best examples of a figure who has historically been called the defacto "prime minister." Wether or not the informal title is perfectly consistant with examples elsewhere in the world is irrelevant. The title is used to indicate percieved power, not nessisarily actual power. Remember, I did not make up this title. It has been frequently used throughout American history. It's not my fault if the people who used it were not using the term in the proper political science textbook definition. user:J.J. 11:47 PM, May 9

I just was reading through the recent edits, and I think some of you are kind of missing my whole point of this article. When people somewhat toungue-in-cheekly refer to "America's Prime Minister" they are doing so usually as a form of criticism, and not in an attempt at some sort of government classification. This page was not my attempt at trying to shoehorn American political positions into an imaginary office I had created, but rather a list of examples in which informal power had led some pundits to question the existing power balance in the American government.

I have revised the third paragraph to make this more clear. As a result, I do not believe it is relevant to add little sentances to denounce the notions of why the various positions I've listed are not "prime ministers" because they do not match the textbook definition of "prime minister" for reasons X Y Z. user:J.J. 12:03 PM, May 9

The Speaker of the House in no particular way resembles a prime minister. Also, one should note when such individuals have been described as "prime minister". john 08:29 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Most of this page makes little sense - especially with no sources. And why should we think that the Speaker of the House is the top legislative office in the US government? Rmhermen 21:53 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

er, because it is? Or, at least, it's the highest purely legislative office. The President of the Senate is also VP, an executive branch job. I agree that the article is dumb (even though I've foolishly added to it.) john 23:13 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

The article is a thinly disguised personal essay in which personal thoughts on the distribution of power within the U.S. government are thinly disguised as the opinions of unnamed "others". I think that these "others" ought to be named if the article is to be salvaged. And I also think it important to begin with the statement that there is no Prime Minister of the U.S., not "The Prime Minister of the United States is a non-existent position in the United States government. " As long as that's in there I'm less worried about misleading people. The Prime Minister of the United States is a non-existent (anything). It's a non-existent name for a chicken. It's a non-existent childrens' game. It's a non-existent breakfast cereal. A is a non-existent B is a true statement as long as B doesn't equal A. -- Someone else 00:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Can we be sure that it is a nonexistent name for a chicken, though? There may very well be chickens named 'THe Prime Minister of the United States", mightn't there? john 00:34 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Should documentation surface, I would be willing to change the first sentence to "The Prime Minister of the United States is a chicken.".... -- Someone else 00:35 May 10, 2003 (UTC) <G>
Here's an actual use of the term (good old Google). Tocqueville referred to Secretary of State Edward Livingston as the current "Prime Minister of the United States" in a letter. I'm going to change the bit on cabinet secretaries. --john 00:39 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Actual uses are a great improvement over assertions that they have been "often" made! Now if you find an actual chicken by that name... -- Someone else 00:43 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I did find a reference to Gingrich thinking of himself as Prime Minister, but it seemed to be a hostile source. Certainly the implication of it was "That crazy Gingrich really thought he was like a prime minister (but he wasn't)." I'm not sure that really counts. There was also a LaRouchite publication which said that Gore was trying to sell himself as PM back when he was VP. I don't know if that qualifies either. The only legitimate references I can find are people incorrectly calling American Presidents Prime Minister, the already mentioned in the article Charles Thomson, and this new one (by Tocqueville's travelling companion Beaumont, not Tocqueville himself). john 00:46 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
But see john, as I mentioned above, hostile sources are fine. The term is NOT used as a political classification. How many times must I repeat this? It is an expression that is used for the purposes of editorial comments, satire, or some other form of (usually critical) analysis.
I also disagree with just about everything Someone else says. He seems to be ignoring my points, and assumes everyone who reads wikipedia is unable to understand simple english. I like the phrase "The Prime Minister of the United States is a non-existant position in the United States Government" because that accurately describes the term. No one expects the PM of the USA to be a chicken or breakfast cereal; if anything they expect it to be a position in the US government, which it clearly is not. To say there is "No Prime Minister of the United States" is a far too crudely worded statement, that pretty much sends the message "I hate this article and everything contained in it is stupid nonsense."
No, it sends the message that There is no Prime Minister of the United States. Nothing is harmed and much is gained by stating so plainly. -- Someone else 08:08 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
It wouldn't hurt to be a bit more diplomatic about things. Besides, the phrase "there is no Prime Minister of the United States" isn't even nessisarily true.
It most certainly is.
There could easily BE a chicken named the Prime Minister of the United States, or a cereal or whatever.
If a chicken is named the Prime Minister of the United States it doesn't make him the Prime Minister of the United states.
What doesn't exist, however, is the position of prime minister in the US government. Since that is what this article deals with, I feel it is important to frame it as such in the page's opening definiton.
Your point, and I understand it, is that someone who wanted to mock or criticise a US government official might conceivably do so by giving him the "nickname" of Prime Minister. Yet you have pointed out no one who has actually been given this nickname. --Someone else
I understand the desire for more sources, and I am getting some. However, I am quite frankly a little shocked at the level of denial over the existance of what I believe is a historically fairly common expression. user:J.J. 12:46 PM May 10, 2003
I am frankly a little shocked that you are willing to make allegations that it has "often" been used and yet cannot name a single instance in which it has been. Such examples as we have found seem to have been mistakes by people unfamiliar with the U.S. system. -- Someone else 08:08 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

A fifth grader's report on John Quincy Adams indicates that he was appointed Prime Minister of Portugal, but did not ever serve in that position. http://www.media.granite.k12.ut.us/Curriculum/mt_rush/jq_adams.htm Is this good enough? john 00:49 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You think he'd release the illustrations under GDFL? (I actually find them sort of charming.) I 'specially like the information that JQA weighed "about 56 pounds" more when soaking wet... -- Someone else 00:54 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Do or did some of the states use the title of Prime Minister? Maybe Hawaii, Louisiana or California or Emperor Norton. -- Error

With all due respect, Someone Else, you sure seem determined to act like this term was just some sort of nonsensical gibberish I made up for no reason. Why are you not willing to give me a little bit of credit? I have heard it used numerous times over the years, and juding from their comments, so have some of these other people. Obviously typing "Prime Minister" and "United States" into Google isn't going to be much help, but you shouldn't be so quick to assume that something you happen to not be familiar with is completely non-existant. user:J.J. 05:02 PM May 12 , 2003 (UTC)

I'd be very happy for you to find instances in which it's been used and add them to the article. -- Someone else 05:06 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
I am on the side of the number of people who think this page ought to be deleted. Has someone put it on the votes for deletion page yet? Aside from the reasons other have given, my alarm bells go off when I see phrases like "might be" or "could be." An encyclopedia ought to report what has been said or done. Phrases like this suggest to me that we have here a personal essay and not an encyclopedia article. It doesn't belong here.
that said, I can appreciate the author's concern that some people (presumably in countries that have prime ministers) may not fully understand the office of the presidency in the US. Maybe there is a value to explaining in what ways the US executive is not like a prime minister, and in what ways the heads of the legislature (e.g. the Speaker of the House) is not a prime minister. BUT I think such explanations ought to go on the appropriate pages; specifically pages on the various branches of the US government. There might even be a place for an article comparing conetmporary republics (e.g., United Kingdom, France, and the US) -- such an article might be very illuminating.
But please, base such contributions on a study of what political scientists have said, and place it in the right places -- not in an article that begins, "there is no such thing as what this article is about!" Slrubenstein
Seems to me that the article as is is not all that speculative. Most of the examples are at least moderately sourced, and the claims made are not very sweeping. john 05:28 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps I was misled by the numerous articles already on Wikipedia that document the use of phrases and expressions. I guess I just assumed that this page would be useful in explaning the nature of a term that has always kind of interested me. Honestly, I never in a million years expected it to be this controversial. I have no regrets about starting the page, thanks to some contributing edits, it has actually taught me several interesting facts. Anyway, I'm sticking with this page. It is very difficult to find internet sources on this topic simply because of the way the words in question cannot be successfully typed into any search engine without creating hundreds of unrelated matches in the process. Mostly where I have heard it is on TV, anyway, and it's impossible to cite that.

Anyway, I am going to revise Someone Else's bit about how the term "might be used." If you ask me, that is a far more unsubstantiated statement, as it seems to indicate the term has never been used, despite evidence within the article itself that proves the contrary. User:J.J. 05:45 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Such a change is likely to make it less accurate article. I would suggest that you not suggest that a term has been used if you cannot document its use. "Might" is subjunctive: it does not mean "hasn't", and nothing in the article at present says it has never been used. -- Someone else 05:56 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

You write: Historically, the nickname of "Prime Minister" has sometimes been applied to American political officials. In the absence of a historical instance, I will change this to The nickname of "Prime Minister" could be applied to American political officials . When you find a historical instance of it having been applied as a nickname, I would gladly have you change it back.

You write: the nickname of "Prime Minister" is sometimes used by pundits [etc].. Since we cannot cite any such uses, I will change this to the nickname of "Prime Minister" might be used by pundits [etc]. When you succeed in finding instances of some pundits of note using the term, I would gladly have you change it back.

You write Some offices whose occupants have occasionally been suggested as being "America's Prime Minister" include:. I will change this to Some offices whose occupants might be suggested as being "America's Prime Minister" include:. I would gladly have you change it back when you can name the "occasions" that these offices' occupants have been called "America's Prime Minister". If you avoid unsupported claims, the article is better, not worse. -- Someone else 06:23 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Someone else is quite correct that in this instance ""might be" is more accurate than "is sometimes." But accuracy, although a very important issue in an encyclopedia, is not the only issue. I am concerned with how appropriate these speculations are, and frankly I do not see that they are appropriate at all. The force of Someone else's comment is to insist on documentation. I believe that it there is none, the statements should not be placed in the article. Or, to put it another way, do not write an article until you have done research. Jlk7e points out that some elements of the article are researched, and I agree -- I just believe they belong in other articles (e.g. the articles on the President, Chief of Staff, etc). Slrubenstein
On balance I like this article. I know from memory about the belief in the late nineteenth century that the speaker would evolve into a kind of prime minister. I had a very old textbook in my student days that I had bought in a second hand shop (I remember the book dated from 1931) that mentioned the speculation. Unfortunately some years ago during a house move a box of old books of mine (mostly to do with American history) got lost and so I no longer have the source. Given that I have a hell of a lot of books, I can't even remember its name. (I am always planning to do an index of my looks, then look at the sheer number of them and think "I'll do it some other time!" I've been trying to rack my brains to remember, even going through old college notes, but right now I cannot for the life of me remember which book in the box it was that had the reference. Howard Baker wrote a book in the 1980s that criticised the imperial presidency and called for reform of the entire presidential office. Unfortunately it too was in that damned box and being out of print I have been unable to replace it. I may have used the book (though not the specific reference in it) in an academic article in the late 1980s/early 1990s. I am going to have to check. I do remember the British and Irish media using the term 'Imperial presidency' (which had particularly been used for the Nixon presidency circa Watergate) and talked about Donald Regan as Reagan's de facto prime minister particularly when talking about Reagan's hands off approach and the behaviour of Oliver North, with the President's staff being described as 'courtiers' (and Reagan, to borrow Louis XIV's 'sun king' nickname being called the 'film king'. I'm sorry I cannot give any more practical help at the moment. Maybe some old notes may turn up at some stage. ÉÍREman 23:46 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:

President Jefferson in paticular was quite concerned with the Speaker of the House's consolodation of power, especially considering how that power was being frequently used to undermine his own iniatives. To counter the speaker's influences, Jefferson confided in Senator William B. Giles of Virginia. Giles' prestigious dual posts as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic-Republican floor leader gave the Senator a level of unprecedented control over the Upper House that soon earned him the nickname of "Prime Minister" or "Premier" among many of his colleagues.

According to the Senate website there was no Ways and Means Committee while Jefferson was president. Not sure that there ever was one. Also why is a section about a senator in the article between two paragraphs about Speaker of the House. Rmhermen 17:29 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Giles was a representative to the House during Jefferson's first term (when John Randolph was chair of Ways and Means), and to the Senate during the second term -- the chronology would need to be cleared up. As far as I can tell, he was never Speaker of the House, and although he was on the Ways and Means committee he was never chair; nor was he ever a member of the Senate equivalent committee, Finance. I am afraid this makes me question the scholarship of the article even more... Slrubenstein

Okay, fine, I give up. If you all think I'm a kook or a liar, I'll just move all the relevant info to other pages. user:J.J.

I don't understand why it's so hard to find references for this article. I plugged "prime minister of the united states" into Google and found two legit hits in three minutes - one of them a column referring to Gingrich becoming unpopular because he was imagining himself as Prime Minister, and the other a title of a scholarly article that presumably discusses the exact same subject as this article. Google's span of pages is now so immense that searching for multi-word phrases tends to turn up more useful stuff than a set of random words. Stan 04:38 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I found them too! I will add them. I see what you mean about the phrase search. That's helpful. user:J.J.

"The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives - The Speaker of the House is ceremonially the highest ranking legislative official in the United States government. "

Is the President of the Senate not ranked at the same level, if not higher (as with protocol and presidential line of succession)? --Jiang

Yes, but the Vice President is the President of the Senate, and the Vice President is an executive official. The President pro tempore of the Senate is ranked lower than the Speaker. -- Jake 08:53, 2003 Nov 3 (UTC)

The VP is only executive in practice. He is given no executive consitutional power, unless as Acting President. His only official role is being the President of the Senate, which was basically what VPs did until the 20th century. How is he not "ceremonially the highest ranking legislative official" --Jiang

The VP is and has always been an executive official. He doesn't vote except in ties and does not introduce legislation or speak on the floor. If you meant the president pro temp, he is ranked lower in protocol than the Speaker and is currently lower in the presidential succession. Although he used to be higher. Rmhermen 14:22, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Always? Up until the late 19th Century, the VP regularly presided over Senate proceedings. Before the 12th Amendement was passed, the VP and president could be from different parties (and this was the case between Adams and Jefferson). As far as I know, Jefferson wasn't given much to do in Adams's administration. Even later on, the VP was considered basically a politically dormant role. (John Tyler was put in to draw votes, and his accession to the presidency proved to be a bummer for Clay/Webster who intended to use Harrison as their puppet administrator. Andrew Johnson wasn't a member of the Republican party...)

The Consitution does not require that the Speaker of the House be also a member of the house. It is only tradition to elect a member to be speaker. If a non-member were elected, he would also not have the right to cast votes and participate in legislative proceedings.

The head of the Senate is the VP, not the President pro temp. I'm not talking about the President Pro temp! "Ceremonally" the VP and Speaker are equal, if the VP is not higher. --Jiang 21:51, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ceremonially the VP does rank higher than the Speaker but he is not a legislative officer, he is executive, even if he doesn't have official duties. The Speaker is the highest ranking legislative member even if he isn't a member of Congress.

How can he be President of the Senate (w/ the power to break ties, issue procedural rulings from the speaker's chair, etc.) and not be a legislative official? --Jiang

Did the journalist call JFK "Prime Minister" because he thought that was the title for the office or because he thought JFK was behaving more like a PM than a President (whatever that means)? I'm on the keep side for the article as a whole, for what that's worth, I just don't know whether or not that particular incident is a good example (i.e., whether it demonstrates here what it is intended to demonstrate). --Calieber 21:21, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Removed: Though most European states now operate under later parliamentary systems in which a prime minister assumed the role of leading the government, or in the case of the United Kingdom, the prime minister has evolved into a dominant office.

The United States still embodies the 18th century model of a head of state who is also the chief player in governance.

The first sentence is irrelevant. We should assume that the reader knows European systems are mostly parliamentary. If the reader does not know this, then the reader should not be familiar with the system in general and should be expected to click on the link. I added "common elsewhere" to reflect this info in the first paragraph.

The second sentence implies that the parliamentary system is more modern than the presidential system. It incorrectly implies that new governments being formed are all parliamentary, which is far from the case, especially when one looks beyong Europe. The 18th century models also gave most chiefs of states dictorial powers. The American system was not meant to emulate this. --Jiang 21:40, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we also include the Senate Majority Leader? This is especially the case when the same party controls the White House and House but the other controls the Senate. All that has been said applies to the Senate Majority Leader. --Jiang

The President would in turn evolve into a form of nominal chief executive head of state, in whom legal executive authority would continue to be nominally vested but whose role as policy-maker and head of government would in effect move to the Speaker.

How so? Johnson was only sidelined because the Republicans held more than 2/3 majority in congress, making his vetoes useless. He did not simply stop using his veto and rubberstamp everything, as would be expected for a parliamentary head of state. His vetoes were just overridden. --Jiang

Still lacking: an actual instance of the use of the phrase "Prime Minister of the United States". Perhaps this article would be more comfortably accomodated at Prime Minister (United States)... -- Someone else 03:28, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Hmm? Gustave de Beaumont used those words to refer to Secretary of State Edward Livingston ca. 1830, at least according to what I wrote all those many months ago. john 03:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Oops, I take it back then. We do have exactly one instance.<G> -- Someone else 03:16, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Also: a 1999 article in the Larouchite "Executive Intelligence Review" calls Gore that (or suggests that Gore thought of himself as such:
Promoting himself as the "Prime Minister" of the United States, Gore delivered an insane address on one-world globalism to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. As this package proves, it is Gore who should be impeached. (http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/1999/eirtoc_2607.html)
An article regarding Gingrich:
his fame has allowed Mr. Gingrich to develop the attitude that he is, in fact, the Prime Minister of the United States, with more influence over the affairs of government than the President himself. (http://kendrick.colgate.edu/maroon/ArchivesS95/Text2.3.95/wolyniak.html)
This joke blog article:
Roosevelt Seizes Power in Coup: Promises to End Raging Inflation
By a New York Times Staff Reporter
Washington D.C., March 4, 1933 -- Republican Franklin D. Roosevelt, the former governor of California, became the third Prime Minister of the United States today.
Striding vigorously from his horse-drawn carriage, Roosevelt took the oath of office from Chief Justice Herbert Hoover, then delivered his inaugural address amid the desert sands of the nation's smallest state.
"We have everything to fear and we fear ourselves," the Prime Minister said. He promised quick action to reduce soaring oil prices, which have wreaked havoc with the nation's . . .
There's a reference in an article about Russell to the Prime Minister of the Unitd States not existing, but us still thinking he's probably a man (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wmn2OXuIq3AJ:www-csli.stanford.edu/

~john/PHILPAPERS/russ.pdf+%22Prime+Minister+of+the+United+States%22&hl=en&ie =UTF-8)

Most of the other google references are either to wikipedia stuff about this article, or to things of the "the president assured the French Prime Minister of the United States' continuing hatred and disgust for the French," or what not. john 10:07, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, arguably someone thought this was a safer example than the "Present King of France" (article now redirected to definite description)<G>... -- Someone else 10:28, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] well. what do you know...

I wouldn't believe it myself...in fact, I have been a big opponent of this article...but here I am, reading Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct, by C. Vann Woodward, and on page six Woodward discusses how Alexander Hamilton was pejoratively referred to by his detractors as Prime Minister. I'll add what I've learned to this article. Kingturtle 06:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Ironically, in Commonwealth countries the word "president" is sometimes used for the same effect. Peter Grey 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Office may arise someday out of Convention

The title and office of Prime Minister may be created out of presidential Proclamation or informal usage like the British Cabinet. Like did you Americans know most of Britain's government positions were created out of non-codified conventional means? Even today almost every office of central government is not asserted out of any written constitution or Act of Parliament.

[edit] Why no such office

This article might make some effort to explain, briefly, why no such office exists. -Acjelen 03:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrime_Minister_of_the_United_States_d231.html"