Talk:President of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former featured article President of the United States is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
President of the United States is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified President of the United States as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian or Vietnamese language Wikipedias.

TALK ARCHIVE: Talk:President of the United States/ARCHIVE 1

Contents

[edit] Harry S Truman

His name is Harry S Truman not Harry S. Truman!!! "S" is his entire middle name. Rex13a 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks rex, you should add new comments to the bottom. Also the "S" thing has been discussed thoroughly on the Truman talk page. I think the discussion reached a consensus to use the period because that's how he signed his name. -Taco325i 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the picture of Harry Truman to point to the color picture that is used on his other pages. The link to that picture is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harry-s-truman-58-766-09.jpg I would do it myself, but I can not figure out how to edit that table. --Cooleymd 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal wealth before mandat

it could be a good thing to find out informations about previous census about usa presidents before mandat... it can took place in the page before the informations about salaries


[edit] List of office-holders

I think it's a travesty there isn't a list of U.S. Presidents on this page. The gallery did a fine job of representing the history of the office and its tenants. Is there any objection to re-creating a copy on this page? Perhaps as a template? Thank you. jengod 19:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just went ahead and did it. Template:POTUSgallery -- have fun. :) jengod 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
why are portraits of Monroe, Grant, Hayes and Truman not included?--Kalsermar 19:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I hate those jerks! Just kiddin'... Find-and-replace error. Fixed now. Let me know if any other fearless leaders are MIA. jengod 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks perfect now.... thanks for fixing!--Kalsermar 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestors of US Presidents (all 43)

For new global study of ancestors of all 43 US Presidents and also showing one global family see Presidential Series as follows:

(descent from all Mid East (Persia, Bablylon, Egypt-including Jesus & Mohammed), all Europe, Rome, China,India, etc); and in mapping ancestors of all US Presidents maps ancestors of all US citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.7.106 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Emulated"?

Today the office is widely emulated all over the world in nations with a presidential system of government.

The article Presidential system lists the countries with a similar system: United States of America, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, & Afghanistan, most states in the Americas. Is this "widely"? Do they all emulate the USA? Do semi-presidential systems count? Isn't it such that many countries emulate the French system? The expression in the article gives the impression that the Americans invented the office of the President, and the rest of the world copies it, even if technically true. --Vuo 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if indeed most of the Americas has emulated the US system as well as Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines etc then I would say yes, it is widespread as most of a continent and some of the most populous countries elsewhere have it and a good percentage of the world's population is governed under a system modelled after the US system. As for your last statement even if technically true, does that not constitute reason to include it, since it is, as you state, true?--Kalsermar 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What we're missing with stating that "most of the world emulates the USA" is that the French system (semipresidential) is the model in several countries. Also, there are countries where a monarchy was replaced by a presidency. In these systems, the president's power is different from the U.S. president. Therefore, it's highly misleading to imply that the U.S.-style powers are widespread. The U.S. president is like a president and prime minister combined, and with the power to appoint the cabinet; this is relatively authoritarian and not that widespread, I think. Claiming this is the model for other countries crosses the line from being technically true to untrue. --Vuo 09:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

  • Article looks like a factbook article which is not encyclopedic.
  • It thus fail Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files & Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information of WP:NOT. Unless this is a list and thus become non-GA material. Lincher 01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIG ERROR

Hey, someone was sleeping when they wrote this article...THEY LEFT OUT EIGHT PRESIDENTS
John Hanson (1781-82)
Elias Boudinot (1782-83)
Thomas Mifflin (1783-84)
Richard Henry Lee (1784-85)
John Hancock (1785-86)
Nathan Gorman (1786-87)
Arthur St. Clair (1787-88)
Cyrus Griffin (1788-89)

Please make sure they get added to the list.

63.17.72.10 03:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

These were not presidents of the United States but presidents of the United States In Congress Assembled, which is something totally different and more akin to the present Speaker of the House. This article deals with the presidents who served under the Constitution, starting with GW in 1789.--Kalsermar 13:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "The President of the United States of America (often abbreviated POTUS) is the head of state of the United States. In the U.S. Constitution, the President is also the chief executive of the federal government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."
    The first paragraph says nothing about presidents elected under the constitution. Whereas there was a time period between 1776 and 1789 in which George Washington (the "first" president) did not serve, I feel that it would certainly be encyclopedic to include these important figures in the article. Perhaps we should add a section for presidents not elected under the constitution. --Thebends 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Those individuals were not Presidents of the United States of America. They were Presidents of the United States In Congress Assembled. Here's the thing -- "the United States In Congress Assembled" was the formal name of the US legislature under the Articles of Confederation. In other words: They were the presiding officers of the legislature, not heads of state. They were the equivalent of the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate. They weren't members of the executive branch, because there was no executive branch. They weren't US Presidents, they were Congressional Presidents. Totally different offices. -- Sci 18:02 12 OCT 2006 UTC

[edit] Trivia

I know it has been discussed before but I'll bring it up again nonetheless. Is the Trivia section really of use to the article? I used to think it wasn't that bad but I de believe it is an eyesore that adds very little of use to the article and primarily serves to distract from the encyclopaedic value of the whole thing.--Kalsermar 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This lists LBJ as the first president born in the 20th century, But since JFK was president before LBJ wouldn't that make Kennedy infact the first president born in the 20th century?

Corrected this error. Also moved trivia to subarticle; there is even a huge Category:United States Presidential trivia so not really a need to keep all this stuff in the main article. Kaisershatner 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Presidential trivia (second nomination) the trivia subarticle has been dispose of, and the content reapplied here. See discussion for details. Jerry 20:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salary

The article makes the claim that some advocate raising the salary to attract more persons to become president. This claim is quite rediculous and requires a reference. One needs be extremely well connected and wealthy to even win the vote. Besdies, is there really a lack on incentive for becoming the most powerful person in the world? With US president on one's resume, all doors are open and as stated being a former US president usually pays as well as going coreperate. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Presidential pay history
Date established Salary Salary in 2005
dollars
September 24, 1789 $25,000 $530,909.09 (1790)
March 3, 1873 $50,000 $811,111.11 (1873)
March 4, 1909 $75,000 $1,607,339.45 (1909)
January 19, 1949 $100,000 $819,649.12 (1949)
January 20, 1969 $200,000 $1,066,666.67 (1969)
January 20, 2001 $400,000 $441,170.92 (2001)

This is the table that appears in the salary section of the article. Can anyone tell me what real dollars (2005) are? I assume that they are inflation adjusted values to give a comparison, but can they really be worked out to the nearest penny, as indicated in the table? Or is there some plus/minus value invovled in working these out? Either way, my point is that quoting these figures to the nearest penny is probably wrong, and certainly makes the table unreadable. Can I suggest that the figures are quoted to just the first few significant figures, in order to give a flavour of how much these guys were being paid. I would suggest replacing the above table with this one DMB 16:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

no reply to my comment in six days, so I will go ahead and do it
Presidential pay history
Date established Salary Salary in 2005
dollars
September 24, 1789 $25,000 $531,000 (1790)
March 3, 1873 $50,000 $811,000 (1873)
March 4, 1909 $75,000 $1,607,000 (1909)
January 19, 1949 $100,000 $820,000 (1949)
January 20, 1969 $200,000 $1,067,000 (1969)
January 20, 2001 $400,000 $441,000 (2001)

[edit] Most powerful man in the world

Slightly POV, no? While it is acceptable to say that he is one of the most powerful men in the world with involvement in the G8, NATO etc, the statement that he is the most powerful man in the world is debatable. For instance, does he have the same power over people as religious figures such as the Pope? It's not like he can order any country what to do, and when he is being pressured to doing things such as this to his country by other nations:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_4_36/ai_n6006940

Is it really true? By the way, I added a "[citation needed]" tag, but somebody removed it. Instead of causing controversy I guess I should discuss it here.

No, not really POV since the POTUS is considered by many to be the most powerful man in the world. Stating that this is the case is NPOV even if the notion is itself disputed by others.--Kalsermar 01:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it also important to note that the POTUS is Commander of the most powerful military in the world, which would make him/her the defacto most powerful person in the world, while the former is true. -Lordsuhn, 8 January 2007

[edit] Facts

Do we still need all the various facts listed on this page, now that we have the super sexy "Lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States" template? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Deaths

  • Assassination attempts have been made on eight other U.S Presidents while in office:
-....
-George W. Bush in 2005 by Vladimir Arutinian
.......
  • Every U.S. President from William Henry Harrison to John F. Kennedy who was elected or re-elected in a year divisible by 20 died in office, many by assassination. Ronald Reagan (elected in 1980) survived an attempt on his life and George W. Bush (elected in 2000) has so far sustained no similar event.

George W. Bush (elected in 2000) has so far sustained no similar event, what does that mean? He hasn't been attempted to assassinate or he hasn't died/wounded from them yet? Or what? Just few lines above it says he has been attempted to assasinate... --62.78.161.144 09:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction between his and Reagan's is Reagan had bodily harm from an attempted killing. all that happened with Bush is a grenade landed near where he was speaking but did not implode, it's a weak link to it, which is hy it says simmilar.. jj 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] weasel words

This article has weasel words. It has "...is widely considered to be..." In the seccond paragraph. Feedyourfeet 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that weasel words? Is it not a true statement of fact, whether one agrees with it or not?--Kalsermar 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:AWW it has "...is widely considered to be..." listed & because that is not a true statement of fact it should be removed. Feedyourfeet 18:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
i changed it to ...the American President is often described as the most powerful person on earth and he is usually one of the world's best-known public figures. As both statements are factual I hope you will consider removing the tag.--Kalsermar 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah thet soundsd good, Done Feedyourfeet 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 4, 1933

The statement that Herbert Hoover's term ended on March 3, 1933 is particularly uncalled for, since he was requested to act as president on the morning of the 4th; he declined to do so, but because he held that no federal action was necessary, not because he held that FDR was already President. For more, see Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4, 1933. Septentrionalis 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Facts

I note that the very first entry in that section states that all of the Presidents have been Christians. Now, I may be mistaken, but I'm reasonably certain that several of them, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were deists. Unless the definitions have somehow changed, deists aren't Christians. - Dotdotdotdash 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"However, should John McCain not be elected President in 2008, the 1930's will most likely be the next decade in which no President was born."

Is that a little awkward, there is nothing to even say John McCain will run or be successful in 2008.

I readjusted the language. I did not remove the citation needed because, I'm not sure if that applied to the John McCain remark or the statement as a whole. Clearly, it is not possible for a decade to suddenly lose the birth of a President. If no President it is possible that no President will have been born in the 1930s, the the decade must not have a President now.--Miked84 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Service

On the page it states that 26 of 42 presidents have served in the U.S. military. However, looking at the List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank only eleven have not served in some capacity in the military. That would be 31 of the 42. I'll make the change for now, if there is some problem with the list feel free to change it back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.1.28 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Several of the presidents with military service were in colonial militias, and not the US military. At least one (Millard Fillmore) served in the military only after being president. siafu 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the number to 29 since the List of United States Presidents by military service has 13 Presidents with "None" next to them. Jefferson and Fillmore were commanders and I don't think that counts. Pixelface 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Facts

One of the points states that no president has ever been an only child, yet I was reading the Gerald Ford page which states that he is the only president ever to hold office as an only child. Which of these 2 facts is correct? Juveboy 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to point that out myself. I assume the latter is correct because it focuses on Ford while this article could easily overlook that. However, there is a citation suggesting the former, so who knows? -- the GREAT Gavini 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Gerald Ford was the only child resulting from the union of his mother and father; both had children from later marriages. Franklin Roosevelt was his mother's only child, but had an older half brother from his father's previous marriage, thus was not an only child. The citations link to the official geneologies of Ford and Roosevelt from their libraries' web sites. 24.168.154.52 03:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRIVIA - FORMER PRESIDENTS

Hoover set the record for living the longest as a former president at 31 years and several months. Since Gerald Ford left office in 1977, doesn't he have to live to mid-2008 to break Hoover's record? I believe the edit that states Ford broke the record September 8, 2006 is incorrect. Juveboy 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination attempts

Not listed under failed assassination attempts are Theodore Roosevelt, shot in an attempted assasination, and George H. W. Bush, subject of a foiled assassination plot in Kuwait.

These happened after the President left office. I'm not sure they count. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM

Vandalism sighted on October 7, 2006 12:06 EST opening paragraph "USA KILL PEOPLE......[vulgarity] reverted to october 6, 2006

Thanks for doing it. Aquafish talk 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism

There is significant sexually-related vandalism to this article which I will attempt to clean up. Perhaps we need to lock it down as vandalism seems to be a recurring problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by shultzc (talk • contribs) .

Okay, I did a reversion. (And sorry for accidentally not being logged-in.) Shultzc 06:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit

I did a major overhaul, adding "history" of the office and restructuring it to move the trivia way down. There's still too much trivia IMO. Kaisershatner 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Exported trivia to subpage and added link to huge Category:United States Presidential trivia.

Kaisershatner 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Vandalism

Some idiot deleted the whole article on 3 November 2006 and replace it with the words "TJ Heimlich is the president" or similar nonsense. I've reinstated the previous version. Martan 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation

Since when does the abbreviation POTUS come into play? Does anyone actually use it? I don't think it's very common . . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk • contribs) .

Source of abbreviation now added as referenced footnote. SDS 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pot1.htm
I see 1.4 million google hits for POTUS, so it's pretty common. It's the standard Secret Service code word for the President; for example, see http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2166642. Related terms are FLOTUS and SCOTUS. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I kind of agree that mention of POTUS in the first sentence does not make sense and breaks the flow. Google giving 1.4million hits for POTUS does not mean it is "often" abbreviated that way (google news only gives about 30 hits, most of which seem to be informally written), and the reference for it is an uncreated article allegedly based on when the acronym was created, not how often it is used. Also POTUS is mentioned in the "Other facts" section. I removed it.spirit 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requirements to Hold Office

There is some dispute over the relationship between the terms "citizen by birth" and "natural-born."

  • This must not be confused with the fact that US law recognizes certain citizens born overseas as being citizens by birth, irrespective of the theoretical argument over whether said citizens by birth are also "natural-born" in the Constitutional sense.
  • the 14th Amendment does not define citizens by birth as citizens born in the US, that is a faulty reading of English. The phrases "all jets are aircraft" and "all aircraft are jets" are not equivalent. Were the Amendment to read "Citizens by birth are persons born in the US," then it would constitute a definition and would exclude foreign-born persons from citizenship at birth. But the Amendment states merely that persons born in the US obtain citizenship by birth, meaning that a consequence of birth on US soil is citizenship, not that this is the only circumstance leading that result. Similarly, the law may state that all single mothers are entitled to receive welfare, but that does not make "single mother" the definition of "welfare recipient," because one can qualify by other means.
  • Current US Statutes, which are unchallenged, explicitely state that persons born overseas can be citizens by birth under certain circumstances. This is a universally accepted concept known to anyone with legal expertise, and reflects the consensus of Constitutional interpretation, which is that the 14th Amendment in no ways limits citizenship by birth to persons born in the US.
  • As has been stated, there are indeed two basic kinds of citizenship, citizenship "by birth" and citizenship "by law" (although technically all citizenship is by law, be it Constitutional law or otherwise). Being born in and of itself is not really a means, otherwise all human beings would be US citizens, but rather the term denotes a class of citizenship, which is the kind obtained at birth as opposed to the kind obtained after birth. Even citizenship by birth is citizenship by law, but we conveniently use the shorthand distinction of "by birth" and "by law" as a form of legal jargon. The kind of citizenship that the law calls "citizenship by birth," is further subdivided by the means one becomes entitled to it. There are two well-known and well-established causes of citizenship by birth: jus soli ("law of soil," i.e., born on US soil) and jus sanguinis ("law of blood," i.e., one's parentage). A person who is born overseas can sometimes obtain citizenship by birth jus sanguinis, under very limited circumstances that don't usually benefit more than the first-generation born overseas, due to certain compelling reasons why said individual is likely to have strong ties and loyalties to the US, such as having both parents born in the US, being the child of a foreign diplomat or military officer, etc. The exact requirements are listed in the relevant sections of US Code.
  • A person who is born a US citizen by virtue of jus sanguinis cannot be a naturalized US citizen, the two kinds of citizenship are mutually exclusive. A person born overseas cannot be both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. Naturalized citizens are only those persons who obtain their US citizenship some time after birth and after having been already born either stateless or with a foreign citizenship. Naturalized citizenship is one of the two kinds of citizenship, and stands in contrast to the other kind, which is citizenship by birth. Citizenship by birth can be obtained in two forms, jus soli and jus sanguinis.
  • While academic disagreement may exist with regard to whether all citizens by birth are also natural-born citizens, or whether only citizens by birth on US soil are natural-born, vs. citizens by birth who are born overseas, the burden rests upon those trying to prove that there exists an actual difference between the concept of citizen by birth and natural-born citizen, and the historical precedent dictates that citizens by birth overseas can and have run for the office of president, and have in all cases, controversy or not, ultimately been deemed to qualify. The simple fact is that foreigners who become US citizens after they are born are defined "naturalized" citizens; therefore, it follows that, if we remain consistent with the terminology, persons who are US citizens at the moment of birth are all "natural-born," irrespective of where they were born.
  • Regardless of what opinion is ultimately reached by users here, the final version should make a clear distinction between the controversy of equating "citizenship by birth" with "natural-born" citizen, and the irrefutable fact that persons may be born overseas and still be citizens by birth, which are NOT naturalized citizens, and any reference to the 14th Amendment to prove otherwise only shows both a lack of understanding of English grammar and a lack of understanding of accepted legal principles and statutes. In the former instance, the article should state only that "according to some legal theories, it is possible that citizens by birth who are born overseas might not be 'natural-born' as required by the Constitution, and are potentially disqualified from seeking the presidency," but this should not be stated as fact, and it goes against the consensus of legal opinion.
--Supersexyspacemonkey 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I do not know where this "consensus of legal opinion" comes from, since the Supreme Court itself has never specifically ruled on the issue. In fact, in the numerous cases it has ruled on dealing with citizenship (both birth on U.S soil and birth to Americans overseas), there has not been a "consensus." The Court has been highly divided on the issue.
    • You miss the key difference between "natural born" and "citizenship by birth": Congress has the authority to define citizenship by birth; it cannot define natural-born. Congress has the power not only to grant citizenship by birth, but the authority to withdraw it in certain cases. Clearly this is therefore a form of naturalization, not birth (no matter what the legal term or title may imply. Afterall, the very law the defines specific birth to Americans overseas as "citizenship by birth" is titled "naturalization law").
    • The whole concept behind the term "natural born citizen" is that the person is just that: natural-born, and does not need laws to extend the citizenship to him or her. Today, we have codes that define who gets citizenship and who loses it, and the Court, for the most part, has upheld these statutes. Therefore, and as I wrote in the main article, although there is disagreement over who is a natural-born citizen, I think it is clear that children born to Americans overseas are NOT natural-born (otherwise how could Congress continue to revise the laws dictating who is and who is not, and by what age must they register and so on). Take the following cases, for example:
    • • Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (The majority opinion in this case was mostly overturned by the 14th Amendment.)
    • • United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
    • • Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)
    • • Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958): Although the 14th Amendment sets forth the two principal modes of acquiring citizenship (birth in the U.S. and naturalization), nothing restricts the power of Congress to withdraw citizenship. (This case was overturned by Afroyim v. Rusk.)
    • • Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)
    • • Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967): The 14th Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States" completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the involuntary cancellation of citizenship.
    • • Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): A person who is born abroad to an American mother shall lose his or her citizenship unless he or she resides in this country for at least five years between the ages of 14 and 28. (This is no longer the case; the statute under which Mr. Bellei lost his citizenship was repealed by Congress in 1978.)
    • • Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980): Congress has the power to define acts of expatriation (i.e., loss of citizenship). However, intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship must be established specifically by a preponderance of evidence; such an intent may not be inferred automatically as a result of a person's having performed an act which Congress has designated as an expatriating act. However, when "one of the statutory expatriating acts is proved, it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until and unless proved otherwise by the actor."
    • • Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
    • • Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).Todd Gallagher 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My question is, why is this section more on the nature of citizenship than on the actual requirements. I understand that the definition of a natural citizen is important to the qualifications, but I think this would be best served by a short summary and a "more info" blurb. --Carl (talk|contribs) 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Under the picture of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, the caption reads the wrong names. Obvious vandalism.

[edit] Kennedy photo?

Shouldn't there be an official white house photo of John kennedy? It's a bit strange that Eisenhower has a color official photo and kennedy doesn't.Borisblue 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Letters

I notice this done many times here. We need to decide on capitalization. Normally, the only time president should be capitalized is when it is used as a title. For instance, "The president only serves a four year term, though he can be elected twice," and "President Bush only serves a four year term, though he can be elected twice." I see this over and over. We need to standardize this. Capital letters always, or only when grammatically correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todd gallagher (talk • contribs) . 14:52, November 25, 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic-American presidents

I cut this section out of the article and reproduced it below; seems relatively trivial considering the overall scope of the article. If freemasonry is to be discussed in this article at all, I think it should be much briefer. Perhaps this would be better addressed in a separate sub-article? schi talk 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic-American presidents

See also: Freemasonry and Historical rankings of United States Presidents

Fifteen U.S. Presidents are definitely known to have been Freemasons: George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford.

James Madison was probably a Freemason, but there is no surviving documentary proof of it. Lyndon Johnson took the Entered Apprentice degree in 1937 but never continued to become a Master Mason. In 1988, Ronald Reagan was made an honorary Scottish Rite Mason jointly by the Northern and Southern Masonic Jurisdictions of the Scottish Rite, but he never received the first three degrees of Masonry and had no privileges of Masonic membership. Bill Clinton joined the Masonic Order of DeMolay as a teenager but never went on to become a Freemason.

Abraham Lincoln applied for membership in a lodge in Springfield, Illinois, shortly after he was nominated for the Presidency in 1860. Lincoln withdrew his application because he was concerned that it would be construed as a political ploy to win votes. Lincoln told the lodge that he intended to resubmit his application again when he returned to private life.[1]

Considering the most important Scholar Rankings (Schlesinger 1948 poll rank, Schlesinger 1962 poll rank, 1982 Murray-Blessing survey of 846 historians, Chicago Tribune 1982 poll rank, Siena 1982 poll rank, Siena 1990 poll rank, Siena 1994 poll rank, Ridings- McIver 1996 poll rank, CSPAN 1999 poll rank, Wall Street Journal 2000 poll rank, Siena 2002 poll rank, Wall Street Journal 2005 poll rank), the average ranking of the Masonic U.S. Presidents is 15.7, which would place them among the best third of their class (top 36 percentile).

[edit] Vandalism

Again, someone typed some personal attack on the article. It is deleted. I suggest we should lock the page to prevent more problems. 71.146.129.148 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the list of presidents, someone has typed in "44th President Barack Obama" (not corrected).

[edit] Ex-Presidents

I'd like to know where I could find information on the rights/privelegs of ex-presidents such as their entitlement to still be reffered to as 'Mr President' and the intelligence that they are given/allowed access to. Algebra man 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Vandalism

Someone deleted the page and made it about Saddam Hussein. I am going to delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.143.58 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC).


Nevermind. No need to delete. Fixed now.


This article needs to be protected from vandalism. I checked the page and found that some one had removed the name "Georege W. Bush" and replaced it with "Adam Darwish" in every place the name appeared in the article. I corrected it, but I think this article needs to be put on protected status or require users to sign-in before they can edit it. Ddb1965 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, it needs some work

There is some good info, but there seems to be nothing on the life (while in office) of a president. There is no mention of the presidential anthem, Hail to the Chief. Jason McHuff 06:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Semi-Protect

Due to the large amount of vandalism of various degrees by new users and unregistered IP addresses, I believe it would save us a lot of trouble to semi-protect this article. --Admiral06 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it gets vandalized fairly often, I don't think the level of vandalism on this page has yet reached the point where that kind of restriction is really required. It's not like we're spending all of our time reverting vandalism. Until it reaches an oppressive level, I would keep this article open for everyone to edit.--Aervanath 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what, after keeping this page on my watch list for a few more days, I see Admiral06's point. I'll post it on WP:RFP. --Aervanath 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full Names of Former Presidents?

In the list of officeholders accompanied by pictures/paintings, I would think that Presidents such as Bill Clinton should have their full first names used (i.e "William" in this case). How do people feel about this? Blaiseball 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaiseball (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

We should do this only when American usage does; James Madison, but Jimmy Carter; never Stephen Grover Cleveland. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I can see points on both sides. I think it's best to go like this: just follow the White HousePast Presidents page. If you follow the link, you'll see that Jimmy Carter is listed as just that, whereas Bill Clinton is actually listed as William J. Clinton. If you Google their respective presidential libraries, you will see that the libraries follow the same convention. Though it may seem inconsistent in terms of listing full names/nicknames, it is consistent with regards to how they actually want to thought of.--Aervanath 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Question moved to the Reference Desk. This isn't really the place for this sort of discussion, and you'll probably get a better answer there. -- Vary | Talk 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential term

I'm not sure about this, but I thought that originally the presidential term ended in March. I'm not sure about the exact day, but the article makes no mention of this. Im.a.lumberjack 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take that long to look up. What does the original U.S. Constitution say?--Aervanath 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you're right, see List of United States presidential inaugurations. But next time, just look it up yourself, ok?--Aervanath 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been pointed out to me (twice) that my responses above seem to be somewhat "churlish". My apologies. In the future, I shall point inquiries of this nature to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. --Aervanath 00:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sure your responses to this user were with good intentions, but this seems like a harsh attitude to take for a legitimate question. If you don't like to look up things for people, simply don't. The question was not posed TO YOU. If somebody doesn't know how to, have the time to, or want to look it up themselves, why can't they just post the question on a talk page? There are plenty of other editors who would be more than happy to answer such a question. Jerry lavoie 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William McKinley

I haven't changed the article, but it should be noted that in Canada William McKinley is thought to be mainly Scots. (The Mac/Mc difference between Scots and Irish that Americans believe to be the case is thought of as an Americocentric, bigoted, anti-Scots, Ireland-at-all-costs urban legend.) --Charlene 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wars

Maybe a list of wars, and the (futue) Presidents who served in them. I know many were in WWII, and none where in Vietnam etc. - Matthew238 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton wasn't impeached.

The article isn't right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I beg to differ. Clinton was impeached ... or is there something regarding his impeachment that is factually incorrect? You need to be more specific regarding your claim. --Mike Beidler 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely he was impeached. Impeachment is the act of charging with a crime, not the outcome of the trial. Although he was acquitted by the Senate, he was indeed impeached. Check the definition, please.

What they said. Although popular usage means "removal from office," impeachment is simply a formal accusation of wrongdoing. The private-citizen equivalent is indictment; a grand jury determines whether there's enough evidence to proceed to trial, but that does not mean that the defendant will be found guilty. -- A. 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten-year limit?

The article states that the maximum number of years a single person can save as President is 10 years (minus 1 day). While for all practical purposes, this is mostly true, I think that it actually would be possible to serve 12 years (minus 2 days), just not consecutively. Here's how it could happen:

  1. President Adar dies or otherwise leaves office just after the end of his second year.
  2. Vice President Bartlet takes over and completes the remaining 2 years of President Adar's term.
  3. President Bartlet runs for re-election and wins, serving a complete 4 year term.
  4. President Bartlet runs for his second term and loses. (Or he opts not to run at this time.)
  5. A member of his own party, Clark runs for President and selects Bartlet as his running mate. (This could either happen in the same year, or maybe 4, 8, 12 years later.)
  6. Clark wins the election, becoming President, and Bartlet becomes Vice President again.
  7. President Clark also dies or leaves office just after the end of his second year.
  8. Vice President Bartlet becomes President again, serving the remaining 2 years of President Clark's term.
  9. President Bartlet runs for re-election and wins, serving a second 4 year term.

Granted, Bartlet would start to look a little suspicious if he managed to succeed not one but two Presidents who died in office, but theoretically, this would still be possible, though highly unlikely. Can any constitutional scholars come up with a reason why this wouldn't work? (And is it obvious from my name-choices that I watch too much TV?) Lurlock 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • By this argument, Bartlet could serve any length of time as long he was elected Vice President and then succeeded to the post, right? He needs never stand for election as President even once. 151.193.220.27 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the problem with extending it beyond the ten years is that it would Constitutionally be possible to serve as President for unlimited terms as long as each term in excess of one was less than 2 years. Only terms that exceed two years are counted as a term, and a person can only serve as vice president if he is eligible for president. So if you want to go through the detail, then fine, but we need to try to keep it simple. Ten years is really the only feasible limit a person is going to have.Todd Gallagher 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraudulency

I was thinking about adding a discussion of Rutherford Hayes and the 1876 election. As you may recall, Hayes was essentially appointed to the Presidency by a special bipartisan Electoral Committee in exchange for agreeing to make some concessions to the repatriated Confederacy (see Compromise of 1877). I was originally going to add it under "Unelected Presidents," but since he was chosen by the Electoral College, he's not really "unelected." Plus, of course, that threatens to open another can of worms. Any thoughts on where / whether to include this? -- A. 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary at all. Under Elections, it mentions that Rutherford B. Hayes didn't win the popular vote, and links to the article about the 1876 election, which in turn links to Compromise of 1877. I think that's sufficient. Dan0 00 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. If somebody wants to know, they can find it. -- A. 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian requirement lines

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), at least 35 years of age, of Caucasian descent, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.

this cannot be correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.254.241.6 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of it is - except for the "Caucausian" bit, which was vandalism, and which has now been fixed. - Eron Talk 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, (i was the anon above), had to create an account but got tied up. ZeroWashu 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adams and Cricket Presidents

Hey. I'm working on a cricket article and looking for a source to quote for John Adams's view that since cricket club leaders could be called presidents, so could the head of the republic. I seem to remember it in McCullough's book, but that was a library book that I don't have handy. Can anyone site a reference for me? Thanks.--Eva bd 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umm what about the presidents before the Presidents? :)

Intresting BBC article about the holders of this title - before George Washington --195.56.14.113 01:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools. See Urban Legends Reference Page for more details. You may also want to explore web sites and news reports arguing that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, that aliens landed in Rosewell in the 1940s, 9/11 was a CIA or Israeli conspiracy, and that Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas are illegally occupied by the USA. History can be fun when you suspend your critical thinking skills. 64.31.89.137 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/e/Talk%7EPresident_of_the_United_States_2c1c.html"