Talk:David Rice Atchison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


It seems to me that the issue in dispute is really a question of constitutional law. I think arguments for either position (i.e., that Atchison was or was not de jure President) should be based on clear legal reasoning.

Perhaps we could introduce some links to authority supporting the various points, such as to Article II of the Constitution, the 25th Amendment and 3 U.S.C §19?

I'm not a U.S. constitutional lawyer. I won't make any alteration to the Atchison article, but here's my two cents' worth: the combined effect of clauses 2, 6 and 8 of Article II is that Zachary Taylor became President immediately James Polk's term ended. In my opinion, the Inauguration and oath of office do not operate to render a person President or to confer any of the President's powers upon him. Furthermore, clause 6 of Article II does not prescribe a transfer of the Presidencybut only deals with the exercise of the President's powers by another person "(i)n Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office." There is no suggestion that James Polk was removed/impeached, died, resigned or became disabled. I would contend that Taylor became President, having a been elected to that office, at the moment when James Polk ceased to hold it.

All that being said, I would ask that somebody more expert in this topic than I check this matter out and add some specific references to the article. Wulfilia 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The project Unusual articles has been has been linking this article as an example of "unusual articles" on Wikipedia. I have just deleted the reference and link to to this article on Wikipedia:Unusual articles, because I believe that, in its current form (in which there is no complex discussion of or consensus on the "unusual aspect"), its presence there tends to make Wikipedia seem eccentric or unreliable. I hope I have not offended anybody by doing this - do please contact me if you have a problem with it. Wulfilia 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a cute story but according to the Constitution one does not become President until taking the Oath of Office.

The President is an office, not merely a rank. Being the highest ranking official in the government is not enough to make you President.

Agreed. I think it would be more accurate to say that there was no sitting President during that time, but that if some emergency had required the presence of one, he could have been sworn in to the job for that purpose. --LDC


This is true.

This isn't true. If an emergency required the presence of one, then Taylor would have been sworn in, because he was the President-elect. That's why this whole urban legend is bogus. —Cleared as filed. 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a qualm with the debunking section - doesn't the word 'absurd' kind of imply an non-neutral standpoint on the article?

Shouldn't it be something like 'incorrect'? --ac

How could Polk's secretary of state be next in line? Polk couldn't appoint his cabinet yet because, he wasn't president yet.!!!!! Rt66lt 20:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have my president's mixed up. It still wouldn't matter, Buchanan's term would have ended as well. Rt66lt 22:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Facts behind the myth" should be changed to a different title. It sounds like it's going to say 'these are the things to support it' then later another heading of things which would debunk it. This is just one man's opinion. Gohst 11:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Presidential term begins on time. Oath or not. The oath is not required to become President of the US. It is required to "enter upon the execution of the office" There were in total six Presidents who took the oath one or two days after their term began. Monroe 1821, Tyler 1841, Taylor 1849, Fillmore 1850, Arthur 1881, Coolidge 1923. (Info from www.rulers.org)--Gerard von Hebel 12:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the whole legend falls apart if you consider one point: even if it were true that one must take the oath of office for one to be President, then David Rice Atchinson could not have been President for one day as he did not take the oath of office either. Mike Beidler 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And, behold, if I had read the article before I commented, I would have seen that my point has already been made. Note to self: read the article before engaging in the discussion. Oy! Mike Beidler 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Oath Is Required

To clarify a mistake in the article, Art. II Sec. 1(8) requires that the President take an oath prior to entering office. The oath is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, Sen. Atchison was not President as he took no oath.

[edit] Beginning of "term" - midnight or noon?

There's been discussion on Talk:Herbert Hoover about just when an old President gave way to the new before the 20th Amendment. It seems that this is something that wasn't explicit, or for that matter even really debated - on the morning of March 4th the outgoing and incoming Presidents were going to be saluted no matter who was in office. If the old term expired at midnight then that would in theory create a huge number of additional "Acting Presidents" - perhaps another reason why this is bogus.

(If I remember correctly the President of Ireland does have something similar to this idea - technically there's an acting Presidency made up of the organs of government between the end of a term and the oath taking, even when the incumbent is re-elected.)

This article is stating confidently that Atchison's "term" began at noon - was there any opinion at all at the time as to when these things happened? Or did they just no care whereas nowadays a big fuss is made if a President is to be sedated for a mere couple of hours? Timrollpickering 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And there's been a series of changes on this, some asserting that it's been "established" that the Presidential term began/expired at midnight. Can I ask exactly where this is? Talk:Herbert Hoover#March 4th 1933 details some of the imprecision on this, showing that neither was it clear nor that anyone seems to have argued about this.
Also if the whole basis for Atchison's claim to have been acting President is that the incoming President hadn't yet taken the oath then umpteen Presidents Pro Temporare and later House Speakers etc.. had mini Acting Presidencies for mornings (and perhaps more substantially any two term President technically had a break inbetween - how silly does this get?). Timrollpickering 11:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, it's silly. Most Presidents, don't take their oaths until Minutes (some a half-hour), after the term begins (Noon EST). For example the 2005 Inauguration, President Bush did not take his oath EXACTLY at NOON EST, does that mean for a few minutes there was no President? No it doesn't. GoodDay 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses within parentheses

Is there some less awkward way of phrasing this? --

"Born in Frogtown (later named Kirklevington [which is now part of Lexington])"

AnonMoos 01:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Born in Frogtown (later Kirklevington, now part of Lexington)" or "Born in Frogtown (later Kirklevington, now incorporated into Lexington)" — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems if you simply want to nuke the reference to Lexington, Kentucky. I have done various google and print.google searches and the nae is basically in incosequential unless somebody can pop up with a refrence. In the for what it's worth department, my intest in the article is via northwest Missouri via (Platte Purchase) from which I'm a native. I wondered in here becuse of the Battle of Liberty article (which I intend to extensively revise) which in turn in involves with my obsession for Missouri in the American Civil War. It's now watchlisted. (along withe various associated pages) If you want to disucss his reputation feel free to discuss with my talk page. If you hit the various pages associated with him, I will probably respond in some form (and actually appreciate the attention). Americasroof 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Death?

There's no mention of how this man died or what from.--Heavy 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom line

Regardless of most stuff in this myth, the bottom line is Atchison could not have been President because his Senate term as President Pro Tempore ended on March 3, 1849 because it does not carry over from session to session, so on March 4th, 1849 he would NOT have been next in line. Another thing if he would have still been in line the wording at the time was that the next person in line would "act" as President not "become" President a wording that was changed in later years. Also it does clear state that one is not President until they take the Oath of office, which he never did.Rogue Gremlin 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of succession isn't as cut-and-dried as the various advocates make out, since (1) Atchison, unlike the outgoing Pres/VP, was re-elected; (2) an acting president doesn't need to be sworn in; and (3) according to one of the external links, he was sworn in several minutes before the new Pres/VP. I didn't know it was Wikipedia's job to decide questions that are not unambiguously resolved in authoritative secondary sources. Just state the germane facts, and get rid of all the stuff declaring he was or wasn't president. JoeFink (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)