Talk:President of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
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
The official Seal of the President of the United States of America.
 This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Presidents, a project to improve the quality of the biographies of U.S. Presidents and related articles to meet the criteria for Featured Article status. You are invited to view our progress.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. We are striving improve all articles of this mediocre class.
Society Portal
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.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
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 archives:

(Please make new archives as needed using the move method, see WP:ARCHIVE)

Contents

[edit] 55 terms for George Washington??

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

[edit] Why can't everyone edit this page?

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

[edit] President, not president

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


[edit] Removal of "under God" from the Oath of Office section

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


[edit] President's Age

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


[edit] New Vandalism

Someone changed Incumbent to Incompetent, again. Which, funny as it is and possibly true, is not in keeping with making an objective encyclopedia page. This article really has to be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.116.95.69 (talk) 02:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

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)

Still more. President is hillery bush and the president is a belly dancer? I'd correct it, but I can't figure out how to get to it.

Janet from Tucson

[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)
      • There's also the problem of the twelth amendment, which says that the veep must be a valid candidate for the presidencyEnlightened Bystander 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, you can serve as President for an infinite amount of time as long as your terms are not consecutive. For example, Bartlet could serve as President for ten years, then be replaced by Fred, then run for reelection four years later, defeat Fred and serve another eight years. 75.67.142.56
    • Not true. According to the wiki article, it's specifically you can't be elected twice, and if you've served two or more years as a replacement, you can't be elected more than once. Enlightened Bystander 18:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean you can't be elected more than twice. The rule has only been in place since the Eisenhower administration, however. --Chr.K. (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Couldn't one argue that one can serve an unlimited number of terms as long as one is elected Vice President first? Emperor001 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
One could make that argument. However, the Presidential candidate pretty much selects the VP candidate. You think any of them would pick a former president as a VP? What interest would a former President have in the VP position? Schoop (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but that makes it merely practically very unlikely, not theoretically impossible. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (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)
It's not an April Fool. See President of the Continental Congress. However since this is covered by another article, and this article links to it, I don't thonk we need a list of presidents before Washington, because apart from the similar name the two offices have nothing in common. One is head of the executive branch, the other was speaker of the legislative branch, and the had different powers and responsibilities, so a list of office-holders does not belong here. Richard75 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Tremendous respect for Snopes, but they really have this one wrong. The President of the United States in Congress Assembled was the head of state even if he had less power in certain areas and more in others than the Presidents under the (second) Constitution. The laws passed by our unicameral government are still in force as are the executive orders of these early Presidents. President St. Clair, for example, signed the Northwest Ordinance, and the US Constitution itself. Even the parts of the Articles of Confederation that are not contradicted by the Constitution are still in force. Lincoln enforced the "perpetual union" clause of the Articles of Confederation and explicitly cited this as the constitutional authority to wage the Civil War. To say a person who was the legal head of state and held the office of President was not "President" is absurd. To mock more rigorously scholarly people by compairing them to conspiracy theorists is insulting. 12.10.223.247 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential statistics?

I was surprised to see this here while browsing this morning... this section makes up about a third of the length of the article, but is mainly a collection of long lists. Half the facts aren't really notable; anything that is important can be converted into prose or put into a more appropriate article. Even better, just delete most/all of the section. Is there any reason all those lists need to be there? Comrade Tux 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything, they should be put into a separate article. Far too much info; you're right. Jmlk17 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additions

This article talks about the President, but I don't see anything here about his roles as Chief Diplomat, Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Commander in Chief, Head of State or about his White House Office. This seems to me like a serious oversight. 75.67.142.56


Do you mean that they aren't covered enough or that they aren't there at all? Because all of those except White House Office are given and linked to in the lead, the ones that apply to the president anyway. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Some roles are mentioned, such as Head of State and Commander and Chief. However, the article doesn't elaborate at all on the duties he performs in these capacities. Other roles are missing entirely, such as the influence he wields in determining Congress's agenda.
Most of the President's powers and responsibilities that are enumerated in the constitution are mentioned, but none are expanded on. Others are missing entirely, such as his obligation to give the State of the Union address.
In addition, the biggest oversight that I can see is that this article says almost nothing about his advisory bodies or his role in the Federal Bureaucracy. It says absolutely nothing about the Executive Office of the President, the White House Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Office of Sicence and Technology Policy, or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, all of which are extremely important in advising and assisting the President. His cabinet is mentioned once by name, but nothing about it is explained, nor is the President's relationship to the Executive Departments.
I'm sure that much of this information can be found elsewhere, but it seems to me that an article about the President of the United States should have extensive information about the President's roles in government. This article seems to be mostly on the President's privledges, salary, and the Presidency's history, all of which are important elements as well.
I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgable on this subject, although I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. Therefore, I think that a seasoned Wikipedia editor should expand this article and include information on the topics I mentioned, or at least links to where the information can be found. 75.67.142.56 21:18 10 May, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Info Please

Don't you think this article should include more information about the actual duties and responsibilities of the President? I do. Eenyminy 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'll just correct it myself. Eenyminy 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should. See the discussion above - Comrade Tux 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion Session

Anyone notice in the second paragraph of the article it states

"The current president is still Stephen Colbert."?

Then later in the same paragraph it says G.W.B. is the current president. And Stephen Colbert (whoever he is) has never been president. ???

Eenyminy 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That bit was vandalism. It's been removed since. Comrade Tux 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be Cautious Next Time!! >:|

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

This article was probably written ages ago by a whole lot of people. However, there were forty-two only: Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the forty-three, because of his two non-consecutive terms. Comrade Tux 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There were actually 7 other presidents before George Washington, George Washington is only cited as the first because he was the first one to serve under our constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.28.8 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-structure

The heading structure in most of this article needs to be changed. Really, "general description"? What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, most of the prose currently under "general description" could be re-structured into "election and term of office" and "privileges of office", along with a new "duties" section to elaborate on that (which is REALLY needed). "Life after the presidency" could be integrated into some other section or left alone. "Presidential statistics" and "other facts" are sprawling lists and shouldn't even be there; "office-holders" could be left alone or deleted and have list of Presidents of the United States linked. If there are no objections after a while, I'm going to be bold and do it myself. Comrade Tux 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been two days. Normally, I would wait a bit longer, but there don't seem to be too many regular contributors to this article. I'm going to go ahead and make those changes now - if there are any problems, feel free to fix them. Comrade Tux 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm working on it. It'll take a while though, as it'll probably amount to a re-write of most of the article. I'll stick parts in when they're done. Comrade Tux 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's done, and I've put it in. As the diffs don't show a whole lot about what I did, I'll explain here.

I put the article under a different heading system - trivia is gone, general description is broken up, etc. The lead now has four paragraphs instead of three; a few sections, like election, are longer, and a few, like term of office, are shorter. Quite a bit of the article is worded differently, as well.

There are also a couple more images, and as a result of more level two headings, the order of sections and images is now somewhat different. Change it as needed, as it may not be ideal as it currently stands. That huge table with presidential allowances is gone - I don't think Clinton's phone bill or Bush's stamp usage is very relevant. If there has to be something about it, say that "former presidents cost taxpayers $xx million a year".

If this is going to pass a GA or FA nomination, though, then more work needs to be done. The biggest issue is the lack of references, which I hope to fix soon. My prose isn't the best, so that needs to be fixed too. There are also minor things like multiple internal links pointing to the same article. There is something I overlooked or left out, so please fix it, because I probably won't notice unless someone points it out. Here's a permanent link to the old version for reference. Hopefully I did all this right... and hopefully someone is reading this? Comrade Tux 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did the powers section get removed

Until about March 12, this article had a section on the powers of the presidency, which seemed to be removed by accident in one of the vandalism shuffles. Is there any reason why this section should not be reinstated? --Robert Merkel 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Had no idea it was removed. Didn't find this article until about mid-April... found the section in the history, put it back. Comrade Tux 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worst president ever

I don't see anything in the trivia about the fact that George W. Bush is the worst ever president. That's pretty important to add. After all he has killed more people than any other president and spent more money than all other presidents combined. How more irresponsible can you get? Gonezales 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't see it because that would be one of the most severe violations of the neutral point of view policy I've ever seen. - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is a neutral point of view - someone has to be best, and someone has to be worst. It is a lot harder to pick who is best than it is to pick who is worst. The funny thing is that other than having a hard time linking Iraq to terrorism, the presidents biggest concern is what type of legacy (he) is going to leave. Gonezales 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For one, it's not really relevant to this article. You may be interesting in Criticism of George W. Bush, where a properly sourced statement along the lines of "Jimmy Carter believes GWB is the worst president in history" would be appropriate. However, we cannot flat out say "GWB is the worst president" because one man's opinion doesn't make it so. Put it this way, millions of people around the world believe Santa Clause exists, but their belief doesn't make it true. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No other president that I know of has ever been openly criticised in many places as the worst ever. Doesn't that mean something? And by the way, Jimmy Carter didn't 'believe it', he said it and said later that he was maybe being careless or misinterpreted. Didn't Rolling Stones put him on the cover as the worst ever? Gonezales 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
See historical rankings of United States presidents - he's usually ranked in the middle towards the bottom. He isn't rated as the worst president ever, despite what he's done... Comrade Tux 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Gonzales, do you mind explaining what authority Rolling Stone magazine has over _anything_ that is not related to pop music? If Rolling Stone magazine is your authority on all things political, then maybe you should consider not ever editing any politically-related Wikipedia entry. 192.80.61.168 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (MichaelBrazell, public computer)

Usually in the middle? There were only two surveys, one taken just after election when he still had morons thinking that he was good (70% approval), and the other in 2005, which is before his legacy became so apparent. See the 2006 survey for example where 34% picked him as the worst since WWII (second worst was 17%) and the one in 2006 which had 29% saying he would go down in history as a "poor" president (second was 10%). There are always going to be incumbent party members who say that the incumbent is great and non-incumbent party members (and others) who say the person who is not of their party is terrible. You have to filter past those party line opinions to find the truth. Gonezales 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it has changed, it's still an opinion - Republicans are always going to think he was great. Hardly NPOV... and it's not relevant in this article anyway. This is about the OFFICE, not who thinks who was the best/worst/etc. The trivia section should be gone, anyway, once any notable points are integrated into the article. Comrade Tux 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that he "killed" the most people ever? If you are referring to people who died in war, ignoring the fact that he did not kill them for a moment, it is still by far not the most people ever killed in a war.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.91.237 (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum, everyone. Comrade Tux 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
To Gonezales - someone has to be best, and someone has to be worst. That might be true if there were some objective, rational measure of such a thing. I doubt very much that such a beast exists, because "best" and "worst" are such loaded, objective, ill-defined - and in this context, meaningless - terms. -- JackofOz 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election

Due to the "winner-take-all" system in place for presidential elections, there have been many instances where the Electoral College winner failed to win a majority or even a plurality of the overall popular vote, as most recently occurred in the 2000 election. This has recently occurred three times in a row, in the 2000 election as well as the 1992 and 1996 elections.

This is incorret. Only four times has the winner of the presidential election lost the popular vote.

Oops, I think the word "even" is misleading there - in both 1992 and 1996 Clinton won a plurality, but not a majority. Gore had the plurality in 2000. Comrade Tux 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe, as the article suggests, that the original Constitution called for one vote for president, one vote for vice-president. It called for two votes for president. At the time the Constitution was written, there were no national political parties; the Framers assumed that partisanship would be by state, and that electors would follow the instructions of their state legislatures. Therefore each elector, in casting two votes, was expected to cast one for the state's favorite candidate, but required to cast one for a candidate from a different state. Probably the most commonly chosen "second choice" would become President, and the next most common, Vice President. But the task of getting the constitution ratified--or opposing ratification--called for national organization, and that created national political parties. Partisanship wasn't by state after all.

I think the unforseen emergence of a two-party system also diminished the Vice President's power. As President of the Senate, the Vice President ought to have had influence like that of the Speaker of the House over the Senate, which would have covered national policy (treaties, cabinet appointments, judgeships) as well as national law. But it was easy for the majority party in the Senate to create operating rules that gave the Vice President no real control.

[edit] Power to commute?

I don't see a reference to the president's power to commute (as used on Scooter Libby). What gives a president this power? (and should that be in the article?)

Felixcatuk 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Art. II, Sect. 2, U.S. Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Todd Gallagher 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads of State of the United States

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

Prior to the Constitution there was no national executive under the Articles of Confederation; the federal government was only a Congress with very limited power. Going before that, it would be George III. Comrade Tux 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, this isn't true; under the Articles of Confederation, there were seven elected Presidents of the United States. John Hanson was the first, serving from Nov 1781 to Nov 1782; following him were Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788). And the official title all seven men held was in fact President of the United States of America.Info999 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
So there was no "Head of State" of the US between 1776 and 1789? --myselfalso 05:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess you could say that the President of the Continental Congress was head of state, even though he only presided over a body of limited power. The Congress at that time had executive, legislative, and judicial powers, despite them being very limited. According to the article, the position was similar to the modern Speaker of the House, but since Congress was the only federal institution, I guess he becomes the national head of state. Comrade Tux 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a refrence to the information regarding previous people (before washington) that held the title of "President of the United States" President_of_the_United_States_in_Congress_Assembled#List_of_PresidentsPotatoj316 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no one mentions POTUS

This section heading was added by anonymous user:218.102.76.136 with no further comment. After seeing this, I added a reference to POTUS in the lead, when user:Southern Texas disagreed with the change and removed the reference. I wanted to take it to talk to see what everyone else thinks. I would point out that SCOTUS uses its respective acronym in the lead, and FLOTUS further down the page. The term POTUS draws 1,050,000 Google hits. I certainly think its notable, as it's widely used. Can anyone else provide some feedback? --YbborTalk 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why this is at all necessary. Its just putting an abbreviation. It adds no information and is unencyclopedic. We don't need to be putting abbreviations in the lead of any article. It adds nothing.--Southern Texas 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems to add information to me. In fact this article from the New York Times seems to fufil the criteria for notability for the term to have its own article (perhaps POTUS (phrase), akin to Democrat Party (phrase)?), surely a mention in this page wouldn't be too unreasonable. Let me ask you this: would you agree that the term is notable? --YbborTalk 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ybbor that the acronym POTUS is very well-known, at least among anyone who has undertaken at least a little study of American political science or the institution of the Presidency. There is even a book by a former White House speechwriter called POTUS Speaks. Also, if I recall correctly, many technothriller novels frequently depict federal officials using the term POTUS to refer to the President (because the acronym is so well-known among current and former employees of the federal government of the United States). Omitting POTUS from the lead of this article would be nearly as asinine as omitting UC from the lead of the article on the University of California. --Coolcaesar 09:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure there are readers who've never heard of the acronym, and so I think it would be appropriate to mention it in the lead. It is used fairly often in the media, after all, and the redirect might be insufficient in some cases. A side note, Google isn't a very good measuring stick; this article is one of the highest hits for "POTUS" yet the phrase is not in its text at any point - instead it matches "President of the United States" to "POTUS". There are likely other pages like this as well. Comrade Tux 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've put the acronym back in the lead. --YbborTalk 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...so help me God" Legend

This is a clear fact: there is no factual basis for supposing that Washington added this phrase - nor for the next nineteen presidents. NO historical accounts - including contemporaneously-published accounts - mention anything of the sort in relation to Washington's oath of office. It is, however, a fact that a legend has arisen, and that is what should be in the article. Info999 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As this is a dispute, and the "...so help me God" is clearly a falsehood and a legend, and (as you pointed out) the article isn't about the oath, all references to the legend have been removed as being irrelevant to this article. The article about the oath discusses the legend, and that's enough. Info999 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that he did not say it? I have several sources that say he did. http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/ specifically states it. Just because there is no primary source that accounts for it means nothing. We have historical account that Jefferson Davis said it in 1861, long before the so-called "first" you cite for the president of the US. Do we think that Davis just made it up, pulling it from his rectum, and that US presidents now follow his example? Before we follow this assumption first promulgated off an atheist website, the origin of the legend, if it be one, should be examined.Todd Gallagher 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have it backward. If you would like to include something in an article, you must provide at least one verifiable source. If that thing that you would like to include is not only in dispute, but is (as in this case) NOT verified by contemporaneous sources, then you'll need more than some Senate staffer repeating the unsourced legend (and I'll bet that all of your "sources" are just repeating the legend, and are not actually sources). Not only that, but if anywhere, the legend belongs in the Oath article, not this one. Please do not keep adding this inappropriate item without discussing it here - and, if you can, please bring a verifiable source. Info999 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess that gets into the question of reliable sources. This is not original research time. Further, it should be noted that this phrase was not just made up. I have already cited where Jefferson Davis used it, and now, in just a few minutes of research, I have found that Andrew Johnson at least used it in the oath he prescribed others take. Amazing he would have others say it but not say it himself, at least according to you. There is record of the oath being used in Texas as well as soon as Texas was admitted to the Union. This predates the Civil War as far back as the 1840's. Then we have federal law which required military officers and justices of the Supreme Court to use the phrase "So help me God" in their oaths passed by Congress as early as 1789 ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=199 ). Someone had to have set the example for this.Todd Gallagher 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No one has claimed that anything was "just made up." No one is claiming that no president ever appended the phrase (and by the way, in all of this, the only relevant actors are presidents of the United States...it doesn't matter if Jefferson Davis or Josef Stalin ever added the phrase, so let's be helpful and limit ourselves to the subject at hand, OK?). The issue here isn't really even whether or not George Washington added the phrase - and again, all contemporaneous sources say that he just uttered the oath as the Constitution required, and nothing more - but whether this information belongs in this article. It does not. It does belong in the Oath article, and even in Washington's article. And regarding wiki policy, the verifiability of the information is in dispute - so please stop violating policy by reverting until this is settled.Info999 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've found a number of reliable sources which say George Washington was the originator of this phrase:
No, you haven't. You've found number of places on the web that repeat the legend, but NONE are sources for the event itself. Since it is in dispute, and since no actual sources (you know, the ones who witnessed the event and published their account at the same time) even mention the phrase, you have not produced any sources for the claim. You have, however, produced reliable sources to claim that there is a unverified legend that Washington appended this phrase; again, however, it doesn't belong in this article!Info999 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • PBS Online News Hour — "George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his oath, and almost every president has added it since."
  • Meridian Magazine — "Not inconsistent with this view, President George Washington initiated the tradition of taking the Presidential oath of office, which swears or solemnly affirms fidelity to the US Constitution, with left hand on the Bible, right arm to the square, and the recitation of those closing words, once again, "so help me God." We call this a promissory oath."
  • A supreme court decision — has an extensive summary including:
    • Steven B. Epstein, Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial Deism, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 2083, 2110 (1996) — "When President Washington completed his constitutional oath of office ... he added spontaneously 'I swear, so help me God'."
  • The Washington Post — "George Washington, first man to take the oath, added the words, "so help me God."
That's just to name a few. There are a litany of other newspapers which say similar things. --Haemo 05:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we get some reliable sources asserting that he didn't say it before we start edit warring? --Haemo 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't need reliable sources to say that he didn't say it, because all of the reliable sources don't even mention it. Can you please provide me with a reliable source that verifies that Ronald Reagan did not say in his second state of the union address, "Mommy, please give me some more Jello"? No, because no contemporaneous source (the newspapers, the eyewitnesses, the videotape) even suggest that he said anything of the sort! Two hundred years from now, if some legend has grown up saying that Reagan said that (perhaps as a result of this post?), the wiki editors (god help them) who claim that he said it will have to provide a contemporaneous source that verifies that anyone at the same time that he was supposed to have said it ever even suggested that he said it. The same is true with this legend. There is no verifiable source to claim it as fact. Besides, even as a legend, it doesn't belong in this article! I'm not arguing with you as to whether or not he said it, or whether or not a legend exists that he said it. I'm debating whether or not even the mention of it - legend or otherwise - belongs in this article. Info999 15:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


This is a ridiculous interpretation of reliable sources, and directly contrary to the linked policy. Multiple reliable sources say "Washington said that". One would think that if they're all wrong, and this has been a long-misunderstood "legend" which has been widely accepted as a fact that there would be some sources telling us that "hey, you were wrong". The "you can't prove a negative" argument is extraordinarily weak given that you're asking us to accept, without any evidence that numerous prestigious and reliable sources are wrong about a very important piece of American history. --Haemo 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina required its use as early as 1776. http://www.teachingushistory.org/1776Constitution.htm#Citation . Todd Gallagher 06:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this, members of Congress didn't have the phrase in their oath until the Civil War; the Vice President of the United States article says the same for that office. Also, the atheist website you made reference to above has quite a few links that quote recitation of the oath without the phrase. Perhaps detail should be given at the oath article, and only have a brief mention here? Comrade Tux 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"And regarding wiki policy, the verifiability of the information is in dispute - so please stop violating policy by reverting until this is settled." Uhh . . . exactly, so stop removing it until it is settled.Todd Gallagher 20:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you ignoring the facts and the rules on purpose, or just to have your own way? The policy is that if it's in dispute, and you revert, you're in violation...you have reverted an appropriate edit now several times. This is not something I want to bother an admin about, but I will if I have to. Please stop reverting. Info999 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you please cite any reliable sources which dispute that George Washington added "so help me God" to his pledge? Because right now, I'm not seeing any, and I'm seeing a "dispute" which constitutes of another editor saying "it's an urban legend" against a whole bunch of sources which say "it's a fact". --Haemo 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, I don't think you're getting it. (First, the contemporaneous sources for Washington's inaugural aren't readily available through free web sites. Someone would have to take the time to look them up manually.) In any case, NONE of them even suggest that Washington said anything other than what the Constitution requires. Not one. Even the idea that he had said anything extra wasn't published for decades. This makes it at the very least suspect, and at worst false. I don't have a problem with editing the Oath article to include that the issue is up for debate - I have a problem with including extraneous information in an article (any article), especially information that has not been verified - and more especially, information that pushes a POV. Info999 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

All this clamor for a contemporaneous source seems to violate WP:OR. which excludes primary sources. "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account...is a primary source." I think the references Haemo provides are more than adequate. --YbborTalk 01:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If someone were to claim in wiki that you once ran through the streets of your town naked holding a hello kitty banner screaming monologues from john hughes movies, the best that they could say is that it is alleged that you did so, unless they could cite a contemporaneous account that verifies that you did so. The only thing those sources above document is that people keep repeating a legend that was never documented as fact.Info999
For purposes of Wikipedia--which is in some senses a tertiary source--it would be sufficient if they could cite a "reliable" source--as defined by Wikipedia policy. That includes things like major newspapers. Thus, if the Washington Post and PBS reported about the naked run, it could be included in Wikipedia as fact. I recognize that there may be dispute about this issue, but Wikipedia policy is to state the consensus among reliable sources even if primary sources are absent. Krinsky 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There isn't much wrong with saying something along the lines of "tradition holds that 'so help me God' is added to the oath," as it is backed up with reliable sources. But is an entire paragraph devoted to this really appropriate? As for reverting, the article should just be left alone until there is some consensus either way, otherwise this will end up protected. Comrade Tux 07:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
All modern-day presidents say: "So help me God." It has been this way for at least 100 years, even by Info999's own account. So it should be included. Insert a simple line after the oath quote that says: "Presidents traditionally include 'So help me God' at the end of the oath." Plain and simple. Then link this to the oath article and include the paragraph there. I have no problem with that. Todd Gallagher 07:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Todd really doesn't know how to play nice, does he? Here in wiki, we TALK about changes that are in dispute, and when we agree we put the changes into the article. I'm going to chalk it up not to bad faith but to ignorance of the regs. It's poorly worded, is insignificant and irrelevant to the section and to the article. But someone has to stop this truculence, and it doesn't seem to want to stop on its own. So I'm done with changing it. Here's some final reasons, though, why it's wrong to have in this article: recent tradition also holds that the president's spouse holds a bible during the oath (didn't always, by the way); very recent tradition also holds that the president repeats each sentence or phrase after the chief justice says them out loud (didn't always, by the way); very very recent tradition also holds that the oath is taken on the west steps of the us capitol (used to be the east front); why not place these "traditions" in the article also? Why are they not as important? They are all visual and audible images surrounding the inauguration that are much more ingrained in the American psyche. Besides not being relevant to the article in question, could it be that the people who are pushing the inclusion of the phrase somehow place a greater emphasis on the supposed meaning of the phrase, and are not simply interested in neutrally documenting a subject, but pushing their POV? Info999 13:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here. We have several reliable sources for the attribution. If there is any reliable source that questions the account -- then we can add a note that there is some dispute and cite the sources that question it. Requiring a contemporaneous source to validate what other reliable sources have stated is essentially requiring Original Research. If there are no reliable sources that question the account, then we have no basis for challenging the other sources. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Wikipedia does not require a contemporaneous source for any given claim — we only require a reliable source. If this is an urban legend, then surely there must be some reliable sources which call it as much — especially given that it's so prevalent as to be reported as a fact by university professors, the US Senate, and innumerable news agencies. Arguing that you cannot produce one because that's trying to "prove a negative" is ridiculous. --Haemo 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford

The biography for Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Gerald Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his name has been nominated for deletion as being non-notable. You can make your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service protection

"However, debates in Congress have been raised concerning this decision. Following the increase in terrorism and threats to the president in general since 1997, lifetime protection is being reconsidered." <---This statement needs to have a cited source, becuase it sounds like hearsay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.78.74 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty Ratification

The Senate does not ratify treaties. The Senate grants its consent with a 2/3 vote, and then the President ratifies it. This is not a meaningless distinction; the treaty is not in effect without Presidential ratification, and the President is not required to ratify a treaty even if the Senate votes its consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.92.119 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bird information

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

[edit] Gender

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

No, one cannot make that argument. "He" and "his" are acceptable pronouns for a generic person in the English language. There is no widely accepted alternative. The "singular they" usage is relatively recent, and is not accepted by all grammar experts. "His/Her" and its cognates are also not widely accepted. "Gender-Inclusive" language was not an issue in the 18th century when the Constitution was drafted. And no, no amendment is needed. If someone were to make that challenge (that Hillary Clinton is not eligible), I think it would be overruled on 14th Amendment grounds. Schoop (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe an expert in American law can confirm, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some law that makes it clear that "words importing a gender include every other gender", as is the case in Australia's Acts Interpretation Act. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The 14th Amendment wouldn't necessarily overide it. It took the 19th Amendment to give women the vote. Also, a later amendment also uses the word "his". Besides, I don't think that the founding fathers envisioned a female president. Not that I'm sexist, but I do believe in word-for-word interpretations. Emperor001 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they didn't envision a female president, and many people still don't. But if the founding fathers really wanted to make women not just unthinkable but legally ineligible, wouldn't they have been a little more explicit about it somewhere, e.g. Article XVLMDC: "No female person is eligible to be chosen as President ....", or whatever? Another point is that if anyone with constitutional expertise had any serious doubts that Hillary Clinton could be elected President (or, for that matter, Geraldine Ferraro being elected V-P and potentially succeeding to the presidency), wouldn't something have been said about it already? Why would the Democrats go through this huge year-long public process if it was going to turn out null and void in the end? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is an issue of construction. As Schoop stated above, "he" was (and still is, technically) the closest thing in the Enlglish langauge to a gender-neutral singular pronoun. To forbid a woman from becoming President, the Constitution would have to do just that - forbid it. Here, at most we can argue that the framers did not consider it or think about it. I'm sure they didn't consider a black person becoming President either. Being white, male, protestant, etc., is not listed as a qualification. So, I agree that this argument doesn't merit mention. Judicata (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Constitution doesn't give ANYONE the right to vote - the states do. The 19th amendment prevents the states from restricting the right to vote based on sex. Several states permitted women to vote prior to the passage of the 19th, mostly west of the Mississippi. Illinois permitted women to vote in 1912, New York in 1917. The 19th wasn't passed until 1919. The fact remains that in the English language, use of the pronoun 'he' to refer to an indeterminate person does NOT prescribe that the person is male. This was true in the 18th century, and it's true now. Schoop (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subject-verb agreement

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

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


[edit] Residency requirement

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

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

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

[edit] Qualifications

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

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

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

Obviously you can be elected after impeachment and conviction. Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted as a federal judge and is now a congressman.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, but as I wrote, disqualification from federal office is a "possible" consequence of conviction. The Senate doesn't have to impose disqualification upon conviction, but Article I specifically gives the Senate the power to do so if it wants. This is described in some detail in the GPO source I cited, as well as in the Wikipedia article on impeachment. Matth942 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] not all Presidents were christian

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wording in "Salary" section.

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

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

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

[edit] Semi-Protection

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

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

[edit] Barack Obama is not African-American by definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Qualifications for President Question

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

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