Talk:President of the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Article reorganization proposal

I humbly submit the following outline for a more organized article that flows better:

• Intro
• Roles and duties of the Pres: head of government
  • Article I role: Legislative veto power
  • Article II roles: Executive Powers
    • War and foreign affairs: Commander-in-chief, War Powers Act, Treaty/exec. agreement power (chief diplomat)
    • Administrative: Head of bureaucracy, Appointment power, Removal power
    • Juridical: Appointment of Judges, Exec. Privilege, Exec. Immunity, Pardon power
    • Legislative facilitator: State of the Union, proposing legislation/budget, convening Congress, adjourning Congress (when HR and Sen can't agree)
  • Unofficial roles: Domestic policy leader, economic leader, head of state (ceremonial duties)
• Selection of Pres
  • Eligibility
  • Nomination
  • Election and Oath
  • Tenure, and term limits
  • Compensation
    • Salary, Residence, Protection, Air Force One, Marine One
  • Removal
    • Impeachment by House, and conviction thereupon by Senate
    • Twenty-fifth Amendment disability
• History
  • History, generally
  • Growth of Office
• Post-presidency: Legacy, presidential libraries, etc.
• References, Notes, etc...

Let me know what you think. Cheers! Foofighter20x (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hamiltonian presidency?

Under the heading "Models of Presidential Power" there is discussion of a thesis by a John Burns which mentions a "Hamiltonian presidency." The source for this was a dead link. Since there has never been a President Hamilton, can anyone say what this means? Richard75 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a "Hamiltonian presidency" as it is a "Hamiltonian model of the presidency." See: http://books.google.com/books?id=iuMcAAAAIAAJ&pgis=1 and seach for his other works. I think the reason it's named after him, though he was never president, was due to the extensive influence he had over Washington's, and how he was one of the driving forces behind that administration. Most of the ideas and efforts being his, later presidents who pursued the same paths were better characterized under his name, and not Washington's. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, few Presidents followed the precedent of getting into duels with hotheads like Aaron Burr. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More nitpicking. Hamilton didn't want to duel Burr, and he didn't take it seriously. Hamilton missed on purpose (shot straight up in the air), thinking Burr would do the same. He was wrong. This incident, however, makes Cheney the second sitting VP to shoot a man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of two-terms

George Washington, the first president, set an unofficial term limit of two terms, a precedent that subsequent presidents followed until 1940.

I've read that Washington's decision to not seek a third term was largely driven by health concerns and that it was really Jefferson's decision on these lines in 1808 which set the limit. Is there any actual source beyond "everyone knows" for this? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know where you read this. One thing we know is that by the end of two terms, Jefferson had pretty much "had it" with the job. He didn't even want it mentioned on his tombstone. And it's interesting to note that while FDR was elected to a 3rd and 4th term, he effectively really only served 3 terms (12 years overall plus 1 month). His cousin Teddy also tried to run for a 3rd term, as an independent. Those Roosevelts - they liked the job. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt ran for the Republican nomination against his successor, Taft, when Taft was running for re-election. Taft won the nomination, so TR took his delegates and started the 1912 Progressive Party ("Bull Moose" Party). It's nitpicky, but people don't talk about TR enough, and these things should be gotten right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember where I read it - it was too many years ago now. But I recall it wasn't just the Roosevelts - didn't Grant seek another term in 1880? And Cleveland's intentions in 1896 are near impossible to determine (though the early votes on other matters at the convention made it clear any Cleveland candidacy would be dead in the water). Timrollpickering (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Grant sought a third term in 1880, but his party chose the ill-fated Garfield instead. And a number of Reagan supporters wanted to rescind the 2-term amendment, and later after Clinton won a second term, they were probably glad they had not succeeded. Truman and Johnson could have run again, ending up with more than 8 years if they won, but they both declined, as they likely would have been whipped in their respective elections. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought both withdrew when it became clear they weren't even sure of the nomination? (The whole tradition of a public image of "I do not seek this office but will accept a draft" really doesn't make these things easy.) Timrollpickering (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point is the popular misconception that everyone except the Roosevelts considered Washington's self-imposed 2-term limit to be sacrosanct, when it's clear that it wasn't. Some of them tried for a third term, some of them got fairly far along in that process, and one succeeded - albeit by lying to the people (I'm talking about FDR). Coolidge and Truman and LBJ could have tried for extra terms, but chose not to. Some were rebuffed by their own party after just one term. This would be an interesting subject to expand upon somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Privileges

The first and second paragraph of the "privileges of office" section have some redundancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.23.57 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling and some other small things

I can't edit the article since it's semi-protected.

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s name is twice misspelled Schlessinger (and is unlinked); and in the same paragraph, "imperiled" is given its British spelling (and the linked article has the same problem) although the subject is an American one. Someone please fix this. (I also suggest that maybe the Imperilled presidency article should be eliminated, either by merging it into here or maybe into Gerald Ford's article. As to a cite for Ford's use of the term, see that article.) --208.76.104.133 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling of his name and wikilinked it. SMP0328. (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The fifth and six paragraphs under ORIGIN are redundant. They repeat the fifth paragraph of the article. --Mfwills (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Selection of electors

There is a sentence in the "Rationale" section that needs some clarification: Modern communication has rendered this unnecessary and, as a result, voters now choose between electors who are already pledged to a presidential candidate. The fact is that some states (like West Virginia), the voters vote directly for potential electors (then the top X representing the party that carries the state in the Presidential election are the electors who vote in December), while others (like Florida) have their potential electors selected by the parties themselves. In the latter case, the names of the potential electors are not known by the voting public, just the party affiliation and the Presidential candidate who is vying for a slate of electors pledged to vote for him/her. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I've restored the final two paragraphs of the introduction back there, away from the history section in which an editor had previously deposited them. Moving the two paragraphs in question (the paragraph about the White House and other assorted presidential perks, and the paragraph about presidential prestige and the "leader of the free world" thing) to the history section, while with good intentions, is a bad idea. First and foremost, neither paragraph relates to the history of the presidency, with the possible exception of one sentence from the second one ("Since World War II..."), thus making them unsuitable for what will hopefully become a a section featuring comprehensive chronological assessment of the office.

Second, this move (and a previous edit that drastically shortened the introduction altogether) appears to be part of an attempt to bring the introduction into proportion with the rest of the article. While normally I would agree that the introduction is a bit too lengthy for the article, I would like to point out that there are entire libraries and colleges devoted to the presidency and no dearth of sources on matters related to the office, especially given Barack Obama's recent inauguration and the subsequent spotlight shone on the subject by all things media. Thus, it should not be so difficult to bring such a broad and well-researched topic up to the same level of quality as the introduction. Indeed, aside from some proofreading, the introduction is suitable for a featured article-level work. Rather than tearing down the best portion of the article so we may patch up the rest with its meats, we should focus on bringing the same level of detail and comprehensiveness to the other, more neglected sections.

It is my proposal that we leave the introduction as is for now and focus our collective efforts on the rest of the article. The size and scope and task before us may seem daunting, but in the words of the newest holder of the office, yes we can. This should be one of the easiest featured articles we could write. Let's make it happen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Would your ideas for improving the article dovetail with the reorganization I've proposed above? Foofighter20x (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

An article's Introduction is for summarizing what's in the body of that article. Material which is not in the body of the article should not be in the Introduction. They are not in the body of the article, so those two paragraphs don't belong in the Introduction. Where would you like them to be moved? SMP0328. (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good of you to work to improve a topical article that is of great interest to many people but the introduction is just too long. It goes beyond the recommended limit of four paragraphs (which is still pretty long given how far some writers are willing to stretch the size of those four paragraphs). Keep the introduction short, try to avoid making exceptions for this article. -- Horkana (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

President or president

Wikipedia MOS, regarding titles, says:

Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context. Likewise, capitalize styles of nobility: "Her Majesty" or "His Highness". (Reference: Chicago Manual of Style 15th ed., 8.35; The Guardian Manual of Style, "Titles" keyword.) Exceptions may apply for specific offices.

In this case, "President" is a shortened version of the "formal name" ("President of the United States"). MOS says a "formal name" is capitalized. If "President of the United States" is capitalized, so should "President" when it is referring to the "President of the United States." SMP0328. (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the para you quote above is quite clear. "...start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name). The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. When used generically, they should be in lower case..." The correct formal name of the of the office, POTUS, is capitalized: President of the United States while the short form of the title is not: American president, president of America, the president's desk, the 44th president, etc. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See the MOS talk page. What the MOS says, and what it should say, regarding capitalization is very much in dispute. For this article, let's use the common usage; that is "President." SMP0328. (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The MOS being disputed is quite irrelevant, how about we follow what the MOS says and leave it the way it was; president. L0b0t (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The "way it was" is "President". You're the one trying to change that. SMP0328. (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you added the improper caps yourself on 20 January [1]. I am the not the first to revert you on this. Also, there is no discussion about capitalization on the MOS talk page, the MOS is not in dispute and is quite clear on the matter at hand. The generic form of the term is not to be capitalized. L0b0t (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Read this. According to The Chicago Manual of Style, on which the MOS is based in this case, would require lower case, except when "president" starts a sentence or "president" immediately proceeds only the officeholder's last name. For example, you would say "President Obama", but would say "president Barack Obama" and "president of the United States". This sounds grammatically wrong to me, but, if we are to follow the MOS exactly, then I will go to every article which refers to the President of the United States and make the correction. BTW, the MOS says "[e]xceptions may apply for specific offices" and Wikipedia:Use common sense says:

Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule.

So I suggest "President", when referring to the President of the United States, be such an exception. SMP0328. (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not suggesting any reason grounded in common sense for making an exception; you seem just to not like seeing the word in lower case. -Rrius (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The White House page refers to "the President" and "the Vice President", which squares with the way we were taught in grade school. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the Constitution also uses upper case: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because the grammatical style of 1787 was based on the German grammatical rule of capitalizing all nouns.

I have to agree with L0b0t and Rrius here, but in the spirit of compromise, can we formulate our own rule? I suggest:

Lowercase when:

a) when in the sentence's predicate: Grover Cleveland was twice elected president, but for separate terms;

b) whenever immediately after the abbreviation 'U.S.'

Capitalize when:

a) referring directly to the position or its proper, full name 'President of the United States';

b) when before any officeholder's name, whether last or full;

c) When in the sentence's subject, except when generally or plurally referring to those who have held the office: The President is..., Several presidents have....

To what extent that conforms with WP:MOS is unknown to me, but it's a good rule. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I would go with the assumption that the White House folks are doing it correctly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee, I think the events of the past 8 years have rendered me incapable of making that assumption. L0b0t (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The White House, and many government entities, use the upper case for two reasons. The first is to help convey the importance of the officer, whether it be a president or a director of an independent agency. The second is that the style is often set by lawyers. In legal writing, words are capitalized that would not be capitalized in other contexts. In any event, an organization's internal style and usage decisions are not useful for the rest of the world. Another example is "university". Where most people would not capitalize "university" when referring to a specific one, many if not most universities capitalize it when referring to themselves. For instance, a document generated by the University of Florida might say, "The University intends to introduce several such measures in the next academic year." Corporations do the same thing with the word "company". -Rrius (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. The MOS is quite clear on the subject and has been for some time. The word president should only be capitalized when it begins a sentence, when it precedes the name of the office holder, or when it appears in the formal title, such as President of the United States. All other uses should be in lower case. L0b0t (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the manual of style is wrong. There's a subtlety you're overlooking here. For example "the university" vs. "the University". In the latter case, it is understood that the University is a specific university. Likewise with "the President". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we go with Foofighter20x's proposed compromise for now. I will go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) and proposed it be changed. That part of the MOS is not followed in other articles. If it's to be enforced, then dozens of articles are going to need to be changed. I suggest it's the MOS which needs to be changed. SMP0328. (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I concur with Foofighter20x as well. You realize, of course, that what you call a "proposed compromise" is just what is required by the MOS in the first place. Nice to have that settled. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it was Foofighter20x who referred to his comment as being in "the spirit of compromise." Also, he said "President" should be used when "referring directly to the position or its proper, full name 'President of the United States'" and "[w]hen in the sentence's subject, except when generally or plurally referring to those who have held the office: The President is..., Several presidents have.... That means many, maybe most, times in the article "President" will be used, rather than "president." SMP0328. (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, "president" will normally be lowercase. You are missing the word "generally" in description. The capitalized version in the subject is when you are referring to a specific president rather than to presidents generally. For example, when you say "The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces", you are using the word generally. -Rrius (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Who knew the United States Constitution had so many grammatical errors. It uses "President," "Vice President," "Senator," "Representative" and "Congress" even in the amendments adopted in the latter half of the 20th Century. BTW, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles do not follow the MOS as you describe it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the Constitution again, you'll notice that almost every noun is capitalized. That was the style at the time. This was mentioned already above. As for the later amendments, it was also mentioned that the the government uses its own capitalization for its own reasons; it is an in-house style that is not even applied universally in federal documents. You are just wrong about "university", which is only capitalized in referring to a specific university by that university. Independent style guides are, as far as I know, universal in calling for a lowercase "u". Also, for what it's worth, capitalization is not grammar. -Rrius (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know what motivated the capitalization used in the later amendments? Also, see Parliament of the United Kingdom. Notice how it almost always says "Parliament" and how it says "Queen" even when not referring to any particular person. The MOS you want to enforce, regarding this article, is not normally followed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors normally use plain language, rather than any manual of style. William DuBay described plain language as "a literary style that is easy-to-read because it matches the reading skill of the audience." When the average person reads something, he expects proper nouns to be capitalized. I believe the MOS should be changed to require the capitalization everyone was taught in grammar school. For now, this article should use the capitalization normally used in Wikipedia articles. BTW, I didn't make the University/university comparison. SMP0328. (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Except not "everyone" was taught that way in grammar school. Some of us went to schools with competent ELA teachers forcing us to visit our Strunk and White on a regular basis, then went to university and learned how to follow the Chicago, NYT, and APA style guides. Sounds like you are trying to advocate for your particular POV about grammar; I am as well, of course, but my POV is backed up by our MOS and numerous style guides, all of which tell us to only capitalize proper nouns and words that begin a sentence. L0b0t (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you from Great Britain? I ask because you say you "went to university." That's a British term. In the United State, a person would say he "went to college" or "attended college." You still haven't told me what of all the other articles which don't follow the MOS. SMP0328. (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm from the good ole US of A. In America, both colleges and universities are institutions of higher learning, but a university performs research in addition to teaching young people. I went to university: The Florida State University Tallahassee FL, Command and General Staff College Ft. Leavenworth KS, the Naval Post-Graduate Institute Monterey CA, and now Columbia University NYC. As for articles that do not follow the MOS, that's a no-brainer, we edit them to conform to our stated policies and guidelines. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what that MOS says regarding "prime minister":

In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except, obviously, when it starts a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not use a capital letter: "There are many prime ministers around the world." When making reference to a specific office, generally use uppercase: "The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said today…" (A good rule of thumb is whether the sentence uses a definite article [the] or an indefinite article [a]. If the sentence uses the, use "Prime Minister". If the sentence uses a, go with "prime minister". However to complicate matters, some style manuals, while saying "The British Prime Minister", recommend "British prime minister".)

That seems to suggest we use "President" when referring "to a specific office." SMP0328. (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Term of president can not be 10 years

In this page there is statement saying "for a maximum time in office of 10 years". This is inaccurate. The maximum term can only be 8 years. If one was to serve as replacement to a president for 2 years, they could only be elected one time, thus serving 6 years, not 10.

No, they can serve up to 10 years, i.e. 2 1/2 terms. For example, if LBJ had run again and won in 1968, and lived to end of term, he would have been in office over 9 years. If the JFK assassination had occurred less than halfway through his term, though, i.e. before Jan 20, 1963, LBJ would not have been eligible to run in 1968. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to be hypertechnical, there's really no limit to how long one can serve as president. The restrictions the 22nd amendment contemplates are:

a) One can be elected and serve two full terms consecutively (8 years)

b) One might inherit exactly two years from their predecessor's term, and still remain eligible for their own two full, consecutive terms (10 year)

However, there's a third, non-consecutive reading most people don't realize:

c) One might inherit exactly two years from their predecessor's term, not seek reelection as President but as Vice President, and repeat the cycle over and over into perpetuity until they decide one day to seek their own terms or keel over from old age.

Think about it... Foofighter20x (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And to address c):

• While in theory it may be possible that c) is possible, the possibility will only be known once we decide whether the constitutional phrase (from the Twelfth Amendment), "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States," applies to just presidential election or also office-time limits, as the VP of USA page discusses. in all likelihood, Wikipedia (and/or the Internet in general) will be obsolete by the time the Supreme Court definitively ends the dispute as to what the intent of the amendment was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegebookworm (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 February 2009

You might want to read the 22nd Amd again. The prohibition is on election, not on service. ;) Foofighter20x (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's unclear whether the Twenty-second Amendment imposes an additional qualification on becoming the President. If it does, then the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment applies to any person limited by the Twenty-second Amendment. If not, then it doesn't apply. This won't be resolved, unless the situation arises. SMP0328. (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The language is pretty clear cut:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

I see no brightline bar on serving as President. The rule hear concerns election, not service. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically you're right. When the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, the only way to get into the office was through election. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution muddied the waters a bit by introducing the appointment of a Vice President, as well as the idea of an "acting President", which has been invoked several times since for periods of a few days or hours. 25 neatly provided that there would always be both a President and a Vice President. What it failed to address was the bizarre scenario of a cycle of repeated appointments that could total more than 10 years, as per the limit defined by 22. If such a crazy situation ever arises, the Supreme Court will have to deal with it. But putting that speculation into the article would constitute original research / synthesis on the part of wikipedia editors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What Foofighter20x said is plausible, but it is merely an interpretation. How the Supreme Court would rule in such a situation is anyone's guess. You mention the use of the word "elected" in the Twenty-second Amendment. Another thing to consider is that the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment was meant to prevent anyone who couldn't become President from becoming Vice President. Should the Twenty-second Amendment be read to deviate from that intent? Whatever the answer may be in the future, no Wikipedia article should give an answer now; at most the possible interpretations (with sources of course) should be given. SMP0328. (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that 12 is saying if you can't become President, you can't become Vice President either. Meanwhile, keep in mind that the original statement in this section was that you could only be President for at most 8 years, which is patently untrue. You can definitely be President for up to 10 years under specific circumstances. Whether it could be more than 10 would depend on court rulings, if such a scenario ever comes to pass. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind the reason 22 was passed, namely to prevent another FDR situation. The incumbent, Truman, was exempted and could have run again in 1952, and forever after if he had wanted to. As a practical matter, Truman had no hope of winning in 1952 and declined to run. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of this should be in the article, really, other than mentioning the Amendment limits a person from being elected more than twice. I will admit, most of this is conjectural. Also, see the two law review cites I put in the Vice President of the United States article under eligibility; they're interesting. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Any legal citation, even if it were written by a member of the Supreme Court, amounts to speculation, albeit informed speculation. But there is no ambiguity about the fact that a President could serve up to 2 years of a previous President's administration and then be elected twice - i.e. up to 10 years total, under the 22 guidelines. That part remains true. What's uncertain are the implications, if any, from 25. The Congress and the courts are typically reactive rather than proactive, so unless the need arises, no action will be taken. Think of how long it took them to pass 25, for heaven's sake. 8 Presidents had died in office in 120-plus years, and they finally said, Hey, maybe we should do something about this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Section position

Shouldn't "presidential libraries" be covered in the "After the presidency" section? Ingolfson (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

4 March in infoboxes

I have noticed that most of the President Infoboxes for presidents before the 20th Amendment give their last day in office as 4 March. However before that amendment, the term of office started at midnight, not noon, so their terms of office should go from March 4 (year) to March 3 (year). I want to give people a chance to respond here before I go changing all of them. Richard75 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found this. Richard75 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Assassinations

Since the office's creation in 1789, numerous assassination attempts have been made on the life of the sitting United States President; however, only four such attempts have been successfully carried out in the office's near 250 year history. On April 14, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln became the first American President to be assassinated while in office. Less than 20 years later, on September 19, 1881, fellow Republican President James Garfield also died at the hand of an assassin's bullet--though the attempt itself occurred eleven weeks earlier on July, 2. On September 14, 1901, President William McKinley died of complications stemming from gunshot wounds he had received eight days earlier. The last successful presidential assassination occurred on November 22, 1963, when Democratic President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed while traveling by motorcade through the streets of Dallas, Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiveshooter01 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of this post?--EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Same question: What is your point??? You know, this is not a forum or blog. Therefore you must have a point showing the intention how to improve the article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation?

What does this have to do with anything on becoming the president?Grimreape513 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence reading, "Most Presidents have been Trinitarian Christians; of these, all but one have been Protestant: John F. Kennedy has been the only Catholic President," ought to be altered to say " John F. Kennedy having been..." given the colon preceding that clause. Just a grammatical correction. - Treko (talk) 4 June 2009.

Incumbent?

Obama was sworn in some time ago. Would it be possible to remove the "incumbent" notation from the infobox now? Duncan1800 (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Incumbent means standing president. What do you want to change? --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - carry on, nothing to see here. (I've simply lost track of my vocabulary, that's all. :) 75.71.227.91 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._President_(title)_(second_nomination) Ikip (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

44 Presidents

Under qualifications, where it talks of military service, it says "of thirty-three presidents", we're on our 44th, this should be changed, especially because he hasn't served in military 71.205.242.81 (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed it back. Only forty-three persons have held the office of President. Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right and I missed it even so I remember (now) that there was a discussion about it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Presidents

If there's a list of fictional situations of a line of succession, should there be a list of fictional presidents like from the Tom Clancy novels? Emperor001 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that question would be better asked here. SMP0328. (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Emperor001 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

POTUS v. POTUSA

An editor insists on expanding the bold iteration of the title to "President of the United State of America", adding "of America". The sole basis seems to be the opening sentence of Article II of the Constitution, despite the fact that every single other reference to the President (and Vice President) in the Constitution, including amendments, that includes "of the United States" does not include "of America". The president's seal says "President of the United States". When the president is introduced at a joint session of Congress or elsewhere, it is as "the President of the United States". Statutes generally refer to "the President" or the "President of the United States". While undoubtedly there are references here and there to "President of the United States of America" in executive orders and the like, they are far outnumbered by the other usage. As such, the text should read "President of the United States". -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly in favor of the full name of the office being "President of the United States", rather than "President of the United States of America". Another thing to consider is that the Constitution never uses "of America" regarding the Vice President (e.g., see the Twelfth Amendment's reference to the "Vice-President of the United States." SMP0328. (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)