Talk:President of the United States of America

Gallery

The images on this page are presumably all free, no? --Joe Quick 23:41, 10 November 2007 (CST)

Life, the Universe, and Everything

In the opening section, it was mentioned that "43 men have served as President of the United States since the ratification of the Constitution". However, this is wrong, because there have only been 42 people serving as POTUS, with Grover Cleveland being both #22 and #24. That's why I corrected the sentence accordingly. But this in turn adds too much information that don't belong there. It could be mentioned further down in the article, but the opening section is there to give a short, concise description and other vital information about the subject matter, not go into details about the numbering of presidents. The article about the Pope wouldn't mention numbering problems in the opening section, but rather in the History section. --Christian Liem 20:05, 15 November 2007 (CST)

The second sentence is missing the Article no,. in the Constitution. Could someone please improve this page? because it should be a central reference page, really.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:42, 26 December 2007 (CST)

And Obama said 44 men have said the Oath. Good old Grover really, really confused the system. The biggest (I didn't say greatest, although pretty competent), William Howard Taft, weighed enough for two small Presidents. Maybe we can average oaths over mass.

Yes, Papal naming is also a problem; when John Paul II claimed he selected his papal name for his two predecessor, should it not have been John Paul John Paul?

Seriously, I can do some cleanup on constitutional issues. Basic Presidential issues are all in different sections of Article II; Congressional matters are in Article I. Some analysts argue that suggests Framers' Intent that the Congress would be the first branch among equals. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if we're counting, the oath was taken 64 times (55 administrations plus 9 VPs who stepped in on the death/resig. of the prez.).Russell D. Jones 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Confederation

The "President" of the United States during the Confederation period was the presiding officer of the Confederation Congress and not "The President of the United States." To claim otherwise makes it seem like the US had a president before 1789, which it did not. Russell D. Jones 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it would make sense to begin the section with the Constitutional Convention, but I figured it would be less drastic to start with just correcting what it previously said a 3-member presidency under the Articles. Shamira Gelbman 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible to add

It might be useful to add a discussion of alternating party affiliations (at least for the past 80 years), as well as how the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are from the same party and run together "on a ticket". This has happened ever since the Civil War's second presidential election, when Andrew Johnson (the veep) was a Democrat and Abraham Lincoln (the president) was a Republican. That might be the ONLY time they were ever different (I'd have to check). Anyway, the country typically gets tired of each party after its president has served out their one or two terms and switches parties. This is important information that younger people might not be aware of.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2022 (CDT)

new section on presidential immunity?

In about June 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled in "Trump versus the United States of America" that an official act of the US president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution under the US Constitution separation of powers statements. That means that in the future, a president could basically do anything as long as it was an 'official act', and that theoretically, s/he could not be prosecuted by criminal courts or by Congress. This might be worth addressing in this article. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2024 (CDT)

Well, despite all the hoopla surrounding that decision, I think the decision said somewhere "official acts", and it makes perfect sense that no one should be able to prosecute a president for, say, ordering a retaliatory raid after an attack on U.S. citizens. It's still entirely unclear whether inciting the Jan. 6 riot or intimidating, if not threatening, a Georgia election official to "find him more votes" falls under "official acts" and is protected, or not. It certainly needs to be added to the Donald Trump article, but I need to study the matter more before I write about it. If you feel up to it, go ahead! The Donald Trump article (which so far is mostly my effort) needs updating in terms of judicial decisions passed down in the past one year, but I just haven't had the time to get around to it. Please have a go at that one if you feel strong! I've been trying to keep it pithy and thus, it has nothing about his family or personal life, or his actions before being President. Something about those should be added, but in the shortest, most succinct way possible, I think. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2024 (CDT)

Pat, this is actually a really serious decision totally throwing out all precedent and possibly ignoring what it says in the Constitution. Maybe we'll sit it a few more weeks, but I think you'll find that many many legal authorities are disturbed by the Supreme Court ruling on July 1, 2024.// regarding the Donald Trump page, I also think that some more general history of his career and family could be added to balance it out. He's done a lot of things, such as entertainment, real estate, and an even a bike race. I would have to hold my nose to work on it, though. LOL. Thanks, Jack S. Byrom (talk)

I hear you. Not being an attorney myself (and especially not a constitutional law expert), I hardly know what to think. I do know that almost every legal decision about Trump so far has been disturbing--that he can be on the ballot as a felon, for example--that the case of his stealing classified documents was dropped because the judge didn't like that a special prosecutor brought the case, claiming he had been illegally appointed. Those ARE DEFINITELY disturbing decisions, and the latter one may not even stand up to appeal. So I think, for now, we report on what we know, which is as you say, many in the field of law have found the decision surprising and worry about its consequences. As for Trumps personal life, I think his bankrupcy, his divorce, and his long run on The Apprentice as a TV entertainer, ought to be mentioned. But let's just keep it businesslike and succinct and not sit in judgement. I'll do it soon, just have to have a stretch of time when I can work undistracted. Pat Palmer (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2024 (CDT)