Talk:President of the United States/Archive 11

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021
Please change poorly sourced and WP:OR laden "Eligibility section" with copy below for editors to improve.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:
 * be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
 * be at least 35 years old;
 * be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:
 * The Twenty-second Amendment prohibits the election of a person to a third term as president. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, that person can be elected president only once.
 * Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding  
 * Section3 of the Fourteenth Amendment who swore an oath to support the Constitution and later rebelled against the United States. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

--Frobozz1 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you see something that needs to be changed, please suggest an edit to the article text and seek consensus to change it. Adding half a dozen maintenance tags isn't helpful, it's disruptive. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Concur. The eligibility requirements in this article contains Original Research WP:OR stating "includes that of the President" is WP:SYN and contradicts secondary sources in Officer under the United States.

Please omit Article 1 synthesis until secondary verifiable source states it. Change eligibility requirements to:

A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

--199.46.249.141 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC) . "Any public office" is crystal clear, and since we're specifically talking of the presidential position, pointing that out seems an appropriate editorial decision. Otherwise you can surely find this statement in the popular press in reference to Trump's second impeachment, as I said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, is eligible to become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.
 * Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no person can be elected president more than twice. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once.
 * This was widely reported in the press during Trump's latest impeachment. The whole relevant bit is "The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. The chief justice of the United States presides over the impeachment trial of a president.  A two-thirds supermajority of those Senators “present” is required to remove a person from office. A person convicted on impeachment is immediately removed from office. Such a person may be barred from holding any public office in the future."
 * Wait ... are you seriously arguing that the office of President of the United States is not an Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States? Seriously? --Khajidha (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since Trump that's been a mixed bag. Much of the honor and trust has gone out of it, but the profit is definitely there. Anyway, it's a moot question. Under the 22nd Amendment no one can be elected president more than twice, and according to Trump himself he was indeed elected twice, so that's it -- he's permanently out to pasture. EEng 06:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like the 14th Amendment bit was reworded and now it just contradicts its own citations. Cite [126] (Heritage Foundation)&mdash;doesn't mention the President anywhere. Cite [127] basically says according to self-proclaimed "breaking news reporter for Insider" Kelsey Vlamis, there is a snowball's chance in hell the 14th Amendment could make anyone ineligible to be president (cue Dumb and Dumber: "So you're saying there's a chance!").
 * It all boils down to Vlamis' own obscure theory that Congress could pass a law blocking one person if they got convicted of insurrection in a court of law. Her law expert said that violates powers of Congress Art 1 sec 9. What her expert said is, "I'm not sure it applies to the president of the United States at all, it's unlikely the authors would have named those offices but not the presidency itself if they intended for it to apply. More likely, the section is meant to apply to senators and offices below that." Here is the editorial:


 * Can anyone justify putting a long-shot and probably unconstitutional theory in a mainstream encyclopedia? Or can we at least give it the right editorial context with attribution that we're pushing one journalist's "legal theory?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.249.140 (talk)


 * And which one is the long-shot theory? That the office of the President (who "shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years" [Art. 2 Sect. 1 Clause 1]) does not fall under "any public office"? Would absolutely love to watch the popcorn of that - probably even more ridiculous than some of the "electoral fraud" "lawsuits [sic]" of the latest elections. This is already in the article; anyway; President_of_the_United_States; where there's clear mention that there is "some legal debate" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2021
(formal)
 * Commander-in-Chief

Making a request to use another official presidential title use in the United State. This is also written in the constitution and widely used by many in the public sector of the US government. Picaxe01talk 06:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you asking to edit this in? If it's for the infobox that isn't actually a form of address, and the source you provided doesn't list it as a form of address. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox official post does not have a subsidiary titles field, which is what "Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces" is. I suppose it might be appropriate to put the title in the status field, along with Head of State and Head of Government. Drdpw (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Infofobox, concerning how one becomes US President.
Either the Electoral College is the only appointer for the presidency & vice presidency, or it's not. Can't be both ways. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2021
above former living presidents it says as if january 2021 its now june and they are all still alve Brendanddwwyyeerr (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of links
On 26 July 2021, Drdpw made an edit, removing relevant links of potential interest to the reader in the section "See also". I restored the links, but User: GoodDay removed them again, advising me to seek consensus first. I checked the status of said links historically. The link "President-elect of the United States" has been in the article since at least 30 November 2020, while the link "Second-term curse", has been available to the reader at least since 1 January 2020. The edit that one would think needs consensus per WP:EPTALK is the one that removed links that have been a stable version for several months and at least one of them, for more than a year, something that indicates an existing consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll let you & figure that all out. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Intro, concerning 'head of government'
Just a thought. Should we replace head of government, with head of the executive branch of government? Seeing as head of government would relate more to a parliamentary form of government. Considering this for the intros to the governors articles, as well. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * interesting thought, though the “head of government” article you link to expressly says “head of the executive branch”. Wallnot (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm wondering if we should link to the 'executive government' article, to better describe the president & the governors. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but the head of government article already indicates that it’s talking about the head of the executive branch; given that the head of government article is already about the head of the executive branch, why would we link to the “executive branch” article instead of the head of government article? Wallnot (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * True. I've completed the corrections on the governors articles. Brings more consistency across the board. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization in the first line
Why is president not capitalized in the first line? The U.S. Constitution capitalizes the word President, so I'm wondering why that isn't the case here? I've also noticed this for other articles about government positions in the US and in other countries. Is this a new Wikipedia policy, or a general editorial decision? PowerVulch (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Read up on WP:JOBTITLES & you'll get your answer :) GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Short answer: it's an editorial decision. –– FormalDude  talk  05:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And not a universally accepted one. -  wolf  16:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do have many issues with WP:JOBTITLES & how it has been & continues to be enforced on articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems so arbitrary. "Congress of the United States" is shortened to "Congress", "Republic of France" is shortened to "France", because the shortened version is as much a proper noun as is the longer version. Suddenly, if the proper noun is a job title, its shortened version is treated as a common noun. Unfortunately, Wikipedia treats this policy as if it was handed down by God. SMP0328. (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been contemplating an RfC seeking community input on whether head of states/ head of government should be treated as proper nouns. Perhaps it's finally time.  Slywriter (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At this very moment (no joke) an RFC-review is occurring, as to whether or not to lowercase job titles in the infoboxes of bios. Yup, it's gone that far. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2021
Change

The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States, indirectly elected to a four-year term by the American people through the Electoral College.

to

The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States, indirectly elected to a four-year term by the American people through the Electoral College. Stevenpjohnso (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ No, per WP:JOBTITLES. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

233 years ago
Why is that included if the date is? No longer correct anyway. Sarahnach (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I take it your referring to the "formation" parameter near the bottom of the infobox? The date is automatically calculated by a template and there are also two refs attached. So are you seeking to make a change? A correction? Or both? If so, could you propose it in a "please change 'x' to 'y'" format and include sourcing if required. Thanks -  wolf  05:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

“President” capitalization
Wouldn’t the decapitalization of the word “president” in the title “President of the United States” grammatically incorrect? “President of the United States” is a title like “Queen of the United Kingdom,” and as such would expected to capitalized. The form “president” I believe, is used to refer to a general title or position, with the capitalized “President” referring to a specific title (e.g. “President of the United States”) or a specific person (e.g. “The President visited Germany last month”). What is the consensus on this? 75.76.135.218 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Pls see MOS:JOBTITLES. The capitalisation of this particular article/subject is well scrutinised. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong title under Joe Biden's Picture.
There is the wrong title under Joe Biden's Picture. It should read 46th president of the united states, not Incumbent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.9.90.220 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect. 46th President of the United States is in the infobox at Joe Biden, where it belongs. Incumbent is required for this article's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1788 or 1789
The Constitution, pursuant to Article VII, was adopted when it received its ninth ratification on June 21, 1788. The federal government did not commence operation until March 4, 1789.Source

The Supreme Court's opinion in Owings v. Speed can not override the express terms of Article VII. Besides, that decision said, "It is apparent that the [federal] Government did not commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State[.]" That's different from saying when the Constitution commenced. So I think the article should recognize the office of President as having been established on June 21, 1788, when the Constitution was adopted according to its own terms, even though the office was vacant until March 4, 1789. SMP0328. (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, the office was vacant from March 4 to April 30, 1789. GoodDay (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. Washington became President on March 4, 1789, but could not execute any of the office's powers or duties until he took the oath of office on April 30, 1789. That's why every Presidential term pre-Twentieth Amendment started on March 4, not April 30. SMP0328. (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 1st Congress passed an Act backdating the start of Washington's term to (and setting the start date of future presidential terms on) March 4. At any rate, how about using the word "inception", as in starting point of an institution. The inception of the presidency as an institution occurred in March/April 1789. Drdpw (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why then do we have Washington's becoming US President as April 30, 1789, rather then March 4, 1789? GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the average person doesn't know of the distinction the Constitutional distinction I explained above. March 4 comes from the Confederation Congress saying that's the date when the then-new federal government would begin operating. SMP0328. (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Willing to wager that backdating had to do with setting his pay, and for no other reason. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I'm browsing the Statutes at Large, and I'm only seeing legislation at 1 Stat. 72 and 1 Stat. 318 having anything to do with the presidential compensation, and Vol. 1 covers the first five Congresses. Unsure where you're getting this idea that there's any backdating legislation. Foofighter20x (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court's opinion is controlling and binding authority as to the date. The case Owings v. Speed concerned the enactment of a Virginia law regarding a land grant within the district that later became Kentucky during the the October 1788 session of the General Assembly, between the Constitution's ratification and the commencement of the federal government on March 4, 1789. Owings's claim was that upon the ratification of the ninth state, the Contract Clause in art. I, § 10 became enforceable upon the states so ratifying; as Virginia had subsequently ratified later in the summer of 1788, Owings claimed the Contracts Clause applied and violated the contractual rights from his prior 1780 land grant. As the Supreme Court's determination of the dates of the Constitution's operational effect is necessary to its holding, the portion of the opinion cited is good law. Moreover, I know it's good law because I pulled the case cite from the latest edition of GPO's CONAN. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Electoral College, isn't the 'only' way one can become US president
Aren't we forgetting the presidential succession route? The electoral college isn't the only way, one becomes US president. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not forgotten anymore. Drdpw (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If being technical, third way is election by the House of Representatives voting by state when the Electoral College fails to elect a President. See 1824- John Quincy Adams.Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At the Veep article, contingency election for vice president, is by the Senate :) GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'Appointer' row of the veep article Infobox states: . Neither article's Infobox needs to mention contingency election, as such is an anomalous alternative mode of election. The contingent election process is covered at the appropriate place in each article. Drdpw (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2022
Under Imperial Presidency, the following line is incorrect: "His vice president, George H. W. Bush, would become the first vice president since 1836 to be directly elected to the presidency." Richard Nixon was a vice president who was directly elected to the presidency in 1968. He wasn't elected to the presidency immediately after his term as vice president, if that is what the sentence is meant to convey. But he was directly elected to the presidency. So maybe adjust the language of this sentence to reflect that? Even the referenced article dubiously depicts this. 71.223.180.8 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixon was not vice president, at the time that he was 'first' elected president. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a note that Nixon had previously served as VP, even though he was not directly elected as President during his tenure. -- Beland (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No specific time for salary.
In the salary description, it only says 400000 United States Dollars, without the time. It should be $400,000 per annum or USD400,000 per annum et cetera, et cetera. 22Jasejusttestingzapppp (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Added. -- Beland (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Material about undermining
For completeness on the de facto methods by which presidents have lost power, I added some material from How to Get Rid of a President about circumventing the president while in office. removed it as "tangential" and suggested we discuss it here. Does anyone have any suggestions for a better place for this? Does it just need its own subsection or does it belong in a different article? The text in question is:

"Controversial measures have sometimes been taken short of removal to deal with perceived recklessness on the part of the President, or with a long-term disability. In some cases, staff have intentionally failed to deliver messages to or from the President, typically to avoid executing or promoting the President to write certain orders. This has ranged from Richard Nixon's Chief of Staff not transmitting orders to the Cabinet due to the President's heavy drinking, to staff removing memos from Donald Trump's desk. Decades before the Twenty-fifth Amendment, in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson had a stroke that left him partly incapacitated. First lady Edith Wilson kept this condition a secret from the public for a while, and controversially became the sole gatekeeper for access to the President (aside from his doctor), assisting him with paperwork and deciding which information was 'important' enough to share with him."

-- Beland (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Prime Minister of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Prime Minister of the United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Gallery of former office holders
I've noticed that recently deleted (I've since restored) the gallery of former presidents from this page. Surtsicna has also deleted galleries from cabinet office pages (like United States Secretary of Agriculture for example), not to mention galleries from political office pages from 'other' countries. Personally, I've no problems with these mass deletions, but I think (though it slows the process) we should discuss it first. Concerning the American pages? I've brought this up 'here', as this US office page, get the most attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

PS - If the consensus 'here' is to delete the gallery? That should also cover the Vice President of the United States page. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is a special case because the former officeholders are actually discussed as such both in the article and in reliable sources; and there is no overall list to which the data would be redundant. There is, however, a photograph of former presidents all together, which I believe is enough to illustrate the section. Galleries should also not be a substitute for text. I am particularly concerned with such a gallery inspiring similar additions to these other articles, since this article often serves as a template for others. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agee the gallery should be deleted, as there is already a picture of former US presidents in this article. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove them (like you attempted at the veep's page) until this is settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't. But we need more discussion from other users. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any objections, so by all means delete the galleries in both (US prez & vice prez) pages. Or if you'd like, I can do it. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've removed the galleries from both pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I found myself overwhelmed by the number of pages that feature these (and other) galleries and tables, so I decided to start an RfC anyway. You can find it here. Surtsicna (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be a bit late to this discussion, but I don't see the justification for removing the gallery. It provided an organized and easy-to-update view of the former presidents (and vice presidents o that page). In addition, there is no updated photo of all the living former presidents currently on the page anyway, so this justification doesn't ring true to me. GevBen (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The justification is explained above and at the linked RfC. Drdpw (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the gallery of the former presidents should be restored because those are people who served as presidents of the United States,it wasn't necessary to delete the gallery so please restore it. Juan Pablo Rouges (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A related-RFC was held on this topic & the decision was to delete. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @GoodDay, why the decision was to delete the gallery of the former presidents of the United States?.greetings Juan Pablo Rouges (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See this RFC for further explanation. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Presidential appointments
Recently I read Michael Lewis' excellent book The Fifth Risk, and as a result, yesterday, I made a single edit to this article to include the information, verified by that book, that an incoming president is expected to make 1400 appointments within the first few weeks of assuming office, 1200 of which must be confirmed by the senate. Within a short time, my edit was quickly reverted with the comment "too much detail for this article". I happen to disagree about that, but I also happen to disagree that anyone's possible reasonable edit should be reverted by a single user without discussion. I will now undo the reversion on my edit and call for discussion on this Talk page about whether the staggering number of 1200 appointees in the first 30 days of a president's administration is not a specific and convincing example of why the presidency is so powerful. If people feel the information does not belong SOMEWHERE in this article, including perhaps in a footnote, then please identify to me where in Wikipedia it ought to go. Harborsparrow (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently, I don't have the power to undo the reversion of my edit, whereas the person who did it does. Nevertheless, I request a debate here. The edit I made can be seen here in the article's third paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_the_United_States&oldid=1143093495 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harborsparrow (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The correct course of action when one makes a bold edit that is reverted, is to leave the revert in place and to discuss the matter here on the talk page. To give more depth to my rationale for reverting: the book cited was published in 2018, and is therefore outdated. In general, the number of federal appointments an incoming president must make, and the number requiring confirmation is not static from administration. Also, though there is a citation, there is no way to ascertain the reliability of Dwight Lee's information (not even a page number from the book). This morning I came across this from the Center for Presidential Transition, updated in 2021 which gives similar numbers, and also this from the Washington Post website. These add reliability to the numbers from the book. Looking at where in the article this information could be added, there is a sentence in the article's "Executive powers" section stating: There is no citation given, and the information is inconsistent with the cited material. That being the case, I will replace those details with the sourced information here under discussion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I think it's key to note how many of those are subject to senate approval, because that is a much higher bar to cross.  I had already seen the 6000 and 8000 numbers but it doesn't specify the number for senate approval; THOSE are the ones the transition team is supposed to prepare for. Harborsparrow (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2023
INTENTION: Change plaintext1 mentions of George Washington in "History and Development":"1789 - 1933", "Incumbency":"Term Limit", and "Incumbency":"Residence" (Content #s: 1.2, 6.1, and 6.7 respectively) to hyperlinks linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington to keep consistency (all other mentions of his name in the main article are linked2). CLARIFICATIONS(2): 1: I might be using 'plaintext' wrong. I mean by 'plaintext' specifically: "HTML text with no links to other sites/pages AND no attached HTML/JavaScript functions". 2: As in: all other uses of the name 'George Washington' in segments of the article "President of the United States" written in full English sentences (example from the article: "The power of the presidency has grown substantially since the first president, George Washington, took office in 1789."). This does NOT refer to uses of 'George Washington' in and beyond content section "See Also". Chickendoodle32 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As described in the manual of style, links should only appear once in an article, with exceptions for the lead, tables, and images. I have removed the duplicated links in this article to match this guideline. Tollens (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox on succession
Should there not be mention of possible successions beyond the Vice Presidency such as the 1947 Presidential Succession Act? While it's never happened, it is a common speculative device and has informed White House decisionmaking throughout history. JMT97CLT (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have something specific in mind please make a proposal. The current Vacancies and succession section does mention possible successions beyond the Vice Presidency and includes inline links to several articles that discuss this topic in greater depth. Drdpw (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious?
how did this article become so blatantly partisan? There is absolutely no mention of any positive accomplishments, such as the Abraham accords and prison reform.

Right off the bat, Trump's regulatory reforms are presented as "weakening environmental regulations" in totally one sided language. What has become of Wikipedia? Tzadik (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have specific improvements to offer, please propose them. Drdpw (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not aimed to be a place for anybody come to complain about what they don't like about the article, but rather proposing specific changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.245.33 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Direct link
the link to united states of america go to article united states of america which redirects to article United states… therefore i suggest changing the link directly to the desired page Michael H 14:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Red_information_icon_with_gradient_background.svg  Not done: It is not clear what you want to change in this article.
 * Please request an edit in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". SKAG123 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Growth of Power
I do apologize that I edited the article before consulting the talk page however I have been thinking about this edit for sometime. Although the presidency was dramatically reshaped during FDR's tenure, gaining more power and influence, myself and likeminded scholars also argue that it underwent a similar change during George W. Bush's tenure. The combined post 9/11 legislation with regards to terrorism, government surveillance, among other things has dramatically expanded the power, size, and scope of the executive branch that I would argue warrants an inclusion alongside FDR in the article's lead. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 21:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Replace "Constitution of the United States" with "Constitution of the United States, article II"
Just to make it easier for anyone who comes across the infobox. Technically, if we want to be really pedantic it's article II, section 1, which says "the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Link Correction
Under Section 6.4 (Incumbency > Removal), the first two links go to the same page (Federal impeachment in the United States). The first link should be corrected to direct to "List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States". RamsayAW (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thanks for pointing that out. Drdpw (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Imperial presidency
Under Imperial presidency the loss by Trump the next time he stood for political office contradicts the last sentence of the section. Information there is out-of-date and should be updated. 24.240.218.117 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed: The statement is specious; its validity/accuracy is debatable. Drdpw (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

22nd ammendment point doesn't parse
3rd sentence of 3rd para in section 'Incumbancy - Term limit', regarding Truman and the 22nd ammendment, doesn't parse. Could benifit from spliting up into simpler sentences. 213.106.89.162 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I have rephrased the long run on sentence. Drdpw (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)