From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Article Two of the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Contents 1 Actual text 2 Qualifications of Vice President 3 Natural born citizen 4 Section 2, clause 2: Appointments 5 "Missing clause"? 6 commander-in-chief =

[edit] Actual text

Shouldn't the text not be quoted in the article in addition to the conclusions of the constitution's meaning? Lord Metroid 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qualifications of Vice President

It was stated under presidential qualifications that, according to the 22nd amendment, no one can be elected to the Presidency more than twice (which is correct) and that the same standard applies to a former President elected to the office of VP (which isn't correct). Specifically, the sentence said:

"The Twenty-second Amendment also prevents a President from being elected more than twice. Presumably, this also means a former two-term President could not later qualify to be Vice President."

Since no former President has run for or been elected to the office of the Vice President since the passage of the 22nd amendment and in light of the fact that there is a distinct lack of judicial opinions on the matter, it would be appropriate here not to provide such a conjecture. sebmol 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, going by the actual text related to the Natural-Born requirement, there doesn't appear to be anything specifically related to the position of Vice-President:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

If australia was to become a state, would I, a natural born australian be eligible for president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natural born citizen

moved from article page:

While the "natural born" clause has never been challenged, in theory, "Adoption of this Constitution" could mean anyone who is a United States Citizen at the time the Archivist of the United States officially declared the current version of the Constitution, modified by the most recent Amendment, valid could become President.

Why was it included?

Is it possible to determine why this was incorporated ? Was it simply to ensure no English person could become president and cede power back to England? "Native Americans" were still relatively few in number at the time of the authorship of the constitution , this clause will have excluded many Irish, Italian etc. immigrants at that time and many many more today. Does it not imply all non "natural born" citizens are either not to be trusted or are of less ability - or is there no such concern within the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.131.19 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was included primarily because Alexander Hamilton's political opponents didn't want him to become President. Hamilton was born in Bermuda and thus not a natural-born US citizen.

As to the other matter of the paragraph which has been removed and re-inserted - it doesn't matter if it's NPOV, it is factually incorrect. There is no debate. Every reliable authority on the United States Constitution believes that persons born in U.S. territories are natural-born citizens. That's why the statement about the "dispute" sat uncited for two months - because there is no authority to back up that claim. John McCain is a natural-born citizen and there is no controversy as to his eligibility to be President. JTRH (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Factually incorrect were the words I was looking for. It had seemed odd to me, but I'm glad that there is another source to back that feeling up. NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 2, clause 2: Appointments

Is there any precedent of Congress abolishing a presidentially appointed office while that office was not vacant (this, of course, gives Congress a means of firing an officer it doesn't like despite the objections of the president)? If so, I believe a sentence or two on that topic is appropriate in the article. Karlhahn 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Missing clause"?

A subheading under "Section 2: Presidential Powers" is titled "The missing clause: Executive Privilege". I see no reason why this extension of presidential power should be elevated to the status of a "Missing clause" (or is it lowered by pointing out that the Constitution doesn't provide for it?). NPOV and clarity both suggest that this topic not be presented under this heading. Harold f 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objection in the last month, and consistent with the above, I have changed the title and first sentence from

The missing clause: Executive Privilege

The question of what information the President may withhold from the courts or Congress is contentious and undetermined.

to

Executive Privilege: A missing clause?

Presidents have claimed the power to withhold information from the courts and Congress, but no clause of the Constitution speaks of such a power, and questions regarding this are contentious and undetermined.

I think that this makes no change in the statement of fact, but removes inappropriate implications. Harold f 22:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commander-in-chief =

The president is not the highest ranking officer in the military. He is not a part of the military. Rather he is a civilian who is the civilian commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, plus the state militias, The intention, as stated in Federal Paper No. 69 (http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/overview/federa69.html) "First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union." Gary Wills, a conservative historian, wrote: "The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines. That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket). We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past by caudillos." From the WashingtonPost address blacked. The distinction of the American system is that the military is answerable to civilian. Wills cites Eisenhower. What his article does not say is that Eisenhower resigned from his 5-star rank on May 19, 1952 to run for president. After he served two terms he applied for reinstatement as a 5-star general. Jmc9595 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks :) NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)