Talk:David Rice Atchison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
David Rice Atchison is part of WikiProject Kentucky, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Kentucky on Wikipedia. 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 is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. |
It seems to me that the issue in dispute is really a question of constitutional law. I think arguments for either position (i.e., that Atchison was or was not de jure President) should be based on clear legal reasoning.
Perhaps we could introduce some links to authority supporting the various points, such as to Article II of the Constitution, the 25th Amendment and 3 U.S.C §19?
I'm not a U.S. constitutional lawyer. I won't make any alteration to the Atchison article, but here's my two cents' worth: the combined effect of clauses 2, 6 and 8 of Article II is that Zachary Taylor became President immediately James Polk's term ended. In my opinion, the Inauguration and oath of office do not operate to render a person President or to confer any of the President's powers upon him. Furthermore, clause 6 of Article II does not prescribe a transfer of the Presidencybut only deals with the exercise of the President's powers by another person "(i)n Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office." There is no suggestion that James Polk was removed/impeached, died, resigned or became disabled. I would contend that Taylor became President, having a been elected to that office, at the moment when James Polk ceased to hold it.
All that being said, I would ask that somebody more expert in this topic than I check this matter out and add some specific references to the article. Wulfilia 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The project Unusual articles has been has been linking this article as an example of "unusual articles" on Wikipedia. I have just deleted the reference and link to to this article on Wikipedia:Unusual articles, because I believe that, in its current form (in which there is no complex discussion of or consensus on the "unusual aspect"), its presence there tends to make Wikipedia seem eccentric or unreliable. I hope I have not offended anybody by doing this - do please contact me if you have a problem with it. Wulfilia 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a cute story but according to the Constitution one does not become President until taking the Oath of Office.
The President is an office, not merely a rank. Being the highest ranking official in the government is not enough to make you President.
Agreed. I think it would be more accurate to say that there was no sitting President during that time, but that if some emergency had required the presence of one, he could have been sworn in to the job for that purpose. --LDC
This is true.
- This isn't true. If an emergency required the presence of one, then Taylor would have been sworn in, because he was the President-elect. That's why this whole urban legend is bogus. —Cleared as filed. 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a qualm with the debunking section - doesn't the word 'absurd' kind of imply an non-neutral standpoint on the article?
Shouldn't it be something like 'incorrect'? --ac
How could Polk's secretary of state be next in line? Polk couldn't appoint his cabinet yet because, he wasn't president yet.!!!!! Rt66lt 20:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I have my president's mixed up. It still wouldn't matter, Buchanan's term would have ended as well. Rt66lt 22:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
"Facts behind the myth" should be changed to a different title. It sounds like it's going to say 'these are the things to support it' then later another heading of things which would debunk it. This is just one man's opinion. Gohst 11:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Presidential term begins on time. Oath or not. The oath is not required to become President of the US. It is required to "enter upon the execution of the office" There were in total six Presidents who took the oath one or two days after their term began. Monroe 1821, Tyler 1841, Taylor 1849, Fillmore 1850, Arthur 1881, Coolidge 1923. (Info from www.rulers.org)--Gerard von Hebel 12:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the whole legend falls apart if you consider one point: even if it were true that one must take the oath of office for one to be President, then David Rice Atchinson could not have been President for one day as he did not take the oath of office either. Mike Beidler 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And, behold, if I had read the article before I commented, I would have seen that my point has already been made. Note to self: read the article before engaging in the discussion. Oy! Mike Beidler 23:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Oath Is Required
To clarify a mistake in the article, Art. II Sec. 1(8) requires that the President take an oath prior to entering office. The oath is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, Sen. Atchison was not President as he took no oath.
[edit] Beginning of "term" - midnight or noon?
There's been discussion on Talk:Herbert Hoover about just when an old President gave way to the new before the 20th Amendment. It seems that this is something that wasn't explicit, or for that matter even really debated - on the morning of March 4th the outgoing and incoming Presidents were going to be saluted no matter who was in office. If the old term expired at midnight then that would in theory create a huge number of additional "Acting Presidents" - perhaps another reason why this is bogus.
(If I remember correctly the President of Ireland does have something similar to this idea - technically there's an acting Presidency made up of the organs of government between the end of a term and the oath taking, even when the incumbent is re-elected.)
This article is stating confidently that Atchison's "term" began at noon - was there any opinion at all at the time as to when these things happened? Or did they just no care whereas nowadays a big fuss is made if a President is to be sedated for a mere couple of hours? Timrollpickering 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
