This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Officer of the United States appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 May 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
to the incompatibility clause. Reading the middle paragraph through leaves much confusion still, in using "officer" interchangeably in contexts.
Recommended the following paragraph for Officer of the United States#Ineligibility Clause
Members of the United States Congress—the legislative branch of the United States government—are not "officers of the United States" and cannot simultaneously serve in Congress and as an officer of the United States under the "Ineligibility Clause" (also called the "Incompatibility Clause") of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2). This provision states: [1]
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Because the Presidency and Vice Presidency are offices of the United States specifically defined by the Constitution and are usually filled by election, they are not within the scope of those offices contemplated by the appointments clause. However, under the ineligibility clause, at least one academic has raised questions as to whether a President or Vice President could also be a senator. This question arose when Senator Barack Obama was elected President. That academic concluded that the office of the President was not an “office under the United States” [2] arguing among his reasons a specific interpretation of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. [3] Although President Obama did resign his Senate seat before taking the oath of office, some contend that he was not required to do so. In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris also resigned her Senate seat before being sworn in, further cementing the precedent that the nation's top officers cannot also simultaneously be members of Congress. The issue has never been decided or even come before the courts.
Members of the United States Congress—the legislative branch of the United States government—are not "officers of the United States" and cannot simultaneously serve in Congress and as an officer of the United States under the "Ineligibility Clause" (also called the "Incompatibility Clause") of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2). This provision states: [1]
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
The ineligibility clause precludes members of Congress from also holding an office under the United States, and at least one academic has raised questions as to whether a President or Vice President could also be a senator. This question arose when Senator Barack Obama was elected President. That academic concluded that the office of the President was not an “office under the United States” [4] arguing among his reasons a specific interpretation of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 would render that clause in violation of the legal principle of surplusage [5] by including both the "President" and "civil officers" in the same provision of law. He concluded that if the President was a civil officer, a court would be required to violate that principle and assume the word "President" is superfluous, opening up many contradictions within the Constitution. Although President Obama did resign his Senate seat before taking the oath of office, some contend that he was not required to do so. In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris also resigned her Senate seat before being sworn in, further cementing the precedent that the nation's top officials cannot also simultaneously be members of Congress, which if it were to occur may open up serious concerns over the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. The issue has never been decided or even come before the courts.
-- Frobozz1 ( talk) 21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
doj
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).the Presidency is not "an Office under the United States.
A superfluous and useless statement of matter wholly foreign and impertinent to the cause.
the Presidency is not "an Office under the United States.
A superfluous and useless statement of matter wholly foreign and impertinent to the cause.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Officer under the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Officer under the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Office under the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Office under the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The section drags a debate between scholars into the article and provides nothing factual or even widely held to the article that is supposed to be about officers. Its inclusion itself is a vast synthesis of "A + B therefore President is/is not and officer" and brings undue legitimacy to what is nothing more than a political debate. It was interesting as a trivia snippet in Ineligibility clause but now it is creating a narrative that the President/Vice president are constitutional officers and all the verified secondary sources may be wrong, creating conflicts with the rest of the verified information as well.
--
47.196.197.231 (
talk)
18:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
CONSENSUS SOUGHT on the neutrality of the debate article vs. established court opinions. Do not repost before consensus. Thank you,
--
47.196.197.231 (
talk)
19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be greatly helpful if what is thought to be OR were tagged that I may point out the proper quote within my cite, I assure you my citations are accurate if perhaps difficult to spot. To wit: the Calabresi exact quote I balanced with was deleted;
“ | That leaves us with Tillman’s argument about the Commissions Clause, where, as I conceded in my Opening Statement, he has a valid point. The Commissions Clause commands that the President must commission all the officers of the United States, and yet no President has commissioned himself, his successor, or his Vice President. Thus, Tillman has an argument from practice that Presidents and Vice Presidents either have not been regarded as being officers of the United States or at least that the question has been embarrassingly overlooked. | ” |
Now this is spun to assume that "100% from practice" is somehow not meaningful. The fact is, we call that precedent and it is most meaningful. So why can't we achieve some neutral presentation if the debate must be included?
In any case, what value doe this debate add? It has been in circulation over a dozen years and has reams of advocacy and critical papers derived from it, but in the end we can paint any picture we want about the opinions. What we factually do know is that at no time has the Supreme Court ever considered anyone to be an officer of the United States unless they were commissioned under Article II. There are dozens of cases at this point.
To the other point, in a month on Wiki I have yet to find the email button and I know some emails are waiting, so I ignore them. Likewise, I generally work incognito and only log in if I'm doing anything significant or voting. Likewise, I learned they already know me by my IP so I'm not exactly hiding anything. If it's important I can log in more readly.
--
Frobozz1 (
talk)
23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Officer of the United States appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 May 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
to the incompatibility clause. Reading the middle paragraph through leaves much confusion still, in using "officer" interchangeably in contexts.
Recommended the following paragraph for Officer of the United States#Ineligibility Clause
Members of the United States Congress—the legislative branch of the United States government—are not "officers of the United States" and cannot simultaneously serve in Congress and as an officer of the United States under the "Ineligibility Clause" (also called the "Incompatibility Clause") of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2). This provision states: [1]
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Because the Presidency and Vice Presidency are offices of the United States specifically defined by the Constitution and are usually filled by election, they are not within the scope of those offices contemplated by the appointments clause. However, under the ineligibility clause, at least one academic has raised questions as to whether a President or Vice President could also be a senator. This question arose when Senator Barack Obama was elected President. That academic concluded that the office of the President was not an “office under the United States” [2] arguing among his reasons a specific interpretation of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. [3] Although President Obama did resign his Senate seat before taking the oath of office, some contend that he was not required to do so. In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris also resigned her Senate seat before being sworn in, further cementing the precedent that the nation's top officers cannot also simultaneously be members of Congress. The issue has never been decided or even come before the courts.
Members of the United States Congress—the legislative branch of the United States government—are not "officers of the United States" and cannot simultaneously serve in Congress and as an officer of the United States under the "Ineligibility Clause" (also called the "Incompatibility Clause") of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2). This provision states: [1]
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
The ineligibility clause precludes members of Congress from also holding an office under the United States, and at least one academic has raised questions as to whether a President or Vice President could also be a senator. This question arose when Senator Barack Obama was elected President. That academic concluded that the office of the President was not an “office under the United States” [4] arguing among his reasons a specific interpretation of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 would render that clause in violation of the legal principle of surplusage [5] by including both the "President" and "civil officers" in the same provision of law. He concluded that if the President was a civil officer, a court would be required to violate that principle and assume the word "President" is superfluous, opening up many contradictions within the Constitution. Although President Obama did resign his Senate seat before taking the oath of office, some contend that he was not required to do so. In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris also resigned her Senate seat before being sworn in, further cementing the precedent that the nation's top officials cannot also simultaneously be members of Congress, which if it were to occur may open up serious concerns over the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. The issue has never been decided or even come before the courts.
-- Frobozz1 ( talk) 21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
References
doj
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).the Presidency is not "an Office under the United States.
A superfluous and useless statement of matter wholly foreign and impertinent to the cause.
the Presidency is not "an Office under the United States.
A superfluous and useless statement of matter wholly foreign and impertinent to the cause.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Officer under the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Officer under the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Office under the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Office under the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The section drags a debate between scholars into the article and provides nothing factual or even widely held to the article that is supposed to be about officers. Its inclusion itself is a vast synthesis of "A + B therefore President is/is not and officer" and brings undue legitimacy to what is nothing more than a political debate. It was interesting as a trivia snippet in Ineligibility clause but now it is creating a narrative that the President/Vice president are constitutional officers and all the verified secondary sources may be wrong, creating conflicts with the rest of the verified information as well.
--
47.196.197.231 (
talk)
18:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
CONSENSUS SOUGHT on the neutrality of the debate article vs. established court opinions. Do not repost before consensus. Thank you,
--
47.196.197.231 (
talk)
19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be greatly helpful if what is thought to be OR were tagged that I may point out the proper quote within my cite, I assure you my citations are accurate if perhaps difficult to spot. To wit: the Calabresi exact quote I balanced with was deleted;
“ | That leaves us with Tillman’s argument about the Commissions Clause, where, as I conceded in my Opening Statement, he has a valid point. The Commissions Clause commands that the President must commission all the officers of the United States, and yet no President has commissioned himself, his successor, or his Vice President. Thus, Tillman has an argument from practice that Presidents and Vice Presidents either have not been regarded as being officers of the United States or at least that the question has been embarrassingly overlooked. | ” |
Now this is spun to assume that "100% from practice" is somehow not meaningful. The fact is, we call that precedent and it is most meaningful. So why can't we achieve some neutral presentation if the debate must be included?
In any case, what value doe this debate add? It has been in circulation over a dozen years and has reams of advocacy and critical papers derived from it, but in the end we can paint any picture we want about the opinions. What we factually do know is that at no time has the Supreme Court ever considered anyone to be an officer of the United States unless they were commissioned under Article II. There are dozens of cases at this point.
To the other point, in a month on Wiki I have yet to find the email button and I know some emails are waiting, so I ignore them. Likewise, I generally work incognito and only log in if I'm doing anything significant or voting. Likewise, I learned they already know me by my IP so I'm not exactly hiding anything. If it's important I can log in more readly.
--
Frobozz1 (
talk)
23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)