Talk:United States order of precedence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sourcing 2 Governors 3 Individuals 4 Chiefs of Staff of the Four Services 5 Under Secretaries 6 Wives of Former Presidents? 7 (if present) 8 Former Presidents of the United States (in order of term) 9 Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of foreign states 10 Pelosi as Speaker 11 #30 Governor of Puerto Rico (Aníbal Acevedo Vilá) 12 Mayor 13 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 14 Validity of boxes on individual's pages 15 Foreign heads of state and government 16 Lt. Governors

[edit] Sourcing

Where did this order come from? In some particulars it does not match [1] which claims to be quoting an official source. Rmhermen 01:34 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of this article. Also, there is a place for Ministers of Foreign Powers, yet there is none for Heads of State or Chief Executives of Foreign Powers (which has an equivalent position or one just under the President of the United States in all official functions). Such a list would probably be created by a congressional committee or the Department of State. With this link they claim the source is the State Department: http://www.nyc.gov/html/unccp/html/protocol/precedence.shtml --Azndragonemperor 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This list doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It has absolutely no foundation in the United States Constitution or under any American law. The order is completely arbitrary and caprecious. In fact, our federalist system, with dual state and national systems of government and courts necessarily precludes this sort of mumbo jumbo ranking system. Wikipedia should pull this article.

[edit] Governors

I know older books speak of Governors being arranged in the order of their states' admissions to the Union, but all current practice I've seen they arrange governors by the alphabetical order of their states. Any State Department types out there who can clarify? PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

It is curious how a nominally egalitarian country, which has rejected historical titles, has an order of precedence. 03:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They aren't hereditary titles, they are bestowed by, in most case, the voters. -Will Beback 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not first ladies and not members of the exective other than the President and VP. But then, neither is the Supreme Court. What gets me is how low Congress is, that we reward career Congressfolk with seniority (in so many more ways than this), and that the Drug Czar is so high. Any rate, yeah, it's idiotic, especially considered that the branches are supposed to be equal. Hopefully though the people above are right and the whole thing is a hoax. --71.192.116.43 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individuals

While Supreme Court justices dson't change frequently, cabinet officers do. I'd suggest that this article would be more maintainable if we omitted the names of individuals from the list. -Will Beback 01:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Gates has only been confirmed by the Senate. This does not mean he is automatically the acting Secretary of Defense, does it? He has to take the oath, etc. Until then, this page should indicate Donald Rumsfeld as the acting Secretary of State. Heavy 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Heavy1974 15:43PM, 12-06-2006 (CST)

[edit] Chiefs of Staff of the Four Services

I do not think that the order is correct. I'm pretty sure the AF CoS is not the most senior.

12.149.39.84 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right; he's actually the most junior of the four. I've fixed the page. Alkari 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Under Secretaries

37 says Undersecretaries of Exec. Departments and 45 says the Undersecretary of Defense. Wouldn't he be included in 37? Please clarify. Thanks!--Daysleeper47 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wives of Former Presidents?

Number 11 lists a spot for the widows of former presidents, but there's no spot on the list for the wive of living former presidents. Please tell me that this a mistake on the list. --Don Sowell 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wives of living former presidents aren't mentioned in either of the sources. -Will Beback 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you're talking about the 2 external links as sources, I'm pretty sure neither does it include the First Lady or the VP's spouse as this article does. So isn't it likely that the spouses of any of the people on the list are, from this ceremonial perspective, assigned the same position, protocol-wise as the principal? Tvoz | talk 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's an interesting question now that there is a wife of a former President who has a spot in her own right further down the list. 121.208.60.237 15:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And until we get a definitive answer, we cannot assume that Hillary Rodham Clinton's "precedence" standing is the way this list reads. Tvoz | talk 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (if present)

After the First Lady and second Lady we note "(if present)". That caveat could be used for any entry in this list. I don't think that it's customary to leave an empty place for people who aren't present. Or do we mean that the First Lady only has a place in the order of precedence if her husband is present? It'd be a bit odd for the First Lady to outrank the Vice President in her own right. -Will Beback 18:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Presidents of the United States (in order of term)

Shouldn't the "Former Presidents of the United States (in order of term)" section also include their wives if present just like the president and vice president listings do? Other wise a widow such as Nancy Reagan would get precedence over say, Rosaline Carter even if Jimmy Carter was present. Also should first ladies who are not with their husbands fall back into the precendence among the widows. Seems like both these concepts would make sense. Somebody let me know.--Dr who1975 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of foreign states

In what order within this category? Do 'important' or particularly friendly countries get precedence (e.g. China, Russia, UK, France, Canada, Mexico) or is it strict alphabetic order? Or order in which the countries started up diplomatic relations with the US? Or some other system? Simhedges 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't foind a source for the U.S. at the moment, but I'm sure it's the same as in other countries. [2]. The order of precedence is determined by the date each ambassador presented his or her credentials, so the longest-serving goes first. -Will Beback · † · 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (PDF). It's determined by international law so the U.S. is bound to follow it. I'll go ahead and add it to the article. -Will Beback · † · 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelosi as Speaker

I just reverted a change that listed Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House. I did this because she is not the Speaker and will not become the Speaker until the afternoon of January 4th, after a vote by the Members-elect of the House of Representatives.

I am somewhat torn about what this page should reflect at noon on January 3. At noon, according to the 20th Amendment, the terms of Representatives shall end and the terms of their successors shall then begin. At that hour, I assume, the House is without a Speaker since it has not yet organized and the term of its previous Speaker ended under the terms of the 20th Amendment. It would be wrong to include Nancy Pelosi at that time because the 110th Congress will not convene until January 4th and thus, from noon on January 3rd until her election by the House, she is still not the Speaker.

If anyone has additional thoughts on this, I would love to hear them. If not, at noon on January 3, I will remove J. Dennis Hastert from his place in the order of precedence and mark that the office is vacant until the House of Representatives from the 110th Congress elects its Speaker, providing a link to the presumptive Speaker's name, Nancy Pelosi. I will keep Stevens as the President Pro Tempore because, under Senate resolution, that office is perpetual until the Senate elects a new President Pro Tempore and his term as Senator will not expire at noon.

Sound good to all? JasonCNJ 08:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... the day went by with an incorrect page for a period of time and the world didn't explode. Don't get me wrong, your input is apreciated and I'm about to ask a very anal question myself.--Dr who1975 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This definitely gets my vote for the Most Amusingly Obsessive Mistaking of an Encylopedia for a News Feed of 2007! Wasted Time R 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #30 Governor of Puerto Rico (Aníbal Acevedo Vilá)

I notice that for all the other governors, the page stipulates that it is only when in their state, but it does not stipulate this for the governor of Puerto Rico. I see 3 possibilies of things to change...

a. the governors should also elsewhere in the precedence (maybe I just didn't notice) for when they are NOT in their home state.

b. The govenor of Puerto Rico is only 30 in the precedence when IN PUERTO RICO.

c. The govenor of Peurto Rico should be on thier twice for when the event is IN Peurto Rico and again when the even is OUTSIDE Puerto Rico. Anybody know?--Dr who1975 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Entry #25 indicates Governors when outside their home states, by order of their admission to the Union. I assume that while in Puerto Rico, the Governor would be granted the higher presence of "a Governor (in his home state)" but would otherwise be placed at entry #30, since he probabaly could not have a higher precedence than Governors of the several states. JasonCNJ 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor

What about the Mayor of Washington DC? I couldn't imagine he would come before, say, the Speaker of the House for something like a State dinner. Is there a special rule for this office? Does he take precedence at city events and lose it at federal functions? —  MusicMaker 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Is there a reason the members of the House aren't listed? All 100 Senators, 50 Governors, and even all 50 Lt. Governors are listed. The Order of Precedence is harder to determine for the members of the House than for Governors (House is by length of term, gov. is by order of admission of the state) and so I'd suggest that it's important that they be listed. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest again the idea of omitting all individual names from this list. The more we add the more we have to maintain, and the more likely it will be inaccurate. If we omit all names this could be 100% accurate and up to date. With a thousand names it will be inaccurate and out of date all of the time almost automatically. As Tim points out, we've got large gaps in the higher ends of the list, particularly the representatives and the foreign ambassadors. That'd be another 600 additional people. And who'd even think of using this list as an authority? "What gave you the idea of placing the Governor ahead of the Chief Justice?" "Well, I got this list off of Wikipedia..." Instead of adding more names I think we should remove them all. -Will Beback · † · 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to mildly disagree. While I agree that it'd be pointless to keep lists such as Ambassadors on the page (as ambassadors are likely to be non-notable and may change at irregular intervals), I suggest that a list of the order of precedence for the House and Senate would be a good thing - the list is hard to find elsewhere and since the vast majority of Senate/House incumbents are re-elected, the majority of the list would remain static. Any parts that did need to be updated would (for the most part) change at regular intervals at election time and would be fairly simple to update. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think it will help, and will be maintainable, go ahead and add them. -Will Beback · † · 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started the list - if anyone else would like to add to the list, the order of precedence is determined first by the date the Representative took office, then alphabetically by last name. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of boxes on individual's pages

WHile I think this topic is of interest for those concerned about symbolic ceremonial matters - so I certainly think it's fine for this article to be here - I do not think that adding a "precedence" box on every senator's page makes sense. "Order of precedence" is not a commonly known term, and therefore I believe can easily be misconstrued to mean order of succession to the presidency in the event of some kind of catastrophe, and it decidedly is not that. Further, as mentioned above, we don't even know about the status of spouses, and this could be important, for example, when talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton who is both a former First Lady and a Senator. All that this represents is some kind of ceremonial hierarchy with no real meaning in the real world. The potential for misunderstanding is great, and I think that these boxes should be removed. Order of succession boxes would be valid, but not ceremonial precedence - not in the US. Tvoz | talk 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing these boxes but they have seemingly found their way through many articles. I recently removed them from Hillary Clinton but I really don't know how many of these there really are. Any support for deleting or help deleting would be appreciated. Gdo01 02:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign heads of state and government

I assume visiting foreign heads of state rank immediately after the president. What about visiting foreign heads of government? Can anyone find any sources on this? john k 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lt. Governors

I noticed today that the Lt. Governor section had been included with the names of the LtGs of the various states. Someone made a change today that noted New Jersey would have a LtG effective in January 2010. I noticed that the list included the President of the NJ State Senate, Richard Codey. But I do not believe that the order of precedence would permit Richard Codey a place in line. He is NOT the Lt. Governor of New Jersey. For the states that do not have a Lt.G., I am fairly certain that the Order does not permit them to just substitute in their next-in-line. I would like to remove those States from the order of precedence, as they do not meet the criteria for that section. JasonCNJ 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)