Jump to content

Talk:United States order of precedence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.

This list doesn't seem to reflect any legitimate order of precedence. It seems instead to just be an arbitrary ranking that could have been made by anybody. I think this article should be deleted. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary at all. The order of precedence is formally established. That said, it rarely affects anything in real life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Order of Precedence is maintained by the Office of the Chief of Protocol of the State Department. They do not publish the OoP specifically because the OoP is subject to change and they do not want out of date copies in circulation. The sources for this page are old copies of the OoP and should not be relied upon as being accurate. While it may be true that at some point in time the ordering listed on this page accurately represented the OoP, it cannot be said that it does now (and it certainly cannot be said that the people listed have _ever_ been in their listed spots in the OoP). Unless DoS changes its policy of releasing the OoP, this page is relying on out of date information and should not be relied upon as representing the current OoP. M Pinck (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)



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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Attorney General Gonzales

Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General and, barring unforseen circumstances, will remain the Attorney General until 17 September 2007. Please do not remove him from the Order of Precedence until that time. The position of Attorney General is not vacant. JasonCNJ 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Territorial governors

Togiola Tulafono, Felix Perez Camacho, Benigno R. Fitial and John de Jongh are the head of high-level territories and Ipulasi Aitofele Sunia, Michael W. Cruz, Timothy P. Villagomez and Gregory Francis are their respective lieutenants. Adrian Fenty if Washington's mayor and the governor of the above people's equivalent, but I don't know who his deputy is. There's a place for the Governor of Puerto Rico, why not them? And does the Resident Representative (Pedro Agulto Tenorio) of the Northern Marina Islands have a place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therequiembellishere (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources again

The list here does not correspond to either of the lists given as sources. What is it based on? john k (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. The list in the article? Doesn't correspond to what lists?
JasonCNJ (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
To the two external links. We link to two external links, but there is information on our list which comes from neither, and some which contradicts the Big Moment Films list (whose own provenance, it must be noted, is somewhat doubtful). john k (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Other teritories

Puerto Rico's governor has a place in the order of precedence what about the governors of other American teritories?--69.40.139.226 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Order of Precedence Template?

The Order of Precedence Template appears to list Foreign Countries in the order of their names in the English Language. The only sense in which it might make sense could concern the precedence among foreign heads of state when they are present, but that is not discussed in the article and I have no evidence of whether that alphabetical precedence applies. The only place where the article discusses precedence among different countries concerns the precedence of foreign ambassadors, who are ranked in order of the tenure of their appointment. As it stands, the template is confusing in this article and, unless it's presence can be otherwise justified, I suggest it be removed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes by Obama and Biden

Is it really necessary to add these notes to Obama and Biden? THese are not the only two whose positions will change in January. (about 13 other Senators, all the cabinet folks, a lot of representatives, etc.) I'm removing the notes on Obama and Biden.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet Secretaries

As I understand it, Bush's Cabinet (other than Robert Gates) will resign just after noon. Obama's selections must be confirmed before entering office. For some, this will lead to a gap of hours, for others, the gap will last days. I think we should we just remove the names after noon, and add the new ones in as they are sworn. -Rrius (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. JasonCNJ (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the head of the Environmental Protection Agency? This is a cabinet-level position like OMB and USTR. Shouldn't this be on here somewhere? 60.49.39.77 (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hillary

I notice that Hillary Clinton, who is expected to be confirmed as Secretary of State, is also a former First Lady. That means her position in the order of preference would shift from one place to another in the order of preference depending on whether her husband is present (this already happens, because she is a Senator in addition to being an ex-first lady). I also notice that there are other people theoretically eligible for more than one spot on the Order of Precedence, such as Bush the Elder and Nancy Pelosi. Do they ever bumble their location in the order, or do they have someone telling them where they should stand in line? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're presuming that this has any real importance or use. ;) Even in status-conscious Washington, I doubt there are many occasions when senators line up in order of seniority.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous Representational Terms

What of previous terms of other high-level offices? Do Senators who were formerly Representatives get slotted higher than new Senator who were never in Congress before? What if they were a former Governor or Lieutenant Governor? Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See Seniority in the United States Senate. -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How should they be shown here? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I would think just list them without explanation. The reason they hold position X in the order is because of their seniority. Leave it to the seniority page to explain why they rank where they do. A glance at the table at the seniority article should convince anyone it is too much information for this list. -Rrius (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Should the previous terms in the Representative list be removed, as well? I'm sure more goes into their seniority, too. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ought this article be deleted? It has no sources...

This stuff is no doubt fascinating to many, and may even be true, however it is not sourced and thus should not be in Wikipedia. It seems that, at a minimum, the entire section Details as of January 2009 should be removed under the Wikipedia "be bold" policy unless someone finds some verifiable sources that can be cited with inline citations. The article has been fact-tagged for more than a year. However, taking to heart the sage advice to "Be bold, ... but Be not too bold", I thought it best to comment here first and see if someone wants to remedy the situation and retain the section/article. N2e (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your complaint? The order itself purports to be verified by the sources listed at the end of the article. To the extent that it does not actually reflect those sources, change it. Generally, the specific holders of office are the sort of common or unassailable knowledge that can be stated without citation. For instance, that Barack Obama is the President or that Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State does not require citation. -Rrius (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant governors

Of the two sources we have for the order of precedence, only the New York one suggests lieutenant governors are listed. Since there is no verification for other first in lines being in the order, I am removing them. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A look at www.nlga.us, the National Lieutenant Governors Association website will reveal that: "About NLGA

The National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA), organized in 1962, is the professional association for the elected officials who are first in line of succession to the governors in the 50 states and five territorial jurisdictions (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

Should a vacancy occur, the state’s constitution dictates who is first in line of succession and this official represents the state as the NLGA member. In 42 states and four territories this elected official bears the title of lieutenant governor. In three states and one territory this official is the secretary of state. In four states, the president of the senate is first in line of succession to the governor, two of whom are statutorily empowered to use the title 'Lt. Governor.'"

As it states, and I would hope that you would consider NLGA an authoritative source, state [or territorial] constitutions determine who is first in line. In Puerto Rico, Article 4 of the Constitution (http://welcome.topuertorico.org/constitu.shtml) states: "Section 7. When a vacancy occurs in the office of Governor, caused by death, resignation, removal, total and permanent incapacity, or any other absolute disability, said office shall devolve upon the Secretary of State, who shall hold it for the rest of the term and until a new Governor has been elected and qualifies...". It also requires that the individual appointed to be Secretary of State fulfill the same constitutional requirements prescribed for the governorship.

Similar language appears in other constitutions or, in the case of some territories, in their respective Federal organic act.

In three states and Puerto Rico it is the Secretary of State, in four states it is the President of the Senate and in 42 states and 4 territories it is the Lt. Gov. who stand first-in-line. Thus, the role generally known as "Lieutenant Governor" is fulfilled by individuals whose title may vary but who are nevertheless first-in-line of succession to the Governorship of the state or territory. These individuals are afforded a higher level of precedence in their states than that afforded to "Secretaries of State", or "Presidents of the Senate" in states where those titles do not describe the person first-in-line to succeed the Governor, in consideration of their rank as that of a lieutenant governor.

Finally, the classification of "Ministers of Foreign Powers" is not limited to those formally called "Ministers", but may also include "Secretaries" and other functionaries who hold what is considered ministerial rank.

I suggest you reinstate the edited text. Pr4ever (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Who qualifies for the NLGA is completely irrelevant to who is included in the Order of Precedence, which is an actual list created and maintained by the State Department. You have provided no evidence that the Order of Precedence substitutes the next in line for the lieutenant governor when a state has no such office or its office is vacant. The text should not be re-introduced until it is verified by a reliable source pursuant to Wikipedia policy.
I addressed the point about ministers of foreign powers above. "Ministers of foreign powers" is a generic term, lieutenant governor is a specific one. In any event, the argument is beside the point. Without a source, we should not include the other officers. -Rrius (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

The current lede states that the order is established by the Executive Office, but the references don't support that and instead suggest that the State Department's Office of Protocol is responsible for that task. If no one objects, I'm going to change the sentence that reads: "The order is established by the Executive Office of the President and can be changed by the President, though in practice it is well established and rarely modified." to something akin to: "The order was established, and is maintained, by the Office of Protocol in the U.S. State Department." with the State Department reference as a cite.
The first sentence is inaccurate as well; the list contains former first ladies, state government officials and foreign officials, so clearly "...important positions within the government of the United States." is wrong. I'd suggest something to the effect of: "The United States order of precedence lists the ceremonial order for domestic and foreign goverment officials at diplomatic events within the United States. Former Presidents, First Ladies, Secretaries of State and Supreme Court Justices are also included in the list." Celestra (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the above changes, citing two of the existing sources and removed the "no inline cite" tag. The last sentence of the lede seems excessive now, but readers could still be confused, so I left it alone. Celestra (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Authoritative sources for the order of precedence

I have been looking online for am official, comprehensive State Department copy or the Order of Precedence, but have had no luck so far. I'll try a library later. For now, though, I've found one other commercial site that provides a copy that is similar to the bigmomentsfilms.com (in ways that suggest both come from a single source) while not identical. The impression is that they both come from a source that changed between the two copies. I've added it to the sources.
The NYC version includes a disclaimer that it is not the official version and includes, unsurprisingly, the local mayor just after the governor. I think we should take them at their word and stop using this source as though it were a copy of the official list maintained by the State Department. Alternately, we should at least cite each entry that is based on this source so that our readers are aware of the source of each entry.
Meanwhile, both of the sources that appear to be copies of the official list include "Heads of State/Reigning Royalty" after the President, and I have added that to the list. Celestra (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Governors of territories

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering where current Governors of U.S. territories - American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands - fit into the order of precedence? Thanks! Scanlan (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The two sources that seem more complete agree on the Governors of Guam & the U.S. Virgin Islands, but don't mention the Governors of American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands. The Governors of Guam & the U.S. Virgin Islands share a spot between the Chiefs of staff (at 52 in this article) and the Commandant of the Coast Guard (at 53), along with 22 other entires in that gap. I hope that helps. Celestra (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sen. Kennedy's Funeral

During the funeral for Sen. Kennedy, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was seated behind the former presidents and their wives. Doesn't that mean that she should be placed lower in Order of precedence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.68.197 (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that would just mean that the person arranging the event chose to seat her there. The Order of Precedence is a ceremonial guideline; no one is bound by it. Celestra (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes it could. Precedence changes constantly but the administration never releases it for security reasons. It's why I stopped editing the page. There is absolutely no reason to believe this article is up-to-date. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
And there is no reason to believe it ever was. We have a list cobbled together from sources of varied reliability. Unfortunately, the State Department does not have the official list online and has not responded to my request through their webform that they do so.
The list is suspect because of real-world examples like the one above (although there is no reason to believe the private planner of the funeral consulted the official table) and Jimmy Carter's statement on television that at events, the more recent presidents come first. He didn't actually refer to the official Order of Precedence, but his comment was more than suggestive. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Territorial Lt. Govs.

First, I went through the trouble of seeking the names of the territorial Lt. Govs. and fleshing out a category that was already on the page of Territorial Lt. Govs.

Second, if territorial members of the US Congress and territorial Governors are on the list, albeit at a lower order of precedence than their federated states counterparts, it is illogical to exclude territorial LtGovs when state counterparts are included.

Third, the order of precedence actually goes much further down the hierarchical line that Lt. Govs. and actually includes commissioned military officers and other classifications that are less important than Lt. Govs who are a heartbeat away from a Governorship.

Fourth, we cannot be so imperialistic as to ignore that the United States is composed of more than the 50 states and also includes DC and the territories, which participate in our nation's defense. BTW, Guam Lt. Gov. Michael Cruz recently served on active duty in the Middke East and I would not dare remove such a military hero from the list.

Finally, we must take into account that Wikipedia is increasingly being used as an important source of information. When a protocol officer who downloads info wants to verify who goes where in a seating arrangement, we should not be excising information that our users may need.

Prior to deleting, why not have a healthy discussion, followed by an explanation of the action taken or that will be taken? Pr4ever (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I'll address your points in order:

  1. I applaud your effort, but the point is we don't have any source saying that territorial lieutenant governors are included or in what order. I could add every state legislator in the US and add them after state lieutenant governors. It would be a ton of work, but it wouldn't be verified by a reliable source.
  2. What difference does it make whether it is logical? If the Official Order of Precedence "illogically" excludes them, then they are excluded. This is not a list of who Wikipedia editors think should be on the list; it is supposed to be a list of who is actually on the list.
  3. It doesn't matter how far down the list goes. If it doesn't include territorial lieutenant governors, we can't include them. If it does, you have to prove it does. Further, if you want to claim they fit in one order or other, you need to verify that order with a reliable source.
  4. It is not a matter of Wikipedia being imperialistic. It is a matter of who is actually on the actual list. The other point is even sillier. Perhaps I should add John McCain to the list of United States Presidents because we dare not leave such a military hero off the list.
  5. Wikipedia's being a source of information is all the more reason to make sure it is accurate. Also, a protocol officer is not going to use Wikipedia; he or she is going to use the actual table of precedence put out by the State Department.
Finally, you seem to not only lack an understanding of WP:verify and WP:reliable sources, but you also seem not to understand what Wikipedia is and is not. I recommend you brush up on those. -Rrius (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your substantive response. Pr4ever (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Two of the three sources have similar information, while the one which is self-declared as unofficial is the only one to mention Lt. Governors at all, and does not mention the territories at all. I would be in favor of removing all of the Lt Governors and expanding the list to be consistent with the two similar sources. Celestra (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with removing the lt. governors, but I was less willing to do that unilaterally since there is at least some source that supports their inclusion. I'll go ahead and remove them to help stir up discussion, but I'll let it go at WP:BRD. -Rrius (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Having taken a second look, the once source that mentions them does not actually say lieutenant governors are on the list. Rather, it says that a state order of precedence would place them after a mayor in his own city. -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Egalitarian

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)


Somebody's got to decide where folks sit at State Dinners and stand in receiving lines at funerals and such.Bkporter12 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12

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)


The general international rule is that foreign people rank just below their local counterpart. Because, in the United States, the same office (President) has the role of head of state and head of government, foreign heads of state and foreign heads of government would rank just below the President. In a system like the United Kingdom (or Japan, Germany, etc), if a foreign head of state visits, they rank just below the Queen (or Emperor in Japan, or President in Germany), however if a foreign head of government visits, they rank just below the Prime Minister.Bkporter12 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12

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)

Doesn't the President of the United States have to be born in the United States or in one of its territories? This would exclude Arnold Schwarzenegger from the list since he was born in Austria and not the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.139.239 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be a Line of Succession to the Presidency of the United States. That Line is actually rather short: President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate, then the 15 Cabinet Secretaries in order of the date their departments were created. Thus, there are only 18 people in the Line of Succession. Because of the Federal system of separation between State and Federal levels of government, State governors have nothing to do at all with Federal government structures.

To answer your question though, yes. To be constitutionally eligible to hold the Office of President of the United States, one has to be a "natural born citizen," thus excluding the Governor of California Arnold Swarzenegger (who was born in Austria). However, all 18 of the people currently in the Line of Succession were born in the United States (except Secretary of Veterans Affairs Shinseki who was born in Hawaii when it was still a territory).

There was some controversy when Senator John McCain was running for the Presidency in 2000 and 2008 because he was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama while his parents were stationed there on a military mission. There were then (and still are) statutes that allow children born abroad to children of US military personnel to automatically become citizens, but it is unknown if such a statutory construct is enough to meet the Constitutional "natural citizen" requirement.Bkporter12 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12

Shinseki qualifies to be in line of succession since he was a natural-born citizen, since he automatically acquired citizenship by the mere fact of being born in a U.S. territory. McCain's controversy, certainly real, was basically taken care of by a unanimously-approved resolution which, I believe, was introduced by Senators Clinton and Obama, in 2008. With these precedents, while a very, very longshot, PR Gov. Fortuño would not be impeded by citizenship from running for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, as mentioned by several analysts. Pr4ever (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

#30 Governor of Puerto Rico (Luis Fortuño)

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)
Besides the fact that he isn't actually the governor of a state, but in reality a territory giving them (and there elected government) less standing than that of a state.--69.40.139.226 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone up for trying to make Puerto Rico a state? — Rickyrab | Talk 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Count me in! In the meantime, I spoke to a state govt. protocol official who told me that, in practice, if present, they would mention a governor of a territory immediately after the state governors and not further down the line, as this list suggests because it would be "disrespectful" to do otherwise. Pr4ever (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

I just undid an attempt to eliminate from the Lt. Gov's section the next-in-lines whose title ios not that of Lt. Gov.

Just as in #12 "Ministers of foreign powers", they are included whether their title is "Minister of...", "Secretary of ...", etc, respecting the foreign power's right to name the members of their Cabinet as they wish, so too must States and Territories' decision to name their next-in-line as they wish also be respected. It is the role and not the particular title that determines precedence, whether the title is Minister or Secretary, Lieutenant Governor or Secretary of State. Pr4ever (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread below, but I'll answer here. There is no authority for your assertion. "Ministers of foreign powers" is not a title, but a description. If we are to claim officials other than lieutenant governors fill the spot, we need to have that verified with reliable sources. -Rrius (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the fact that States' and Territories' next-in-lines not titled LtGovs are all admitted by their peers as full-fledged members of the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) be considered verification, or do we have to go through the trouble of citing each and every one of their state constitutions and their territorial constitutions or organic acts? Do you have any doubt that, for example, NJ Senate President Dick Codey, who has served repeatedly as Acting Governor or Governor, serves as next-in-line? Pr4ever (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that we need to verify that X is second in line in a state with lt. governor. What we have to verify is that the Official U.S. Order of Precedence treats second-in-lines who are not lt. governors as though they were. What the NLGA or any other organization does is irrelevant as it is the federal government that writes the table. -Rrius (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. It doesn't matter that they're Lt. Governors. It matters that they are the next in line to their respective State Governments. Governors are there because they are the executive power of the states. It doesn't matter that they are called "governor." Georgia, for instance, could pass a measure tomorrow that changed the name of the office to "Grand Pu Ba of Georgia" and it would still be 4th in line of the precedence of Governors (as Georgia is the 4th state to ratify the Constitution). Similarly, if Georgia passed a measure changing the Lt. Governor to "Vice Grand Pu Ba of Georgia," it would rank 4th in the line of Lt. Governors. It's not the name of the office that matters. It's that the office is the executive authority (or next in line to the executive authority) of a state.Bkporter12 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12
I agree entirely. The current Governor of Arizona was the Secretary of State the day Janet Napolitano was sworn in as a US cabinet secretary. First-in-lines should appear in Lt Gov's list, and those of the territories after the states. Pr4ever (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wives of Former Presidents

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)
Since spouses aren't mentioned in either of the two sources cited, I'm going to delete them unless someone can cite a source that indicates that they are included in the OoP. M Pinck (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You just need to see any state meeting where they're present. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OR may indicate that they are, but can you provide a reliable, third-party, published source that says they are? M Pinck (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a well-known and time honored tradition (and common law principle) that wives take the titles, dignities, and precedence of their husbands. So Rosalyn Carter, for instance, takes her precedence from President Carter. In the case of Hillary Clinton, I think it would depend on what her role at a particular function would be. If she is there in her role as Secretary of State, she would take that position. However, if she is there with President Bill Clinton (for instance, at the funeral of the Queen Mother in 2002 when she was both a US Senator and the wife of a former President), she takes her position with him.Bkporter12 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bkporter12

(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)

I am assuming what is meant would be better expressed by writing "(if spouse is present)." --ThorstenNY 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain that ThorstenNY is correct. Making changes shortly. JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I just saw former President Carter mention this concept. He said that he was the LOWEST ranking ex-President because his term was furthest removed, which makes sense; the current President is at the top, and his predecessors are then counted back from him. Spark240 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

different possibilities

This issue of wives of former Presidents is confusing. There are several scenarios:
>Wife and President together - she obviously has same rank in that instance.
>Wife attends without the President - my guess is that she would rank along with the widows of Presidents. I would not be surprised if the order would be Rosslyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush if they attended a function without any Presidents attending, even though this would be in wife-widow-wife order.
>We need to find a definitive source. I once sent an email to The National First Ladies' Library on an issue, perhaps we should consider doing that again to help us locate a clear and definite source to resolve the issue. NoSeptember 08:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And then there is the issue of the second lady, what is the rank of the current wife of the VP when the VP is not attending, and what is the rank of the wives and widows of former VPs? NoSeptember 08:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands of four-star grade?

This is amazing list. Thank you for your considerable effort. I was curious about the four-star general list. On these types of lists military officers are usually in order or seniority regardless of which branch (to when they were appointed to the position). However this list as currently written is alphabetical. Again many thanks for an amazing and fun list. Americasroof (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that points to yet another inaccuracy. Does that just go for the unified commands, or does it also apply to grades. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The two sources which agree with one another say that they should be in order of appointment to the command. We have articles on all of these officers, so it's just a bit of work. I'll look at it tomorrow. Celestra (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications

In 9, shouldn't this be "Ambassador_ from the United States" , as only one can be at their post? In 23, shouldn't this be "U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations" , for clarity? 75.203.62.252 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Current governors

Technically, it is by order of statehood, not date; ND & SD have the same date, but ND is 39 and SD is 40. :D 75.202.95.87 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating as of 16 January 2011

Item 44, US Postmaster General, is a post no longer held by John D. Potter, per the Wikipedia entry for Postmaster General of the United States. There is, however, no page for the current Postmaster General. Does someone with some time and energy want to create an entry for Patrick R. Donahoe, so that these pages may be updated?

Thanks for catching that. I don't like listing the specific names just because of this problem.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing Official

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is missing from this list. Not sure where it falls, after the creation of the ODNI in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.65.186.238 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First Lady

The intro states, "... First Ladies ... are also included in the list." The list includes former First Lady Nancy Reagan, but it doesn't include the present First Lady (Michelle Obama). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.24.202 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Former first ladies whose husbands are still living are also not included. As are second ladies. Rodchen (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

I'm guessing that her precedence is that of the spouse of Bill Clinton. Upon his death, she'll fall to "Widow of a former President". Both of those place her higher than former Secretary of State. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I see she appears now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:S-prec

There is currently an edit request over at Template talk:S-prec#Ceremonial order only where it is proposed that the heading for U.S. succession boxes be changed from "United States order of precedence" to "United States order of precedence (ceremonial)" (see this test case). I think that this needs wider discussion to see whether a consensus for the change exists, and so I am advertising it here. I'd be grateful if people could comment over at the discussion page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why governors and mayors?

Why state governors? They should not appear hear, because this a federal matter. The governor is first in his state (and the Lt. Governor second), but he has nothing to do with a federal issues. The same with a mayor. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


Then why foreign heads of state? This is for ceremonial purposes only: state dinners, parades, etc. Has nothing to do with the function of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8201:51DC:E0CF:977B:7032:A54C (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States order of precedence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States order of precedence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Territorial governors

I only see one of several territorial governors listed, the Governor of Puerto Rico. Where should the other territorial governors appear and in what order?Pr4ever (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because only the Governor of Puerto Rico is listed in the source. https://web.archive.org/web/20061113050328/http://www.proadvance.com/resourceguide/logistical/protocol/orderofprecedence.html Sbb618 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Rex Tillerson

This page shall be updated subsequent to the Senate confirmation of a new Secretary of State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.253.23 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It'll be updated when things change. As of now, Tillerson has not left yet (not until March 31), and no replacement has been confirmed by the Senate. When that happens, then the page will be edited.Sbb618 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Circumstances

It would be good if the article explained how this protocol is used. For example, is this the order of entry into a room, is it the order how they are seated at a State dinner table, seating/standing for a news conference, or is it something else? Mercy11 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization

Note "The president" is uncapitalized because "president" is preceded by modifier "The", per MOS:JOBTITLES bullet 3 and table column 2, example 1: "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States." Any proposal for modification to the guideline should be posted at its talk page, WT:MOSBIO. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

An observation

In intro there is a reference to "Ladies", but no actual listings of any "ladies". 68.50.117.204 (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

First and Second Ladies/Gentlemen/Spouses, as with spouses throughout the list, rank alongside their partners. At present, there are no currently living First or Second Ladies whose spouses have passed away; when there are, they would be listed in place of their deceased partner.Sbb618 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Official Office of the Chief of Protocol list

Why isn't the official Office of the Chief of Protocol list used as a source here?--Hildeoc (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is, I just forgot to update the references. Thanks for adding.Sbb618 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sbb618: Well, you're welcome, but please note I only added it to "External links". Ideally, it should be used and stated as the actual source of this article, though, don't you think?--Hildeoc (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: By the way, why aren't [the offices of] Biden and Harris listed anymore?--Hildeoc (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Biden is currently listed as a former Vice President, and Harris would be under U.S. Senator. To my knowledge, there's no special placement for president- or vice president-elects. They'll be added into the top two slots when they are sworn in. Sbb618 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization

The following changes have been reverted by another editor, even though they bring the article in compliance with MOS:JOBTITLES.

  • "Former presidents of the United States" is modified by "Former" and plural.
  • "Former vice presidents of the United States" is modified by "Former" and plural.
  • "American ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary to foreign governments" is modified by "American" and plural
  • "Ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary of foreign diplomatic missions to the United States" is plural
  • "Associate justices of the Supreme Court" is plural
  • "Retired chief justices of the United States" is modified by "Retired" and plural
  • "Retired associate justices of the Supreme Court" is modified "Retired" and plural
  • "as added by the president" is modified by "the"
  • "Senate majority leader" is modified by "Senate"; "majority leader" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "Senate minority leader" is modified by "Senate"; "minority leader" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "Senate majority whip" is modified by "Senate"; "majority whip" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "Senate minority whip" is modified by "Senate"; "minority whip" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "House majority leader" is modified by "House"; "majority leader" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "House minority leader" is modified by "House"; "minority leader" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "House majority whip" is modified by "House"; "majority whip" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "House minority whip" is modified by "House"; "minority whip" is the job title... see the example in MOS:JOBTITLES for "US president"... that's the relevant example here
  • "resident commissioners" is plural
  • "Senior advisors to the president" is plural; "president" is modified by "the"
  • "Assistants to the president" is plural; "president" is modified by "the"
  • "Deputy assistants to the president" is plural; "president" is modified by "the"

—Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 05:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

{{reply to|Eyer}}In an article which consists almost entirely of a list of job titles, shouldn't the focus be on accurately listing these job titles? The titles in question are fully capitalized not only in common speech or across Wikipedia and government sources, but in the official list from the United States Office of the Chief of Protocol, the main source of this article. The titles in question aren't being used as generic descriptors within a sentence, they are specific positions, and are standing on their own rather than in aggregate. I'd appreciate hearing others' thoughts on this. Sbb618 (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Chief of Space Operations

Since the office is currently a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is its holder included in the order of precedence?73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd think so, but the most recent version of the list specifically excludes them, and it was issued five months after the Space Force was created as a branch. So, until we hear otherwise, I think we should leave them out. Sbb618 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The CSO wasn’t a member of the JCS until a week ago. May take a little time for the wheels of government to turn. Garuda28 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_order_of_precedence/Archive_1&oldid=1137285507"