Talk:Federal government of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lacking (legislative branch)

For a page on the Federal government of the United States, this page lacks a section on the legislative branch and does not identify Congress as the legislative branch. This appears to be a major oversight. -- Daniel 05:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sue me if I went too fast, but I added the section on the legislative branch back into the article. If there's some legitimate reason why a significant body of the United States Federal Government was completely missing, a revert's pretty easy. :-)--Randnotell (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive

• Insert archive here

Lacking

It seems to me that this article needs a few things. One, it doesn't seem to say a lot about the constitution, the document creating the branches. Second, it makes little/no mention of checks and balances between the three. I don't have a third currently....--FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') 02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wording

In the introductory section, there is the following text:

The laws of the United States are contained in Acts of Congress;
 administrative rfucktardegulations, and judicial cases interpreting the
 statutes and regulations.

It appears to me that the grammar obscures the intended meaning. I think this should instead be:

 The laws of the United States are contained in Acts of Congress;
 administrative regulations and judicial cases interpret these
 statutes and regulations.

The original author may have also meant:

 The laws of the United States are contained in Acts of Congress,
 administrative regulations, and judicial cases that interpret
 the statutes and regulations.

I think the first suggestion is more accurate, but I'm not sure. Thoughts? John 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: From a technical legal standpoint, either formulation is accurate and neither is necessarily "more" accurate than the other. Contrary to what we may have been taught in grade school, regulations and judicial cases are technically part of "the law." In grade school, some of us learned that the legislative branch "makes" the laws (the statutes), the executive branch "enforces" the laws (such as by issuing administrative regulations, etc.), and the judicial branch "only interprets" the laws (through judgments and orders, etc.). These kinds of generalizations, while "correct" in the sense in which they are intended, do perhaps obscure the details: the executive is involved in "making" statutes by signing Acts of Congress into law, for example. Both the executive and the legislative (specifically the Senate) "make" treaties (which are part of our law) in the sense that the executive signs treaties and the Senate ratifies them. And, of course the biggest dirty little "secret" of all (it's not really a secret): American law, like the law of Canada, Australia, etc., is based on something called "English common law" which is primarily case law (judge-made law, not merely "interpretation" of statutes). Just scratchin' the surface here..... Yours, Famspear 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually "administrative regulations" are NOT laws, so, therefore, that should be removed from the sentence. Administrative regulations pertain to how laws are implemented and enforced, but they do not constitute laws in and of themselves; and judges do NOT interpret regulations--they interpret only laws and whether or not a certain regulation may violate a law. Only Congress can pass laws. Administrative regulations can be created by any bureaucrat, or the President, or even the Congress itself, without having to vote on the matter as if it were a law being passed.68.164.2.32 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Executive does NOT make "statutes", he merely signs what legislation (i.e., laws) that the Congress has passed, thus turning that legislation into the law of the land--in doing this, though, the Executive CAN NOT MODIFY what the Congress has passed (THAT IS WHY THE LINE-ITEM VETO WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL). So, in reality, what we were taught in Grade School about the separation of Executive and Legislative powers was actually correct. Of course, given the trends of modern politics, especially since FDR, the President is usually heavily involved in the law making process, though this was never really the intent of the Founders, who really just saw the Executive as an Administrator/Diplomat/Commander-in-Chief; all this, though, is really the fault of the Congress, who, if they wanted to, could completely exclude the President from the nitty-gritties of the law making process, leaving him with only the decision about whether to sign or to veto what they have created.68.164.2.32 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Fixed the vandalism (most of it anyway). Couldn't figure out that weird little box in the courts section. I don't know why people who have disagreements with the government feel they should take the right of information from others. sigh.. Vertigo700 06:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be at Politics of the United States, like with the other countries. In spite of this page. --KQ 21:27 Aug 31, 2002 (PDT)

Perhaps this should be at U.S. Federal Government ? Susan Mason

Oh no, not again... ;) -- Oliver P. 05:11 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Shrug...People generally don't say "Federal Government of the United States", its too stilted. Susan Mason

Plenty of Americans refer to it as the "federal government." For the benefit of non-Americans, the full title Federal Government of the United States makes perfect sense. Funnyhat 01:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no preference for either, rather I have been attempting to fill out the Politics of the United States page and this page. I simply wanted to indicate that this page was dealing only with the federal government and not any state or local government. - Sfmontyo

I suppose what Im getting at is we should generally write United States as U.S.. Susan Mason

Oh my God. Although I disagree with his last comment, I'm afraid I have to agree with Lir on something. Beware, the end of the world is at hand. This article should be at Government of the United States, not "Federal Government" ... -- Zoe

Zoe, I'm not sure if Susan was reacting to the fact that "Federal Government" and "Gov of U.S." might be considered redundant. I believe that that is what you are referring to. Is that correct? I think that Government of the United States is a bit too vague as it might mean:

1. ) all the governments in the country which are of course the federal, state, and local governments or
2. ) it might just mean the federal.

If you are used to thinking that the U.S. is a federal republic, then you'd probably think of the 2. I changed it in attempt to make it more clear that this article deals solely in regards to the federal gov in context of the Politics of the United States. -- Sfmontyo

"Government of the United States" refers to the national government. The national government of the United States is a federal government. Therefore, "Federal Government of the United States" is redundant. -- Zoe

The term "government" is more general than that, as Sfmontyo just pointed out. Perhaps Government of the United States should discuss the general structure of the system of government, outlining how the federal, state, and local governments interact. By the way, Zoe, you are making a different point from Susan Mason (whose proposed title left in the word "Federal"), so apart from your agreement that the current title is wrong, you're not in agreement on the details. So no need to worry too much. ;) -- Oliver P. 10:51 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I looked at some of the government web sites that I have been using for info and this is what I found:

from usembassy.state.gov

The federal government of the United States consists of three parts: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The ...

from www.info.gov

Describes the basis of the government of the U.S. ... Federal, State, and local governments are explained and compared.

Those sites make a distinction between the government of the United States being all three versus the federal government being just well, the federal government. BTW: In the Politics of the United States page, you'll find a general description of the state and local govs, again taken from the usinfo.state.gov site. - Sfmontyo

One more thing, just to be clear, I believe that the above shows that there are at least two different ways of interpreting the phrase government of the United States and that there is sufficient ambiguity to warrant adding the term Federal in order to disambiguate the two meanings. I know that in other contexts, government of the United States refers solely to the federal government. - Sfmontyo

Isn't that what should be discussed here? All of the states have their own pages or sections on the state governments. -- Zoe

I thought about it and if someone does the work of renaming it :), what I'll do is what Oliver suggested, that is, I'll place a sentence at the top stating that the article is about the federal government and point them to the Politics of the United States page and the individual state pages for info about the state and local govs. Cheers - Sfmontyo

"Federal Government of the United States" will save us that disambiguation at the top. I'll move this back if no one objects (the fool who moved it in the first place didnt bother to move the talk page). --Jiang 10:17, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is an interesting proportion of description devoted to executive versus judicial and legilative branches. Also in the "related links section." Of course it's all NPOV so it's not biased at ALL in its presentation. Should NPOV include the organization of articles?

Seems like the best way to correct the disproportion would be to expand the legislative and judicial sections. The executive is the largest and most complex sector of the federal government, though, so perhaps it makes some sense for it to be a little bigger than the others. - Walkiped 03:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would be prudent to cut down on the sections on the executive branch and rather refer to the actual articles where each department is described. That would make the whole article less bulky at once. It's a big change though so I'd rather hear some comments before going on. - sebmol 20:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. - Walkiped 07:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if this turned out allright. If not, please feel free to edit. It may also be good to include maybe some form of chart or diagram in this article that presents the composition and relationships within the US government.--sebmol 12:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Vandalism, the office of President was described as uniquely "sexually active". Changed that. Diesel 3:15, 27 Aug 2005

Definition of Federal

One problem with the title of this article and some of its content is that federal has more than one meaning. It has a technical meaning and a more generally understood meaning. The technical meaning of federal (as in federation) is the system of states joined under a relatively strong national government--in other words, a government with two levels--national and state. The other meaning of federal is the national level of government. The problem with referring to the national level of government as the federal government is that it makes it difficult or impossible to explain what a federal system, a federation, and federalism actually mean.

The accurate title of this article should be "National government of the United States." 202.174.144.202 12:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

capitalization

is there a deliberate reason that "president" is rarely capitalized? could be an internationalization issue, but, if nobody objects within a reasonable time, i'll take a suspense action to fix it. --216.237.179.238 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that when referring to a specific president, like J.F.K., you would say President John F. Kennedy with a capital "p" because in that use it's a formal title. But when just referring to an impersonal official, president with lowercase "p" it doesn't really matter. Eenyminy 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

...and then i'll start working on the execrable mess in internationalization...sigh...i wish that nice mr. siegenthaler had just shut up and started editing...we could use the fingers... --216.237.179.238 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's the explanation:

1. In each usage capitalized in this article, the word President is a proper noun, and stands in place of the individual that might hold that office. There may be spots in here where the noun form of the word is used purely as a common noun, but I didn't see one that stood out enough to make an example. Words like presidential are clearly not proper nouns and do not need capitalization.

2. This article is more associated with the culture of the United States government than to general usage than is your average Wikipedia article, so I figure using U.S. government style rules might be appropriate (though reason #1 is sufficient, it's always good to have a second). In the U.S. government, when you use President to mean POTUS, you capitalize it. BTW, here's the rule:

 3.35. To indicate preeminence or distinction in certain
 specified instances, a common-noun title immediately following
 the name of a person or used alone as a substitute for it is
 capitalized.
   Title of a head or assistant head of state:
     William J. Clinton, President of the United States: the 
     President; the President-elect; the Executive; the Chief
     Executive...
 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chapter_txt-3.html

It is only capitalized when you are talking directly about the President. If you are talking about any form of presidents, or any of them, it is lower cased. For instance, "Mr. President," would be capitalized. Though, "The United States of America's leader is always a president," would be lowered. Also, if you are talking about other forms of presidents, such as presidents of a company, would be lower cased, unless you're talking about that President.PЄ|>ρ3® 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

President

I changed the "he" to "he or she" in reference to the President. "he/she", "(s)he", "the President" are other options . . .

05:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually a few years ago, the United States government, tryed to be politcally correct, and tried to add he or she to everything, it found it would have to add tons of more pages to documents, and the cost was astounding, the congress decdided the he was the general term for he or she

CuBiXcRaYfIsH 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Weird font issue

Does anyone notice that the legislative branch and judicial branch headers are in small-case, non-bold lettering, but the executive branch has PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT and CABINET subheaders in huge, bold letters. Honestly, it makes the executive seem more important than the other two branches, as opposed to checked-and-balanced (as the founding fathers were wont for them to be). -Super90

I think you're overreacting a bit as far as saying it goes against checks-and-balances, though I do think the VP gets more space than the office warrants, thought I'm not sure the best way to edit it. Ddye 14:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Preamble

The article could use a mention of the preamble, and perhaps a discourse on the possible course(s) the republic might have taken if it were used for what a preamble is usually used for: a preliminary introduction to explain purpose.

That's an interesting thought. I must aggree. By the way, excellent job as the voice of Patrick Star on Spongebob Squarepants. Your attitude resembles your character as well as what you have to say. In a word: "Duh-hoy!" I can almost picture you saying something like that.

Engimatic text moved from article

The following text added by an anonymous user on 26 December 2006 has been moved from the article:

Senators, on the other hand, have a responsibility directly to the state they represent, and not to the people directly. Even though the method of election of senators was changed to a direct election by the people, the senators still represent the state. The Amendment to change the election of the Sentors from the state legislatures to a direct election by the people, has created an apparent conflict, whereby, Senators are forced to focus their attention for political reasons on the interests of the people, as opposed to the interest of the state, which do not always coincide.

This material appears to be original research, and unverified commentary. Also, the statement that Senators have a responsibility directly to the state rather than to the people is a sophistry in the absence of an explanation of the writer's distinction between "the state" and "the people." The statement that there is an apparent conflict in connection with some supposed "forced" focus by senators "for political reasons" on the interests of "the people" as opposed to "the state" is too vague and unsourced for inclusion in an encyclopedia article in its present form. The passage also raises the concept that somehow the interests of "the people" and "the state" may not coincide, but does not explain what this would really mean.

In short, this material consists of unverified statements of opinion, of a particular point of view, and raises more questions than it answers. If this material is going to be included in an encyclopedia article, some work on it is needed. Yours, Famspear 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the removed text is speculation and commentary, and I do not believe it belongs in the article. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 19:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Yes, I added the criticism section. It's a big enough issue, check Google results for proof! It's not big enough yet, though, I'll admit. Awesimo 03:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability puts the burden on you to cite sources. If you can't cite a reliable, verifiable source ASAP, that section is going to be deleted as unsourced original research and biased material in violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For an example of what a properly sourced article looks like, see my work at Lawyer.--Coolcaesar 07:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NASA is not an independant agency. It's part of the Department of Transportation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.34 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Judicial section it states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not Constitutional (ie the Power of Judicial Review). The US Constitution does not give that power to the Supreme Court - the Court usurped the power via Marbury vs Madison. The case was so controversial that I believe the power of Judicial Review was not used again for 50 years. Shouldn't something be added to show how and when the Supreme Court got this power since it is/was not in the Constitution?67.142.130.38 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)nofluer

Well, in Article III of the Constitution, although judicial review isn't explicitly stated, the Federal court is clearly made the the high court of the land and its authority in matters of law is pretty much implied (which is why the Court "confirmed" NOT "usurped" that power in Marbury vs. Madison.68.164.2.32 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the first two sentences

I think the article is better off without the first two sentences:

"The government of the United States of America, established by the U.S. Constitution, is a federal republic of individual states. The laws of the United States are laid out in Acts of Congress, administrative regulations, and judicial cases interpreting the statutes and regulations."

The government of the U.S. isn't a federal republic; the U.S. itself is a federal republic. And the "laws of the U.S." include not only state and local laws but executive order, common law and potentially other stuff not mentioned in the sentence. So I'm going to redo the lead. -- Mwalcoff 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Eenyminy 22:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of flowchart

I think this article would greatly benefit from some kind of flowchart like you would see in a US Government textbook that visually represents the connection between all the government branches. I think this would be a big benefit for readers who are not from the US and have not necessarily studied the US constitution. Lordgilman 04:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Executive Branch

Suggest change to Executive branch based on recent determination that the office of Vice-President is not part of that branch (c.f. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062102309.html; http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/; et al)

Such a change would be ridiculous. This entire thing is just a political cat-and-mouse game, not a redefinition of our basic system of government. johnpseudo 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A question about firsts...

I've read somewhere that the United States government was one of, if not the first in history in which control of the government was switched from one party to a second without any violence (in 1801, when the Federalist Adams was replaced by Anti-Federalist Jefferson). Is this correct, and should it be mentioned in this article? Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

   It's called the "Revolution of 1800", and it has a mention in the Wikipedia article here [1]. 68.57.236.206 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
   
   There's no source for it, though, but I remember reading about it in my U.S. history textbook, and if I had it around, I'd source it. 68.57.236.206 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Executive Branch

On the bar to the right, it has categories "Legislative", "Presidency", and "Judicial" but within the "Presidency" category it has not only the president (and vice president) but even the cabinet and beyond that the federal agencies (which, including the independent agencies, would cover a vast array of very diverse institutions) It seems to me that "Executive" would be a more appropriate label than "Presidency", or at least a little less confusing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.198 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lacking info

For a non-American, the following info is not obvious and should appear in this article: is the federal government responsible for schools, healthcare or police? How big is its budget and how many employees does it have? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

By default, any power not ascribed (or implied) to the Federal government in the Constitution is pretty much the sovereign territory of the individual states. Thus, public schools are pretty much solely funded by the States and smaller localities in the states, as are non-federal police forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.2.32 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The feds do have partial indirect control over schools, healthcare, and police through various grants and funding programs, but the actual day-to-day operations of such things are carried out by state or local entities. For example, in Los Angeles, an elderly citizen hit by a car would be taken by a private ambulance to the county hospital (LAC-USC Medical Center) and taken care of by county employees. The county hospital and private ambulance would then attempt to recover their costs by billing the federal Medicare program and any private supplemental health insurance (if the patient has any). And the hospital (and the doctors and nurses who work there), and the ambulance company are licensed and regulated by the state. But often, most large ambulance companies (EmCare and American Medical Response) are large multistate operations which are incorporated in one state (Delaware, usually) and have their headquarters in another, like Colorado.

And depending upon the location of the accident, it might be investigated by city police, county sheriff's deputies, or the California Highway Patrol (or all three in really complex situations), all of which receive various grants from the federal government to supplement state and local funding.

This is just one example of how complicated American federalism gets, which is why America has to have so many lawyers (myself included) just to keep track of everything. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that this article is too centred on the legal, political and philosophical aspects of the federal government. It should provide info of what it actually does. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jacob Lundberg. I have a particular objection about the idea that the "states have the most power" to determine things. There are no citations for this; my sense is most political power has moved away from the states, and to the federal government, and that this trend is continuing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is, for many practical purposes, ignored. The wording was vague. And this vagueness enabled partisans from both left and right to chip away at states' power in numerous ways (this is reflected in any serious study of Supreme Court decisions). That's why the federal government in the US is so huge -- a veritable bloated bureaucracy filled with over 100 dubious agencies with initials that most people won't even recognize -- and I bet most political science professors would question that "states have the most power".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Congress

The Executive branch Relationship with Congress subsection begins with this sentence:

The relationship between the President and the Congress reflects that between the English monarchy and parliament at the time of the framing of the United States Constitution.

First of all, the sentence is not phrased well at all. Second, it offers no further context or information and seems out of place when compared to the rest of the paragraph. Third, it has no source. Will someone with the knowledge please edit this? Ltwin (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this point. Why not research it yourself and change it? Consult Google. Here's how to reference: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate "Powers of Congress" Sections"

I do not have permission to edit this, but these should be merged. 193.44.1.86 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Change to Legislative Branch section

I took out the inaccurate and very misleading clause that the "Constitution doesn't specifically mention committees" and replaced with a citation from Article I of the U.S. Constitution from which Congress derives its powers to set all rules for its proceedings, which includes the formation of committees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.177.116 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal from "Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies" section

I've removed the following paragraph from the "Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies" section because while I'm sure that the Section 300 reports filed by government departments and agencies are important, I'm not exactly sure why it should be discussed in an article meant to explain the US federal government. This paragraph just seems out of place and too much information.

"By law, each agency must submit an annual Section 300 report to the President's Office of Management and Budget. This is part of a larger set of more extensive annual requirements called Circular A-11. Section 300 specifically covers planning, budgeting, acquisition, and management of capital assets. The details on how agencies collect and share information and how they are upgrading and improving their information technology decisions are becoming increasingly important. Within Section 300 there is a special exhibit called Exhibit 53 which gives extensive details on agency information technology investments. These investments make up most of the information technology investments from the annual budgets. For the fiscal year 2008's budget, that spending exceeds $66.4 billion."

Ltwin (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation sparseness

I'm sorry to say it, but this article needs way more citations before it will meet GA. I can't even verify the court system! I'm not trying to fight with anyone. I know you've put in tons of work and with just a little more this can be a great article. Awg1010 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead should summarize the article

I'm moving most of the text of the lead to a new section called 'history'. According to the MOS (see MOS:LEAD), the lead should summarize the article. It shouldn't be introducing a topic that is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. LK (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See Also: link to 'War Economy' article

Please also see discussion on US DoD talk page for this - 2010 US Gov annual report shows total revenues of c.2 trillion dollars, 2010 DoD report shows budgetary resources of 1.2 trillion dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reform in the United States

I considered creating the article Reform in the United States but instead chose to start a section here. It was reverted as inappropriate, unreliably sourced, and misleading. What about it is any of those three things? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text of the section:

Reforming the operations of the U.S. government are the goal of political parties, thinktanks, lobbyists, groups, and individuals. However, reform can be politically difficult. The U.S. government has been described as a system "in which minority interests can marshall numerous and powerful defenses to block major changes not supported by powerful and well-mobilized majorities."

There's no cite for the first and second sentences. The quote comes from a 1994 commentator in an article, not about reform generally, but about healthcare reform, although I ackowledge that the quote is about reform generally. The section is inappropriate because it adds virtually no value to the article and is clearly POV. It's unreliably sourced because it comes from a think tank commentator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then we could attribute it to him more directly. There's no question that would be reliably sourced. I'm fine with taking out the other two sentences until sources are located. I thought they were reasonable though. Simple statements don't need in line citations. Did you think there was anything unreasonable? Jesanj (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's essentially a political comment from a political commentator. Citing it to Aaron at Brookings would be less misleading, but I still don't like using it as a source. The first sentence is generic - what value does it have? Even the second sentence has little value. Minor reforms are easy. More difficult reforms are more difficult. So what? But it's the quote that's most objectionable because it states a clear POV of the commentator. I don't see how it can be salvaged. I'm also not quite sure what you want to accomplish by creating a new section in the article as by giving it a standalone section you automatically give it more weight.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you're wrong when you say it added "virtually no value". A reform section discussing its general characteristics helps explain, functionally, how the United States government operates. Think about it this way. Dictators can decide what they want to do. Reform in a dictatorial country is going to be a lot easier if the dictator agrees with you. The author was noting that in democracies, reform is rarely revolutionary, unless preceded by war or financial crisis. He mentions parliamentary politics. But the author singles out the United States government, by saying Under the U.S. governmental system, in which minority interests can marshall numerous and powerful defenses to block major changes not supported by powerful and well-mobilized majorities, such change is inconceivable. This definitely reflects the author's POV. However, do any reliable sources disagree with this opinion? That is required in order for the text to have been POV. I'd like to see those sources if they exist. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point with simple vs. complex reforms. However, I'd say the term is overwhelmingly used in cases of something big. What am I trying to do? It's simple. We have a fair number of articles on specific reform efforts on reforming U.S. government practices. I'm trying to link them here with a section that gives a brief description on general characteristics of reforming the U.S. government instead of starting Reform of the United States Government. Jesanj (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think I may be missing something. You say you don't know how Aaron can be incorporated, but editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It was published in Health Affairs after all. And Brookings seems to be a mainstream think tank. It's not like I'm going to the op-ed pages of a newspaper known for its partisanship. That's a big difference, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think about the section.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Jesanj (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Until then, how about including an empty section titled Reform with these links under it?

See also: Campaign finance reform in the United States, Electoral reform in the United States, Health care reform in the United States, Marijuana law reform in the United States, and Tort reform in the United States

Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be odd and arguably POV based on the selection of articles. I've opened a discussion on these issues on the U.S. government project page given that no one seems very interested here. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could reflect Wikipedia's systemic bias or less-than-ideal research on my part. Jesanj (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this.

American tend to get confused on articles. Usually confusing Elections with Politics. Not here! Thanks for that!

But this does not belong here. This is for how government works today. It has clear boundaries. Perhaps Politics of the United States. I have a feeling (and other editors have mentioned) that there may be other more appropriate topics. But it can be forked/categorized under "politics" wherever it winds up.

And it should not be conjectural (someBODY said, even if scholarly) but more that a federal politician said... Scholarly text would go down the line further than "Politics in.." Student7 (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree, the Politics in... is a more appropriate fit. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Secretary of State

Why is there a section on the Secretary of State in the Executive branch section when there's no section on any other Secretaries?71.142.222.247 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The same reason as everything on wikipedia. Some wikisperg decided it would be so and would get SO MAD if you changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.91.104 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There should not be a separate subsection here on the Secretary of State. Just another appointed position. Student7 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not just another appointed position. Yes, the SoS is appointed by the President, but the SoS, in practice, is the most powerful member of the executive branch of the US government after the President. The VP is only more "powerful" on paper. The post of SoS is not like the rest of the cabinet members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.151.61 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. In terms of several objective measures, such as budget and number of employees controlled, HHS, DoD, and VA are much, much more powerful than State. Look at it this way---if State employees were go to on strike for a few days (speaking hypothetically), most Americans really wouldn't mind, except for the few million overseas or about to travel overseas. If HHS employees were to go on strike, there would be massive protests and riots in every city when millions of beneficiaries of HHS programs (e.g., Medicare) discover their benefit cards don't work any more. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Judicial branch" section needs trimming

The "Judicial branch" section is longer than it needs to be. The reason for this is that it repeats information. Can someone please work on this section. Ltwin (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

One candidate for trimming is the following: "Congress, with the approval of the President, retains the power to re-organize or even abolish federal courts lower than the Supreme Court. They are limited by the Constitution to determining the quantity of judges on the Supreme Court." The second sentence here is confusing as it seems to contradict the first. Might it be deleted with an increase in clarity and brevity? DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with your suggestion. As a lawyer, I had to think about it twice, then I finally understood the second sentence. I can see how most laypersons would simply find that sentence so confusing as to ignore it altogether. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've begun the cleanup of this section. --nrv023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.146.89 (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

First Sentence

I think the first sentence needs clarification or discussion. The first sentence states: "The Government of the United States of America is the federal government of the constitutional republic of fifty states and one district that is the United States of America."

But if I were to look at the first sentence I would think it is missing a lot of information. Maybe we need a better wordsmith with better clarity than me. But, there are insular possessions, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa? Just to throw an idea: The Government of the United States of America is the federal government of the constitutional republic of fifty states and one district in North America and other organized or unorganized territory throughout the world, especially in the Caribbean and Pacific.

I think from the first sentence one should be able to ascertain a good definition of what the topic is and the rest is just detail and outline? (RmanB17499 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

• Well, now you are getting into defining the United States itself, rather than defining the government of the united states. I think the protectorates should not be included in this article, as they are not mentioned in the constitution, do not get voting representation, etc and are less controlled directly by the constitution and the three branches of government. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll disagree: the flag outruns the Constitution according to the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases Therefore, if anything, the Congress and President have more authority and power in those outlying areas. (also refer to Art IV, Sec 3 US Const.) Furthermore, isn't the article supposed to be about the USG and not 50 states plus a federal district? The latter is included within the former, but does not encompass all of the territory of the USG. (RmanB17499 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

Hrm, the link you provided is evidence against your case I think, if "Essentially, the Supreme Court said that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control. The "deepest ramification" of the Insular Cases is that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico, "even if they are U.S. citizens", may have no constitutional rights, such as to remain part of the United States if the United States chooses to engage in deannexation" is accurate, then their government is not the government of the us. The constitution (and the bill of rights) is the supreme law, and the very foundation of the govt. If it does not apply in those locations then they have some other government. Puerto rico has its own constitution, as does guam. They have their own judicial, executive, and legislative branches, which do not get their authority from the constitution of the US. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, do you have any other issues other than the inclusion of the territories we can work on? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on there. When the Court said that the constitutional rights did not apply automatically to insular areas, that means that the people are not protected as much as one would be in a US State nor are they guaranteed statehood, or anything else. Puerto Rico is an interesting case since legally is it an unorganized territory subject to the whims of Congress per SCOTUS -- that the PR Constitution can be suspended or eliminated by unilateral action by the US Congress -- now just because the court found that position doesn't mean it is politically expedient or possible. Areas such as American Samoa have special US laws that apply (minimum wage by industry, etc) and are truly controlled by the President and Congress. While you and I can dsiscuss this for ages -- I suggest you actually look at the current law. This would be a good place for lay people: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2007_spr/insular.htm and Politically, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States which according to the U.S. Supreme Court's Insular Cases is "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States."[1]. Again it's an Article IV Section 3 Territory -- so the Constitution did foresee additional territory or territories that may or may not become states.

(RmanB17499 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

We will have to agree to disagree, in any case, your analysis is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, so do not make this change without achieving consensus, and finding good sourcing of a reliable source making this analysis. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Gaijin42 that this is mostly WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and think the changes should be reverted until a consensus can be found. Also, see my comments above at the top section. --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My or/synth comment is refering to inclusion of the territories as part of the US govt. I am marginally in support of his 'name' change, although the us gov website linked above is good evidence to the contrary. I think part of the issue may be that the govt of the US does not actually have an official name as an entity. The US has an official name, individual branches of the govt have official names, but the collective may not actually be officially named canonically/legally and there may be various forms simultaniously in use. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree that it's synthesis or non-original research for the name of the government itself. All these documents were produced by the government or a peer government and signed into law or incorporated into United States Treaties or issued (money) by the sovereign, directly. Therefore, it must be how the sovereign wishes to be titled. As for the other part of the issue -- the first sentence -- I think that's one for discussion, since it is difficult to define in a single sentence.

(RmanB17499 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

I agree with the others that there's no basis for changing the first sentence (or the name of this article). The sources you cite aren't helpful, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Bbb23 and Gaijin42. RmanB17499 needs to learn about the concept of TMI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notes

I removed a large paragraph set from the opening, which more rightly belong in constitutional history or the separate article on American federalism. This article is conceived as merely a light overview description of the Government of the United States and its basic structure. I also made sure to include the proper name of the government and include just a sentence or two, with citations, about the very general historical character of the Government of the United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.177.116 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The title to the page should be Federal Government. Not Federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.122.18 (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The term federalism needs a link to <a href="/wiki/Federalism" title="Federalism">federalism</a> --Jehretnd90 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2012

Quoted text - EXECUTIVE BRANCH - "The President is limited to a maximum of two non-consecutive[10] four-year terms, as well as being able to have served for 2 years after succeeding to the presidency, prior to his last term.[6]"

This information is incorrect, using your own references.

1. The President is limited to a maximum of two four-year terms. [They are NOT required to be non-consecutive, nor are they usually. Although they MAY be non-consecutive.] 2. If the President has already served two years or more of a term to which some other person was elected, he may only serve one more additional four-year term. [The text, as it is currently written, implies that he may have a two year term prior to having two more four-year terms. That information is incorrect.]

So, essentially, the above quoted text should be replaced with:

"The President is limited to a maximum of two four-year terms. If the President has already served two years or more of a term to which some other person was elected, he may only serve one more additional four-year term."

Thank you! :)

91.157.203.162 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Commerce Clause

Uhhhh....the Commerce clause KINDA NEEDS to be under the powers of Congress...you know, since it's in article 1 Section 8 clause 1 of the pwoers given to Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary garbage

Why the hell is there a statement in the second paragraph that the full name of the republic is the "United States of America?" It is an obvious tangent from the topic of this article, the government of that republic. I will be removing that shortly unless someone explains it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Political System of the United States.svg and File:Politisches System der Vereinigten Staaten.svg

Hey =)

Recently I uploaded this graphic describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC) PS: For preceded conversation, see this talk (there came the hint to come round at this page)

Dead links

Showing some dead links. Needs sorting out as this is going to be featured on the main page under the WP:POTD banner. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 20, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A diagram of the federal government of the United States and its relationship to the 34 states and nine territories in 1862. At the top is the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land". The blue line originating from it represents allegiance and the red line shows the separation of Constitutional powers.Art: N. Mendal Shafer; Restoration: Fallschirmjäger

Edit request on 31 July 2013

The words "constitutional republic" need changed to "federal corporation" as the United States is defined in the U.S. Code 28 USC § 3002 - Definitions - (15)(A). This is the law, and I've seen no other law defining the United States as a constitutional republic. [United States means (A) a federal corporation] US Code

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. RudolfRed (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Name

The title of the government should be "Government of the United States of America" or "United States of America."

See US Treaties in force for the sovereign signing style. Each treaty is signed by the President or his or her designee for "The Government of the United States of America." http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/169274.pdf Also see the current Treaties Approval information page on the US Senate website at: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/trty_rtf.htm And the official NATO Treaty: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm, Articles 10, 11, 13, and 14. Lastly, Article 11 of the currently out-of-force Treaty of Tripoliy 1796-1797 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

The first and last pages of this treaty also prove my point: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18557.pdf. This last one is interesting since it is a treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation which again highlights that the sovereigns themselves have agreed to an official name for the recognized government in that country.

Furthermore, USG is an the official abbreviation for the United States Government, which is itself a shortened version of the full title. Internal agencies often use this short hand as highlighted in these two links: http://www.state.gov/j/tip/response/usg/index.htm

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/development-banks/Documents/USG%20position%20on%20WB%20and%20AfDB%20investment%20in%20Bujagali%20project%20Uganda.pdf

(RmanB17499 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

I believe that the use of "federal" in the title here is not in thought that that is the official name of the government, but to disambiguate it from state governments etc, and to allow for some flexibility in scope of the article (Some of the content of the page might not be "on topic on a strict "GoUSA" article). You could likely get some traction though on just adding America to the end of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind the use of federal government, United States, United States of America, etc. And I don't think its vital to actually change the name of the article. I think it would be wise to use the official title once -- at the beginning -- and then stick to the usual shorter versions that almost everyone else uses on a daily basis. Everyone knows when you said Feds or Uncle Sam...And it's just as important that the article mentions that the GoUSA is a federated form with sovereignty at multiple layers (USG, states, and people). It's just a one time, top level thing, I think to mention its official title and then press on with more interesting stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RmanB17499 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a specific content change in mind, propose it here and see what reaction you get. Just the snips of the sentences you want changed and to what. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the first sentence needs clarification or discussion. (I moved the entire first sentence discussion to a separate section in it entirety, below.)

• I still don't buy that it's the "official" name of the federal government. You've managed to find sources that happen to use "Government of the United States", but that name is appropriate in the given context. If you look here: [2], you'll see that to official government website calls itself "U.S. federal government". Also, the bolded name at the top of the article should match the name of the article, and naming it 'Government of the United States' would be confusing and ambiguous. Finally, please use the preview button before saving changes, as you're breaking the page repeatedly. --CapitalR (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, those references are fine for this discussion, but don't make sense in the article. It's not clear that their purpose is to provide evidence for the name. Someone first reading the article will be confused as to why there are NATO , Air Force, and Russian Treaties in the first sentence. I think that even if we go with the changed name (which I disagree with), the references are necessary. --CapitalR (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you look here http://web.archive.org/web/20091216131239/http://www.usa.gov/About.shtml, scroll to the bottom left of the screen, you'll find that USA.gov has a Seal that has "U.S. Government" on top and "United States of America" on the bottom. USA.gov is nifty, but it's just a web-site and not legally authoritative nor binding. I'd say true authority lies in how the government has presented itself to its peers -- and what its peers at international law have called it. When at the Supreme Court it calls itself the "United States or "the government." I'm all about entity legal names...No Supreme Court case or treaty among one or several countries or tribes has ever called it just the "Federal government" without mentioning that that's just a shortcut or alias to its true name. If i'm incorrect, please find me an authoritative citation that says so. Even the preamble of the Constitution ends with " Constitution for the United States of America." What does a Constitution enable or constitute? It commences a Government of the United States of America. Also see the signing section Article VII and the full title of the head of the executive department in Article II, Section 1 where it specifically entitled the executive as "President of the United States of America."

Agreement or disagreement is fine, but I need legal facts not just mere web-site. I'll concede that one of my cites is just a Senate web-site -- but that's again to show in the deep workings of the government (outside of the treaties themselves) that's how the government views itself and its name.

(129.24.0.10 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499129.24.0.10 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

This is good argument for what is the name of the united states. IT is not an argument about what the official name of the government of the united states is. There is a difference there, and the distinction is one I think you are missing.additionally, your analysis of what the constitution etc constitutes is or/synth (although relatively straightforward or/synth in this case). It may well be that the government itself has no official name, in which case just consensus will rule. The treaty is with "The United States of America", not with "The government of the united states of america", so, I don't really see that as an argument one way or another. Federal Government has clear support from WP:COMMONNAME, but I would support the comprimise we had before of "The Federal Government of The United States of America" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See this UK Supreme Court case where the USG is a defendant in a case, too

http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0052_Judgment.pdf

Please cite an authority that uses another name in an official capacity.

I would also be totally okay with saying the official name of the government is "United States of America" since most contracts are signed by an individual (say IRS officer) for "the United States of America." See the bottom of this ADA settlement agreement (last page) for how they sign payouts, etc. http://www.ada.gov/yavapai_regional_mc.htm

Common names are well and good and should be used throughout the article, but it should present its full legal entity name at the beginning.

We can agree to disagree. Also let's look at a bill that has been passed by the House, Senate, and signed by the president: S.1710 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1710enr/pdf/BILLS-112s1710enr.pdf It specifically is captioned "One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America" Not a Congress of the US or Congress of the Federal Government or anything else. Further it will say "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled," I ask anyone to find me a caption that says the government gives itself a different name other than "Government of the United States of America" or "United States of America" in official capacity at the start of any document or end of any contract. Than we can have more than a discussion of ideas -- we can look at cold, hard legal facts. Review George Washington's inaugural address or farewell address -- he did not use the word "Federal" once. I realize that I have pointed out many sources in history, law, international affairs, and contracts. I think the opposing side that argues for another name for the government should at least do the same.

Take out a penny or dollar from your wallet, look at how the government signed that, even. Or the front cover of our American passports.

I'll disagree that it's synthesis or non-original research for the name of the government itself. All these documents were produced by the government or a peer government and signed into law or incorporated into United States Treaties or issued (money) by the sovereign, directly. Therefore, it must be how the sovereign wishes to be titled. (It wrote in its own name). As for the other part of the issue -- the first sentence -- I think that's one for discussion, since it is difficult to define in a single sentence. (See below for first sentence discussion).

(129.24.0.10 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499129.24.0.10 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

I am going to stop responding, because you keep missing my point. All of the sources you are citing (except the UK case above, which does show your point, but is not conclusive) are naming the United States of America itself. The dollar bill does not have the word government on it at all, nor does a passport. nobody has any difference of opinion about what the name of the country is. The question is, does the government itself have an official name. by keeping the "federal government" words out of the quotes in the sentence, we avoid that problem, but if you are going to try to get that part into the quotes, then you do not have consensus for that, and overlinking the first sentence of the page to prove your WP:POINT is disruptive. None of those sources are naming the government, they are naming the country. (Again, with the exception of the UK link, but just because that is a name that is used in a court case does not mean that is the official name of the entity. The UK court is not the arbitrator of what the US government calls itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The treaty link uses "Government of the United States" and "United States Government" with United States Government having a # lead. Inconclusive. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A treaty is made between two or more governments and/or international organizations not between country. A country could have a single nationality or more. One country of say Irish could be divided over more than one nation-state. I think money and passports shows a clear preference when the federal government writes its name, voluntarily, it chooses "United States of America" as its mark. When it executes contracts and agreements it follows the same path. International agreements follow that pattern, too. Therefore the federal government of the United States is either "United States of America" or the "Government of the United States of America.". To contrast, there was a rebellios group of states that joined another government that self titled itself as the "Confederate States of Anerica.". Every time the USG sues in Scotus it uses "United States" even when it is suing a state.

I think great homage and respect should be paid to the name the nation state uses on its official papers, contracts, treaties, and in court documents. If it was the will of the sovereign to call itself the Federal government in official business then it would so. Even the format of bills and laws seem to concur.

I suggest therefore that the federal governments name ought to be listed once at the beginning in its official format as either "United States of America" or "Government of the United States of America.".

See also US v Lopez a Scotus case in 1995 which also undoubtedly had the sovereign write in its own name http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html or better yet how about a us vs potus case as in us v nixon at Scotus: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=683

And again for those that think differently I invite citations...

(166.147.79.71 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB1749166.147.79.71 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

are you a US citizen? I am asking not to insult etc, but because there are some subtleties about why we call the govt the federal government that may not be obvious to non-citizens. We have many governments that are the US govt, including 50 state governments. In any case, google federal government and notice the many US gov official sites using that term. There are many ways to refer to the govt, and none of them is provably superiorGaijin42 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Yes I am a natural born American from Hackensack, New Jersey. I understand federal government, the Feds, the states, uncle sam, etc are part of our daily conversation. I feel that each legal entity has one only one name at a moment and it should be shown respect. The usg operates continuously with many aliases, short cuts, or abbreviations like USG or the government at Washington, etc. a good article should mention the rich availability of what we call the federal layer of government... But it should also mention in official capacities it's title is stylzed as the united states government or united states of America. I'm also in law school now... So maybe that's why I'm driving hard with clarity. I like that Lopez case for other reasons that have nothing to do with this issue. (RmanB17499 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

So my position boils down to this: every legal instrument, bill, law, lawsuit, treaty, currency, coin, passport, visa, contract, agreement or other executing document or legally official paper from the government bears its name as United States of America or the Government of the United States of America. Federal courthouses show up on county tax rolls as owned by the united states and exempt from tax. The government or sovereign has chosen to write its name like that web it tries to do anything of legal import. Please cite an alternative federal law or contract or anything . I don't believe agency names, logos or server names count -- they aren't there to serve as official notice, license, legal tender, or law. I'm citation hungry from the naysayers... Since I think I have strung through a coherent position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.79.71 (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be improper to entitle the name of the government of Massachusetts as the State of Maschessutts. It among a few of her sister states have selected Commonwealth as part of their official name. It would be wrong to title the Russian government as Russia, the Russian Government or the Government of Russia since it has chosen the name Russian Federation. Either the Russian Federation or the Government of the Russian Federation would be fair. For our government either the United States of America or the Government of the United States of America appears fair.

May I suggest this compromise? "the United States of America (or Federal government)." parentheses are not mandatory and we could even just write "the United States of America or federal government"

I think that's something everyone can live with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.79.71 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Gaijin42 that RmanB17499 is making zero sense and is apparently trolling. Furthermore, RmanB17499 is clearly unfamiliar with WP:NAME. We don't go with official names, we go with common names. The common name is the federal government of the United States. Enough said. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Facts matter. "Facts, schmacts, everyone knows you can prove anything that's even remotely true with facts." (129.24.0.10 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499129.24.0.10 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

Yes we use common names in Wikipedia for article titles. But refer to say Bill Clinton's page and what does the first sentence start with? His full legal name... (166.147.76.226 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499166.147.76.226 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

Edit proposal: How about something like the following as the second paragraph after the lead?

The full name of the federal union is "The United States of America." No other name appears in the Constitution, and this name appears on money, in treaties, and in legal decisions in cases to which it is a party (e.g., Charles T. Schenck v. United States). The terms "Government of the United States of America" or "United States Government" (USG) are often used in official documents to refer collectively to the federal-level apparatus of government; in casual conversation or writing, the terms "Federal Government" or (less frequently) "National Government" are commonly used; the terms "Federal" and "National" in agency or program names generally indicates affiliation with the federal government (e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, etc.). Because the seat of government is in Washington, D.C., “Washington” is commonly used metonymously to refer to the federal government.

It leaves the article using the common name while acknowledging that there is some variance in usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.72.196 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I added a cite in Marbury v Madison for SCOTUS review of laws. Also, just note Justice Marshall's verbiage in the opinion is quite clear about the name, too.(RmanB17499 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)RmanB17499RmanB17499 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

I offered an edit a couple days ago without being aware of this debate about "federal" in the Talk section. My edit has since been reverted (not sure by whom). Anyway, now that I see the debate I can see that there's concern about the names of the country and the national government, even though I don't quite follow the points being made. My edits didn't have to do with the names, but as the Talk section appears to debate them I will throw in my two cents and say that I think we should defer to the Constitution on this, as the Constitution is pretty clear. However, even though the phrase "federal government" is not in the Constitution, it certainly is a common way to refer to the national government and to distinguish it from the governments of the states and other territories. Also, "federal" is used in many official contexts. So it makes sense for a Wikipedia article to explain this point. My edit was meant to communicate this and also to help the article avoid making the claim that the national government is "federal" in nature. That claim would be complicated and would probably best be treated in a separate article on political theory and on U.S. politics. As to political theory: the Constitution says that the Constitution itself (and thus the country and the national government) is created by "the people" rather than by states. The people rejected the Articles of Confederation precisely for being too "federal," when what they wanted was "a more perfect Union." As of 2014, most of the states are the results of processes created by the national government, not the other way around. So, simply stating that the Government of the United States is "federal" doesn't inform the reader very well. As to U.S. politics: the characterization of the U.S. Government as "federal" in nature risks injecting U.S. politics into the article, as the emphasis on federalism and states rights has generally been part of internal political debates. The first serious case was when the New England states objected to the war on Britain and the attempted conquest of Canada, although the better known case is the long-running objection of the southeastern states to the national government's involvement in the questions of slavery and subsequently of the civil rights of African-Americans. Again, although some elements of this debate (like nullification and secession, which the New England states pioneered) have been disposed of, the overall debate needs careful treatment, probably in a separate article and not in the article that describes the institutional set-up of the USG. Jsryanjr (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

State governments

This statement seems unnecessarily editorial, and is not directly supported by the cited source: "As a result, state governments tend to impose severe budget cuts at any time the economy is faltering, which are strongly felt by the public for which they are responsible." Some budget cuts may be "strongly felt by the public" but others are hardly noticeable. GregE625 (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This wording is nonsense: The full name of the republic is the "United States of America".

   A colleague moved "The" outside the quotes and downcased it, producing

The full name of the republic is the "United States of America".

which is not a sentence bcz it cannot be construed in any grammatically consistent way. Their edit summary was

"The" isn't part of the title.

which clarifies their intent as implicitly being that the full name is "United States of America". Perhaps they are wrong in the summary (in which case the edit should be reverted) but until their plausible assertion in the summary is demolished with a RS, the grammar needs to corrected: the only way the noun phrase

the "United States of America"

can be grammatical is in constructions like

You can see that the "United States of America" that appears in the lead 'graph of this talk section has 4 correctly spelled words.

   So allowing that editor the benefit of the doubt, i'm eliminating the "the" immediately preceding the open-quote.
--Jerzy•t 05:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

anyone can put anything on a government site im just trying to prove a point 2601:843:0:3674:B487:9EDC:2188:D76 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eteethan(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for Access to Rewrite "History" Section

I think this section contains a lot of content that is not particularly pertinent to the subject of the "history" of the United States government.

The very first sentence, for example, is a comment on the structure of the United States government:

   "The outline of the government of the United States is laid out in the Constitution."

The second sentence which follows a historic reference, but then makes an uncertain statement:

   "The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world's first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republics."

The final paragraph is focused again on the structure of the United States government, rather than its history. It says that the American system is based on "checks and balances," gives several examples, and then tells the reader:

   "These and other examples are examined in more detail in the text below."

I think I understand where previous editors were coming from, and I believe that some mention of checks and balances would be appropriate for this section, but only if it is included in a historic context. For example, noting that the framers were influenced by Baron Montesquieu's writings on checks and balances. I think this section should at least include some mention of the origin of the constitution as a response to America's failed confederate system, as well as more links to pertinent articles on the history of the United States and important topics related to the history of the US federal government. My surface and my buried roots (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "|date = 1789" to "|date = {start date and age|1789}" to correspond to the Federal government of the United States's official founding date?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me.

"The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world's first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republics." To me, this looks like it is saying the US is the first, but (possibly) not the first. Can this be clarified? SGPolter (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It means it's debatable to some as to whether or not it's really the first. That's probably the most succinct way to say it. - BilCat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. SGPolter (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal government of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610225702/http://www.doi.gov:80/oia/Islandpages/prpage.htm to http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/prpage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429222842/http://www.htrcpa.com/businessinpr1.html to http://www.htrcpa.com/businessinpr1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Federal government of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828203008/http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml to http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mp67ZoSs?url=http://www.mcvpr.com/CM/CurrentEvents/CEOsummitarticle.pdf to http://www.mcvpr.com/CM/CurrentEvents/CEOsummitarticle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511054048/http://www.prfaa.com/news/?p=252 to http://www.prfaa.com/news/?p=252

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

In the introduction paragraph, the text "whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, respectively." is ambiguous. I recommend one of two changes: 1) (preferred) Remove the comma after "federal courts" so it is clear the Supreme Court is included in the group of federal courts. i.e. "whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts including the Supreme Court, respectively." 2) Replace the commas separating "the President" from Congress and the federal courts with semicolons. i.e. "whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress; the President; and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court; respectively." MagnusVortex (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I've only fixed the first request, though I'm unsure about the second. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Federal government of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120152201/http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch to http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401034052/http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healthcare-industry-policy-article/puerto-rico/267827 to http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healthcare-industry-policy-article/puerto-rico/267827
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401034052/http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healthcare-industry-policy-article/puerto-rico/267827 to http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healthcare-industry-policy-article/puerto-rico/267827
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210124900/http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2338.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2338.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610210536/http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-4-c.html to http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-17-4-c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2017

The external websites on the end are no longer active. Mateusz Chiliński (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

"change united states to united states of america" 2601:880:8100:5130:504F:3D51:91B1:34D6 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

The word "government" should be started with a capital "G". — Hamid Hassani (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Now the title does not match the lede.

Title: Federal government of the United States

Lede: Federal Government of the United States

They should match, at least. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

listening in the internet-cafes 94.241.213.39 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Change "Members of the House and Senate are elected by first-past-the-post voting in every state except Louisiana and Georgia, which have runoffs." to "Members of the House and Senate are elected by first-past-the-post voting in every state except Louisiana and Georgia, which have runoffs, and Maine and Alaska, which use ranked-choice voting." Milfil (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for suggesting this. The sentence as it stood was misleading since it implied that all states used first-past-the-post. TimSmit (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Update the year in "As of 2019, three presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives" in the "Legislative branch" paragraph subsection "Impeachment of federal officers" to keep the Wikipedia feel of always being up-to-date and consistently maintained. (not sure if I wrote this request correctly) Coolkettle (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

helping - from wikiproject

I'm interested in helping to improve this article. I joined the WikiProject for US Government today. I'm working on the legislative sections currently. LMK if any requests! Hannahthom7 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

political system of usa

the purple line going to supreme court should come out of senate and not out of congress. Jackson883941 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jackson883941: (I take it you're referring to this image?) The Senate is a part of Congress. - wolf 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but other Senate-confirmed positions, like the cabinet and armed forces, have purple arrows coming directly from the Senate box, not the Congress box. PBZE (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

and yet other senate conifirmable positions or senate tasks come out of the senate and not our of congress Jackson883941 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Senate is Congress. The other chamber of Congress is the House of Representitives. As for the image in question, the lines in some cases go direct to the Senate box, in others, to the Congress box as a whole, meaning both chambers.

That said, this is about the image, not the article. Issues with the image should be brought up on the image's talk page. - wolf 22:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have now raised this issue at Commons:File talk:Political System of the United States.svg#Senate approval of Supreme Court. SilverLocust (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clearly no consensus for the proposed title, though some of the opposition does not make sense. Nobody refers to local or state governments as "Government of the United States". And how governments in other countries are commonly called has no bearing on how the government of this country is called. Also, I've never heard or read anyone refer to the US President or the US Congress as the US government. In any case, "United States Government" is arguably a much more common name for the federal government, as noted in the discussion, and it might be worth proposing that move. (non-admin closure) --В²C ☎ 06:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) В²C ☎ 06:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Federal government of the United States → Government of the United States – This is the most commonly used term to talk about the government at the national level. When people usually say the US government, they are usually talking about the national government. Interstellarity (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - There are several other countries where the article for the national government uses "Federal". Estar8806 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure who these "people" you are referring to are. But people use the term "US government" to refer to all sorts of things - sometimes they mean only the US president, or his cabinet, sometimes they mean the executive branch, sometimes they use it to to refer to Congress, sometimes they mean something as narrow as the Department of Agriculture, sometimes they mean something as wide as the whole federal, state & local government apparatus. The term "US government" is used in a lot of ways, and it is not limited nor condition on any particular usage. State governments are certainly part of the "government of the United States". This article is very specifically about the US federal government, or what is commonly referred to as the "federal government", as distinguished from state and local government.Walrasiad (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "United States Government" is certainly one of the common names (I'm not so sure about "Government of the United States"), though probably not as common as "the Federal Government" (in a context where "of the United States" goes without saying), but it is ambiguous with, say, the subject of American government (i.e., including the whole federalist system). And it is still easy to get to the unambiguous title federal government of the United States via United States Government. Also, compare federal judiciary of the United States rather than the common but somewhat ambiguous United States Courts (as it is called by, e.g., https://uscourts.gov). SilverLocust (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.