Does Obama pee in a cup?

[Captain Midnight]

Does the President of the United States have to submit to drug testing? The law to test federal employees has been around since early Reagan. The Presidency is a federal job. So is being a congressman or senator. I smoke marijuana and believe it should be legal, but their forebearers enacted these laws, and they are part of the laws. Obama was a late 70's teen. I myself am 6 years younger than Obama and recently celebrated 25 years of marijuana use.

If the President (not Obama necessarily) was caught or was proven to smoke marijuana, is this grounds for impeachment?

As an aside, does anyone think that impeachment is a stupid word for this definition. The word has a fruit in it, but there is nothing peachy about the term.

I am not saying that Obama smokes dope. He doesn't 99.999% sure. He did spend our money like a crackhead on the bailout.

President, VP, SZupreme court justice, any appalete justices and congressman including senators drug tested?

[RickJay]

1. Of course he doesn't. Come on, those rules don't apply to Presidents and Congresspeople. The rules never do.

2. Even if he did, Obama's position as President of the United States is something that is determined by the rules laid out in the Constitution. Some federal drug testing law cannot overrule the Constitution, which says quite specifically how it is determined who the President should be, and according to those rules it's Barack Obama.

He would therefore have to be impeached by Congress, who can make up pretty much anything they want as grounds for impeachment, so they don't need to wait for a drug test.

[DCnDC]

He could just pardon himself (maybe) if he got busted.

[Fubaya]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

I smoke marijuana...
...
As an aside, does anyone think that impeachment is a stupid word for this definition. The word has a fruit in it, but there is nothing peachy about the term.

Those two sentences are perfect together.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

Does the President of the United States have to submit to drug testing? The law to test federal employees has been around since early Reagan. The Presidency is a federal job. So is being a congressman or senator. I smoke marijuana and believe it should be legal, but their forebearers enacted these laws, and they are part of the laws. Obama was a late 70's teen. I myself am 6 years younger than Obama and recently celebrated 25 years of marijuana use.

I believe the rules for presidency are constituionally defined, and the constituion of the US does not contain references to marijuana. It would require an amendment to the constitution to require that a president be drug-free.

Whether or not a drug-using president would sit well with the electorate, of course, is another matter.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by RickJay

1. Of course he doesn't. Come on, those rules don't apply to Presidents and Congresspeople. The rules never do.

2. Even if he did, Obama's position as President of the United States is something that is determined by the rules laid out in the Constitution. Some federal drug testing law cannot overrule the Constitution, which says quite specifically how it is determined who the President should be, and according to those rules it's Barack Obama.

How about citing some actual facts, given that this is GQ? For one thing, the president is required by law to do all sorts of stuff that isn't in the Constitution. An example is reimbursing the government for the cost of food served at the White House residence.

As for drug testing, the rule applies to employees of the federal civil service, not elected officials or political appointees.

Specifically, Executive Order 12564, issues by Reagan pursuant to 5 USC § 7301, provides that:

Originally Posted by EO 12564

Sec. 3. Drug Testing Programs.
(a) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a program to test for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive positions. The extent to which such employees are tested and the criteria for such testing shall be determined by the head of each agency, based upon the nature of the agency's mission and its employees' duties, the efficient use of agency resources, and the danger to the public health and safety or national security that could result from the failure of an employee adequately to discharge his or her position.

...and so on and so forth.

[Dallas Jones]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

As an aside, does anyone think that impeachment is a stupid word for this definition. The word has a fruit in it, but there is nothing peachy about the term.

Impeachment is the more technical term for what most people call peach cobbler.

I'm pretty sure.

[Markxxx]

The president is requried to do things, but...

If the president refused, what would happen? Nothing, you can pass law after law saying he has to do things, but if he doesn't there's very little you can do. In fact the only thing you can do is impeach him and remove him from office.

If you look back to when some states tried to pass a law for term limits, the US Supreme Court said, "No." You can't add on additonal requirements. When states tried to prevent convicted felons from being Senators and Representatives, again the SCOTUS said, "No."

So while in some states convicted felons can't vote for themselves, they can, in all states run and be elected as Senator. Of course the US Senate or House can simply refuse to seat that elected person.

As for the example:

reimbursing the government for the cost of food served at the White House residence.

This may be so, but what if the president refuses. What's gonna happen? Nothing. Does he stop being president? No of course not. I suppose you could try to bring civil or even criminal charges against him, but it won't stop him from being president.

Even Andrew Jackson's famous "The Supreme Court made that rule, not let THEM enforce it" shows there's little one can do.

Theodore Roosevelt want to send the US fleet on a show of strength when he built up the navy. Congress refused to give him money for this, calling it wasteful. Roosevelt just ordered them to go anyway. Halfway around the world the fleet ran out of money. Then what could the US Cnngress do? They could leave the fleet where it was stranded or allow the money to be appropriated, which they did.

In Congress it's a bit different, just a bit. The US Constitution give both houses the power to set rules for its members. So either house could pass a "rule" requiring drug testing and then refuse to seat a member who didn't pass the test. Of course they can't stop anyone from being elected, but they can refuse to seat that person

The only thing I can think of off hand the President HAS to do, according to the US Constitution is give a state of the union address. Though I'm sure there are a few other things in there I can't think of at the top of the moment.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Markxxx

As for the example:

reimbursing the government for the cost of food served at the White House residence.

This may be so, but what if the president refuses. What's gonna happen? Nothing. Does he stop being president? No of course not. I suppose you could try to bring civil or even criminal charges against him, but it won't stop him from being president.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. He "stops being president" when he is impeached and convicted for violating federal law. Obviously this has nothing to do with eligibility to become president, because you have to be president already in order to violate that law. Just like you have to actually be a federal employee before you get fired by the federal government for smoking a bowl.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by friedo

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. He "stops being president" when he is impeached and convicted for violating federal law.

Okay, that makes me think of a question that started bugging me a few years ago. The Constitution states that the President may not be involuntarily removed from office except upon impeachment by the HoR and conviction by the Senate.

But does the Constitution mandate that the penalty upon conviction must be forfeiture of the office? Could a disapproving Congress/Senate impeach and convict a President, and follow up with say, a stern letter of Reprimand?

I know it seems silly to even contemplate it. And I'll concede that such a course of events would be very damaging to the dignity of the office of the President, as well as the dignity of the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and even the Constitution. But is it possible for it to happen?

[Napier]

I was taught in high school American history class that technically the President does not receive a paycheck from the federal government. Instead, he or his agents regularly sue the government, which regularly settles the suit with a payment. This is a formality but there was some reason (which I was expected to remember, alas) why it is done this way. Sorry I don't have anything more specific; high school was a long time ago (more than a tenth of the way back to the creation of the United States).

That being said, I wonder if it's possible that the President is not an employee?

[Dewey Finn]

I really doubt that the president has to sue the government to get paid, especially as the idea that he's paid is enshrined in the Constitution. Were you actually told this by your high school teacher or was this something other students said?

Article 2, Section 1: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

[Blank Slate]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

...He did spend our money like a crackhead on the bailout.

He beg, stole and borrowed to buy one little, inexpensive item?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and "grounds" for impeachment are functionally whatever Congress decides they are. It is highly unlikely, however, that a President would be impeached for smoking dope. As a matter of fact, I don't think it's technically even illegal to smoke it. It's illegal to possess it or sell it, but not illegal to test positive for it in a piss test.

He did spend our money like a crackhead on the bailout.

The first bailout happned under Bush, and the spending was done by Congress. Presidents can't spend money. That power belongs to Congress.

Also, the bailouts worked. You're welcome.

[JRDelirious]

POTUS and the Congress as elected officials are and have always been excepted from many of the regular federal public service personnel management provisions(*). Similarly at the state level the Governors and members of the Statehouses. Really I find no moral objection with that in and of itself.

(*The fate of members of SCOTUS on this would probably be delegated by the relevant laws to the Rules that SCOTUS itself approves for the Federal Judiciary, and I would not be at all surprised if The Nine are also "more equal" than the rest of the Federal Bench)

There was even a SCOTUS decision on a Georgia case in the 90s that IIRC found, by near unanimity, that a state could not make submitting to a drug test a condition for assuming and holding a legislative seat, failing evidence either that there's a widespread drug use problem in the Statehouse or that the post of legislator was a safety-sensitive position (such as policeman).

You should not override the will of the voters over a mere HR management issue -- and that's what drug testing is: the hired employee's test requirement may be mandatory but the penalty for failing or for refusing to cooperate is not a criminal accusation, it's administrative sanctions including up to rejection of application or dismissal from post (on preview: or, what Diogenes said). Drug possession remains illegal for elected officials at all levels, and evidence thereof could be used against them, but there is no basis in law to condition their holding of the post to sumitting to the test.


[opinion]As a society and workforce we were such wimps about Doing Someting in the Drug War, the way we let our so-called leaders go along with extending drug testing beyong people in safety-sensitive positions to making it a requirement for everybody in public service, and imposing the same requirement on government's private-sector contractors, thus essentially legitimizing universal drug testing as a standard business practice. But who's going to be the Hero who says his organization does not need to follow "Drug Free Workplace" guidelines? [/opinion]

[Napier]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

I really doubt that the president has to sue the government to get paid, especially as the idea that he's paid is enshrined in the Constitution. Were you actually told this by your high school teacher or was this something other students said?

Article 2, Section 1: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

What I remember is that the teacher told us this. I think maybe she said that it was considered common for him to be paid in the ordinary way. Certainly it was not the case that his getting paid was ever in jeopardy, only that there was made to be different or special in this fashion. I did a little web searching and did not find anything like this. I don't know, maybe the whole thing is just leaking and noisy brain cells. It was a pretty long time ago, and it's not like I remembered most of the other things she taught us.

[friedo]

I've always wondered where teachers get bizarre ideas like that. I think some of them just get something slightly wrong once, then repeat it six times a day for years and years, and through no malicious intent it morphs into something of such staggering wrongness that you wonder how they remember to breathe.

Anyhoo, maybe your teacher was confused because some early presidents had to sometimes "remind" the Congress to pass supplementary appropriations bills that included their salary. (Congress never forgets their own salary, naturally.) Nowadays, the president's paychecks are regularly sent out via direct deposit, same as every gubbermint lackey. He also gets a W2.

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by Napier

What I remember is that the teacher told us this. I think maybe she said that it was considered common for him to be paid in the ordinary way. Certainly it was not the case that his getting paid was ever in jeopardy, only that there was made to be different or special in this fashion. I did a little web searching and did not find anything like this. I don't know, maybe the whole thing is just leaking and noisy brain cells. It was a pretty long time ago, and it's not like I remembered most of the other things she taught us.

Well, there is a lot of stuff that HS teachers say...it is, often, a bunch of hare brained nonsense.
We had an econ teacher, who would say some of the wildest stuff. Like an idiot, I believed him; even worse, I repeated it as fact, and got busted.
As for POTUS to get paid, doesn't the GAO hand it (check/stub) over to the White House?


Best wishes,
hh

[GiantRat]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

[opinion]As a society and workforce we were such wimps about Doing Someting in the Drug War, the way we let our so-called leaders go along with extending drug testing beyong people in safety-sensitive positions to making it a requirement for everybody in public service, and imposing the same requirement on government's private-sector contractors, thus essentially legitimizing universal drug testing as a standard business practice. But who's going to be the Hero who says his organization does not need to follow "Drug Free Workplace" guidelines? [/opinion]

In the private sector (I'm thinking Big Four accountancies - which do work on contract for the US Gov), drug testing is (IME) a total no-go. They are huge international organizations trying to comply with the norms of locales, but wouldn't want to just drug test Americans - that would look like a prejudicial hiring/retention practice.

And, I'd add, that most/all of the Federal agencies have "thresholds" for drug consumption (prior to employment, that is); some are more liberal than others.

Frankly, I understand why you would want most Federal employees to be tested. When I was contracted to the government for about 5 years, I was routinely called in at wacky hours to perform work. Even the secretaries occasionally got roused from their "off hours." Had any of us shown up tripping on acid with a doobie hanging from our lips, we probably wouldn't have performed very well.

[Krokodil]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

The law to test federal employees has been around since early Reagan. The Presidency is a federal job. So is being a congressman or senator.

Elected officials are not "federal employees." Firing them under any circumstance is difficult and complicated. Their staffers and appointees are another matter entirely. Whether or not the big boys submit to urinalysis is largely up to them, and I can't imagine a drug-using elected official peeing in a cup under any circumstance.

[friedo]

Well, they're federal employees, but they're not members of the civil service. In most legislation, "federal employee" is taken to mean members of the civil service. For example, the above-mentioned 5 USC § 7301 provides:

The words "employees in the executive branch" are substituted for "persons who may receive appointments in the civil service". Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

The president, vice president, and all their appointed underlings are federal employees, but not members of that group.

[rbroome]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

Does the President of the United States have to submit to drug testing? The law to test federal employees has been around since early Reagan. The Presidency is a federal job. So is being a congressman or senator. I smoke marijuana and believe it should be legal, but their forebearers enacted these laws, and they are part of the laws. Obama was a late 70's teen. I myself am 6 years younger than Obama and recently celebrated 25 years of marijuana use.

If the President (not Obama necessarily) was caught or was proven to smoke marijuana, is this grounds for impeachment?

As an aside, does anyone think that impeachment is a stupid word for this definition. The word has a fruit in it, but there is nothing peachy about the term.

I am not saying that Obama smokes dope. He doesn't 99.999% sure. He did spend our money like a crackhead on the bailout.

President, VP, SZupreme court justice, any appalete justices and congressman including senators drug tested?

I doubt it. However, what would happen if they refused. It isn't like their boss is going to fire them....

I am going with no.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Okay, that makes me think of a question that started bugging me a few years ago. The Constitution states that the President may not be involuntarily removed from office except upon impeachment by the HoR and conviction by the Senate.

But does the Constitution mandate that the penalty upon conviction must be forfeiture of the office? Could a disapproving Congress/Senate impeach and convict a President, and follow up with say, a stern letter of Reprimand?

I know it seems silly to even contemplate it. And I'll concede that such a course of events would be very damaging to the dignity of the office of the President, as well as the dignity of the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and even the Constitution. But is it possible for it to happen?

There's no settled answer here, but I think the answer is no. Article II, section 4 says that the President "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of" one of the listed offenses. That sounds like removal is mandatory.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Also, the bailouts worked. You're welcome.

No it didn't, my ass is still out of work, as is my roommate, and several friends of mine who also lost their job the same day I did [and from the same company.]

If the bailouts had worked, where are the jobs?

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

No it didn't, my ass is still out of work, as is my roommate, and several friends of mine who also lost their job the same day I did [and from the same company.]

If the bailouts had worked, where are the jobs?

The largest over-the-year jobless rate decrease in August was recorded
in Elkhart-Goshen, Ind. (-3.5 percentage points). Three additional areas
reported rate decreases of at least 2.0 percentage points: Florence-Mus-
cle Shoals, Ala., and Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, N.C. (-2.3 points each),
and Janesville, Wis. (-2.2 points). Yuma, Ariz., registered the largest
over-the-year unemployment rate increase (+4.3 percentage points).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.nr0.htm

eta: I'm not commenting on 'whether the bailout worked' just responding to the factual inquiry as to where jobs may be.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

No it didn't, my ass is still out of work, as is my roommate, and several friends of mine who also lost their job the same day I did [and from the same company.]

If the bailouts had worked, where are the jobs?

People on this board often used to note that "the plural of anecdote is not data." I wish we still did that.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Markxxx

Even Andrew Jackson's famous "The Supreme Court made that rule, not let THEM enforce it" shows there's little one can do.

He never actually said that.

[Wendell Wagner]

It's only a minority of federal employees that are regularly drug-tested. There are several categories of employees that are tested, the largest being employees with security clearances:

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/work/a/blsam040409.htm

[matt_mcl]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

As an aside, does anyone think that impeachment is a stupid word for this definition. The word has a fruit in it, but there is nothing peachy about the term.

For anyone whose curiosity may have been provoked, the verb impeach comes from the French empêcher, now meaning to prevent but originally meaning to snare or prosecute, from the Latin impedicare, from pedica, a fetter, from pes, foot.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

He did spend our money like a crackhead on the bailout.

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

He beg, stole and borrowed to buy one little, inexpensive item?

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Also, the bailouts worked. You're welcome.

Originally Posted by aruvqan

No it didn't, my ass is still out of work, as is my roommate, and several friends of mine who also lost their job the same day I did [and from the same company.]

If the bailouts had worked, where are the jobs?

[Moderator Note]

Let's not hijack this into a debate on the bailout. If you want to discuss that, please open a thread in GD. Please stick to the question of whether the president and other high office holders are subject to drug testing.

Captain Midnight, I also note that political jabs are not permitted in GQ (for the reason that they lead to the kind of hijack that has been taking place in this thread). No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Floater]

As far as I understand neither the president nor the members of Congress (and other elected bodies) are government employees. They are elected officials.

[kayaker]

IME, "required" drug testing always has a work-around. When my brother was in (a situation where drug testing became a requirement) he was given 45 day notice prior to each "random" test. He was considered necessary, and so that was the way it was handled.

I accepted a job years ago and only after starting the job was I told there was mandatory random pee checks. I was outraged and told my boss no thanks. After much discussion between the higher-ups things were "smoothed out". I had to submit a single sample at my leisure, after which the "random generator" would, for some reason, never choose me again.

These two anecdotal situations suggest, to me anyway, that the President could achieve a similar work around.

[StusBlues]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

No it didn't, my ass is still out of work, as is my roommate, and several friends of mine who also lost their job the same day I did [and from the same company.]

If the bailouts had worked, where are the jobs?

Nebraska. We're sitting on a 4.6% unemployment rate.

[sqweels]

Originally Posted by Dallas Jones

Impeachment is the more technical term for what most people call peach cobbler.

I'm pretty sure.

I refers to the process of adding peaches to a dish or recipe.

A bowl of cereal to which sliced peaches has been added has been impeached.

Adding sliced pears to a dish is called "impairment".

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

The Presidency is a federal job.

No, it's a constitutional office. Elected officials are not federal employees.

[dracoi]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

If the President (not Obama necessarily) was caught or was proven to smoke marijuana, is this grounds for impeachment?

One of the interesting things about the Constitution is that it's fairly vague on what constitutes grounds for impeachment ("Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"). In essence, anything is grounds for impeachment if you can get enough Congresspeople to vote for it. You would not get the necessary votes over something as minor as smoking pot.

Here's a good resource for more info: http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPEC...peachment.html

[Wendell Wagner]

kayaker writes:

> When my brother was in (a situation where drug testing became a
> requirement) he was given 45 day notice prior to each "random" test.

That's not the case for federal jobs for which drug testing is required (which are, as I said, mostly jobs which require security clearances). You're told as soon as you come in on the day on which you are randomly chosen that you should report to a particular office. There you give them a urine sample.

[kayaker]

^^ I can say no more...

[Captain Midnight]

Originally Posted by acsenray

No, it's a constitutional office. Elected officials are not federal employees.

I believe that you are correct, but since the President, V.P., Congress and The Supreme Court are paid by Federal tax dollars, how does this not make them Federal employees?

What about the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Do they pee or not (in a cup)?

[Gyrate]

You seem unusually interested in discussing grown men peeing.

[Floater]

Whatever they're paid it's not a salary. They receive a compensation for the lack of income while holding office.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Captain Midnight

I believe that you are correct, but since the President, V.P., Congress and The Supreme Court are paid by Federal tax dollars, how does this not make them Federal employees?

They are federal employees. The fact that they got their job via election doesn't make them not federal employees. It does make them not members of the civil service, though.

Originally Posted by Floater

Whatever they're paid it's not a salary. They receive a compensation for the lack of income while holding office.

What in the world does that even mean? What do you think a "salary" is?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by friedo

They are federal employees. The fact that they got their job via election doesn't make them not federal employees. It does make them not members of the civil service, though.

Unless there's a citation that contradicts me, I'm going to say that this is wrong. The president, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, etc., are not employees of the federal government. Collectively, they constitute the constitutional government. Is AT&T Inc. an employee of AT&T Inc.?

[Floater]

Originally Posted by friedo

What in the world does that even mean?

It means being a politician is not an occupation, whatever politicians believe. While you hold office you act as an agent for your voters and don't have time to earn an income in an honest way. Thus you get compensated by the state, community or whatever.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Unless there's a citation that contradicts me, I'm going to say that this is wrong. The president, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, etc., are not employees of the federal government. Collectively, they constitute the constitutional government. Is AT&T Inc. an employee of AT&T Inc.?

"The government" as a corporate entity is separate from the people who run it. That's why people charged with federal crimes are charged by The United States and not the president. We left that sort of thing behind when we got rid of the king.

The proper analogy is in comparing the CEO of AT&T to the president. And the CEO is most definitely an employee. (One might also consider the board of directors of a company, most of whom aren't actually employees, and that's why this is a bad analogy.)

Originally Posted by Floater

It means being a politician is not an occupation, whatever politicians believe. While you hold office you act as an agent for your voters and don't have time to earn an income in an honest way. Thus you get compensated by the state, community or whatever.

I decided to do some digging. There's some interesting variations in the statutes for this sort of thing.

On the president:

Originally Posted by 3 USC 102

The President shall receive in full for his services during the term for which he shall have been elected compensation in the aggregate amount of $400,000 a year, to be paid monthly, and in addition an expense allowance of $50,000 to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties, for which expense allowance no accounting, other than for income tax purposes, shall be made by him. He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Residence at the White House.

On the VP:

Originally Posted by 3 USC 104

(a) The per annum rate of salary of the Vice President of the United States shall be the rate determined for such position under chapter 11 of title 2, as adjusted under this section.

Subject to subsection (b), effective at the beginning of the first month in which an adjustment takes effect under section 5303 of title 5 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule, the salary of the Vice President shall be adjusted by an amount, rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 (or if midway between multiples of $100, to the nearest higher multiple of $100), equal to the percentage of such per annum rate which corresponds to the most recent percentage change in the ECI (relative to the date described in the next sentence), as determined under section 704(a)(1) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989

On Congress:

Originally Posted by 2 U.S.C. § 31

(1) The annual rate of pay for -
(A) each Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, and
Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico,
(B) the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority
leader and the minority leader of the Senate, and the majority
leader and the minority leader of the House of Representatives,
and
(C) the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
shall be the rate determined for such positions under chapter 11 of
this title, as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this section.

On the Supreme Court:

Originally Posted by 28 U.S.C. § 5

The Chief Justice and each associate justice shall each receive a salary at annual rates determined under section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351–361), as adjusted by section 461 of this title.

So my conclusion is that there's no particular standard about what the compensation of senior government figures is called, and your quibble about "salary" is a nonsensical semantic argument.

FWIW, my guess is that the only reason the president's salary is referred to as a "compensation" whereas the VP's is as a "salary" is because that's how it's worded in the constitution.

[friedo]

BTW, did you know that Congress Critters get their pensions from the Federal Employees Retirement System?

[dtilque]

Originally Posted by Markxxx

The only thing I can think of off hand the President HAS to do, according to the US Constitution is give a state of the union address. Though I'm sure there are a few other things in there I can't think of at the top of the moment.

The president doesn't even have to do that. I'm too lazy to cite the exact text, but it actually just says the president will communicate from time to time about the state of the union. He doesn't have to give a speech -- he could just send a written report. In fact, many of the early presidents didn't give a SotU Address. Giving a speech became standard some time in the middle of the 19th century, but I forget which president started the practice.

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

But does the Constitution mandate that the penalty upon conviction must be forfeiture of the office? Could a disapproving Congress/Senate impeach and convict a President, and follow up with say, a stern letter of Reprimand?

The equivalent of a reprimand by Congress would be a resolution (either House, Senate or Joint) about whatever issue they didn't like. The resolution would not be binding law, just an expression of Congressional displeasure. I suppose that the Senate could fail to convict and issue a resolution instead.

[friedo]

That would be a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution.

[InterestedObserver]

Completely unaddressed thus far is the likelyhood that random drug testing conducted by the federal government is unconstitutional.

Yes, they engage in it, but this is not proof that it is, in fact, a permitted activity, just that it has not been successfully challenged.

Random drug testing, as opposed to drug testing conducted with cause (say, in the wake of an accident or testimony of drug use), seems to be covered here:

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (4th amendment)

Obviously the framers of the Constitution could have not predicted the use of urinalysis or other forms of testing for drug use, but they still managed to cover it, imho.

Of course, it can be argued (as has been) that random drug testing as a condition of employment IS "reasonable", but it is certainly the case that it is a search and seizure conducted without a warrant and without "particularly describing" the "things to be seized" (only a very general description of traces of illegal drugs, not, say, "we have reason to believe this individual has used cocaine and we expect to find it in his piss").

At any rate, the President is probably poked, prodded and tested more than the average citizen in the course of medical exams and any such drug use would turn up. But given the confidentiality between doctor and patient, I doubt his records are turned over without his consent for inspection. And I can't imagine he would be subjected to random drug tests.

President Obama did recently say (on The View) that he doesn't Twitter or engage in other social networking on his phone because all his accounts, including email, are monitored, so he lacks the privacy of the average citizen. But I'll wager he enjoys more privacy when it comes to the contents of his urine than the average joe with a job, sensitive in nature or otherwise.