# Does Obama pee in a cup? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 23, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104 "2010-10-23T16:23:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/41 "2010-10-27T11:16:30Z")
Whatever they’re paid it’s not a salary. They receive a compensation for the lack of income while holding office. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/42 "2010-10-27T15:00:06Z")
> [@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. > [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/43 "2010-10-27T15:07:15Z")
> [@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.? ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/44 "2010-10-27T15:31:06Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/45 "2010-10-27T15:53:27Z")
> [@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.) > [@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: > [@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: > [@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: > [@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: > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/46 "2010-10-27T15:56:49Z")
BTW, did you know that Congress Critters get their pensions from the [Federal _Employees_ Retirement System](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement_System)? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/47 "2010-10-29T07:38:52Z")
> [@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. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/48 "2010-10-29T12:55:08Z")
That would be a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution. ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104/49 "2010-10-30T17:37:58Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-obama-pee-in-a-cup/558104.md?page=2)