The cite from the Constitution says that the President can not receive any other emolument from the United States or any of them. He can, of course, take all he can get from Dubai.
<mod>
David, having met you on a couple of occasions, I think you’re a hell of a guy. But I’m afraid I’m going to have to slap your hand for inappropriate comments in GQ.
Please keep those type of comments to GD or The Pit. Thanks.
</mod>
And I know better, too. I’m sorry and apologize.
Yeah, the big thing that Flight Suits have going for them is that they’re considerably more fire-resistant than most business suits.
Of course, that’s assuming the President doesn’t get some sort of SuperSuit with fire-resistant wrinkle-proof fabrics and a necktie with a secret radio transponder for emergencies or something. 
In any case, flight suits are just COOL. However, all those pockets, and alas, no good place to keep a wallet and car keys, in my experience. 
As further proof that Americans wouldn’t have much interest in a president that wore a uniform, I remember seeing, at the Museum of American History, photos of fancy gold trimmed Secret Service uniforms with peaked caps that Nixon had designed. They caused quite an uproar because many people thought they looked like “palace guards” and they were quickly scrapped. Obviously if a Pres. decided he wanted a fancy uniform it would be viewed even more harshly.
A service member on terminal leave is still an active duty service member, subject to recall should his services be required. Had s/he chosen not to take leave prior to seperation, then the balance of the leave owed would be paid as you describe. But the fact of the matter is, even while on leave (even terminal leave) you’re still 100% in the military.
Former SrA Earthworm Jim, USAF
Oh sure. I agree that this would be at least a short term exception to the rule about double government employment. Terminal leave, though, is just that. Should there be a sudden emergency declared that required the military to recall the retiree, the other government job would terminate. Knowing the fussiness of disbursing officers I would guess that if two paychecks somehow were paid past the original end of terminal leave that such money would have to be returned to the government.
I don’t think we have any major differences.
Exactly. The practice of Congressman and Senators also serving in the military has been challenged in court, but I don’t think it’s gone anywhere. The best-known challenge was in Schlesinger v. Reservists’ Committee to Stop the War (1974), 418 U.S. 208, but the Supreme Court (mistakenly, IMHO) dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing either as U.S. citizens or as taxpayers.
But jeez, who else would have standing? An active-duty service member who argued that a Congresswoman who was also serving in the military couldn’t give him an order?
Dubya wore this gown while addressing a graduation. I think something like this would be nice for the State of the Union address.
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/bush_graduation_speech1.jpg
G. Gordon Liddy almost lost it when he was talking about how Bush looked in his flight suit on Hardball. About how “he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know…and it makes the best of his manly characteristic…You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count - they’re all liars. Check that out!”
So far, that seems to be the most that Bush has going for him. His “manliness.” So far, that’s what the world has gained from his being commander and chief of the armed forces. feh.
CC. A word, please.
You have twice used this thread to make political comments. End it now.
samclem GQ moderator
my bad. hand slapped. duly chastised. will do.
Aw, I was kind of rooting for the poncho.
Huh. I hadn’t heard about that nomenclature change before, but apparently I just hadn’t got the memo:
Odd. Does anybody know the reason for this change? If the military has managed to carry on for the past seventy years or so without mistaking the CINCSAC for the President or vice versa, what was the point of changing the term now? Just reinforcing the prestige of the unitary executive, or what?
In the interests of pure factual accuracy, I have yet to hear any evidence that this “manliness” was genuine. Is there any cite to suggest that the contents of his uniform were not padded or enhanced?
Why are we to assume that he was padded? Explain. I thought it would be incumbent on you, if you are making such a claim, to prove this. Not for any doubter to prove the negative.
Well, debating the veracity of his display strikes me as edging into political matters, so I’ll just retract my question since it’s probably verboten to get too much into a discussion of it here.
Ted Rall always shows Bush wearing a cool uniform.
I’ll be sure to keep my comments apolitical.
You’d think the X-Presidents would get cool uniforms to wear, but apparently not.