Individual Presidents Research Articles

Presidential prerogative, congressional inaction, and the problem of presidential libraries

PurposeIn the context of an analysis of stopgap and reactionary presidential library and records act, the purpose of this paper is to consider how the separation of the Obama Presidential Library from the Obama Presidential Center illuminates fundamental flaws in the public-private model that demand a more comprehensive legislative solution.Design/methodology/approachDrawing upon government, academic and public sources, this paper examines the legislation of presidential records and libraries to gain perspective on the presidential library system and the Obama Presidential Center, the first post-Presidential Records Act institution to operate independently of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).FindingsThis paper traces the evolution of presidential library statutes and standards to reveal how the genesis of an independent Obama Presidential Center strained an already stressed system, creating significant questions about its future.Originality/valueThis paper offers an original treatment of the statutes governing NARA’s administration of presidential libraries, framing a cycle of calls and responses, with the acts of individual presidents eliciting acts of Congress. Also original, and timely, is the treatment in this paper of how these laws created the conditions for an independent Obama Presidential Center.

Kompetencje prezydenta RP w zakresie ochrony dziedzictwa kulturalnego – przeszłość i teraźniejszość

This article will be divided into two main parts. The first of them will present the issue of the concept of “national heritage” in the historical and legal aspect covering the period from 1917 to 2022. In this part, particular emphasis has been placed on interpretation doubts related to this concept and an attempt will be made to characterize it on the basis of applicable law. The second part of the article shows examples of how this duty was fulfilled by individual Presidents.

The tone of the president's immigration rhetoric

AbstractWe examine the tone of the president's immigration policy speeches as a function of the political context, policy characteristics, and individual presidents in two ways. First, we describe the tone of the president's immigration rhetoric using DICTION software and its five global categories of tone. Second, we hypothesize that commonality and optimism, two categories of tone expressive of immigration policy, will co‐vary by political context, policy characteristics of immigration, and a president's approach to rhetoric. To test our expectations, we collected presidential mentions of immigration since 1953 from the Public Papers of the Presidents. Key variables, like the president's honeymoon and the post‐9/11 era, increase a president's commonality tone, and the president's approval ratings encourage greater optimism. Individual presidents also shape presidential rhetoric, indicating the importance of presidential style to immigration tone, especially for optimism. We conclude with implications of our work for the systematic study of presidential tone and the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform.

Photographic Presidents: Making History from Daguerreotype to Digital

Photographic Presidents: Making History from Daguerreotype to Digital

Enabling POTUS: Mark Meadows as Donald Trump's Last Chief of Staff

AbstractThrough the lens of past scholarship on White House structuring and staffing, we analyze the performance of Mark Meadows, President Donald Trump's final chief of staff. We examine the major roles performed by chiefs of staff and their offices, exploring their participation in management and in policy processes. Probing the roles, activities, and performance of Meadows and his Trump administration predecessors underscores the variation among chiefs of staff under the same president and, more importantly, the significance of individual presidents and chiefs of staff for governing.

Exercise of the Presidential Powers in the Slovak Republic in a Comparative Perspective (1999 – 2019)

This article focuses at powers of the Presidents of the Slovak Republic during the period from 1999 to 2019. Therefore, the aim is to compare how selected constitutional presidential powers were exercised after the fundamental constitutional changes in 1999. The most significant change was by introducing direct presidential elections, and adjusting the President´s constitutional status. The ways how the individual Presidents holding their office within this period, exercised their powers towards the Parliament, government, and the judiciary do form the basic research questions here. Hence, whether a personal background of individual Presidents and political reality of seats distribution in the Parliament predetermined their exercise of these powers, or if there were some other rules present when they exercised their office. The findings presented in this research reflect 20 years of continuous exercise of Presidential office in the conditions of the Slovak Republic. This ultimately leads to the conclusion that the function itself, as well as its constitutional definition, has affected the exercise of Presidential powers more ultimately than the personal background of these directly elected Presidents at the beginning of their terms of office. The very first President, Mr. Michal Kováč, got into a major conflict with then Prime Minister, Vladimír Mečiar, even during the first year after taking the office. This conflict lasted nearly for five-years and altogether with the inability of the MPs to elect his successor led to the necessity of amending the Constitution. Presidents Rudolf Schuster, Ivan Gašparovič and Andrej Kiska gradually took their office, but only the second mentioned had managed to defend his position in an electoral competition. At present, the office of President is held by Zuzana Čaputová, who has been in the office since June 2019 - as the very first woman in this position in history of Slovakia.

The Rhetoric of the Trump Administration

AbstractBy extending the personalized presidency from the institution to the individual president while undercutting the bureaucracy's reliance on expertise and by attacking democratic norms and values, Donald Trump undermined both the executive as an institution and his own ability to govern. These elements of his presidential rhetoric are clarified with reference to Trump's relationships with the media, the executive branch, and the mass public, and are distilled in his handling of the global pandemic.

Identifying Families in C-SPAN's U.S. Presidential Ratings: 2000, 2009, and 2017

ABSTRACT Since the inauguration of George Washington in 1789, the United States of America has seen the governance of some 44 individual presidents. Although such presidents share a variety of attributes, they still differ from one another on many others. Significantly, these traits may be used to construct distinct sets of “families” of presidents throughout American history. By comparatively analyzing data from experts on the U.S. presidency – in this case, the C-SPAN Presidential Historians Surveys from 2000, 2009, and 2017 – this article identifies a consistent set of six presidential families: the All Stars; the Conservative Visionaries; the Postwar Progressives; the Average Joes; the Forgettables; and the Regrettables. In situating these categories in history, this article argues that U.S. presidents can be accurately organized into cohesive, like-performing families whose constituents share a common set of criteria.

Contemporary Presidency The Office of the Chief of Staff in the Trump White House, 2017–2019

AbstractFocusing on White House chiefs of staff and the Office of the Chief of Staff during the first three years of the Donald Trump administration, we examine the office and its occupants in the context of past scholarship on White House structuring and staffing. We discuss four major roles performed by chiefs of staff and their deputies (administrator, advisor, guardian, proxy), exploring their participation in management and in policy processes. We also look at the larger chief of staff's office, noting continuities with, and changes from, previous presidencies. Probing the roles, activities, and performance of President Donald Trump's first three chiefs of staff underscores both the significance of individual presidents in governing and the apparent constraints on their doing so.

Presidents Who Shaped the American West by Glenda Riley and Richard W. Etulain

Reviewed by: Presidents Who Shaped the American West by Glenda Riley and Richard W. Etulain Katherine Joslin Presidents Who Shaped the American West. By Glenda Riley and Richard W. Etulain. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2018. ix + 256 pp. Illustrations, conclusions, further reading, index. $24.95 paper. Through a series of engaging narratives, Presidents Who Shaped the American West sketches an expanding map of what we think of as the American West and tells the bigger story of how “the ephemeral West became a real place, authentic yet mysterious, and intriguing to people all over the world” (25). From the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the West expanded through the Mississippi region and across the Great Plains to the Pacific Coast, and then to Hawaii and Alaska. The shape of the West, Glenda Riley and Richard W. Etulain argue, was forged by the federal government in the East under the guidance of US presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, and recently by the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, all of whom had some personal footing in the West. The book is encyclopedic in style, meant for general readers, and offers fresh perspectives on presidential curiosity about and commitment to the shape of the country as a whole. The authors weave large themes into the series of stories they tell about individual presidents. Policy was predicated on protecting borders, strengthening security, removing Native peoples, negotiating slavery, opening homestead lands to whites, managing migrations, providing transportation, conserving natural resources, and preserving natural beauty. Riley and Etulain pull together history that the reader may already know in part. Jefferson executed the Louisiana Purchase and sent the Lewis and Clark expedition—the “Corps of Discovery”—to explore it. Andrew Jackson led the Battle of New Orleans to secure the frontier and then orchestrated the “Trail of Tears” to free up land for plantations. The creation of the West moves in this way through the policies and prejudices of men in the White House. In 1862 Lincoln spearheaded the Homestead Act to expand farmland and the Morrill Act to build land-grant colleges across the country. Railroad tracks and telegraph lines linked East and West, even as the Civil War pitted North and South. It was Lincoln who signed the Yosemite Land Grant Act on June 30, 1864, and Theodore Roosevelt built his presidency on that same effort of the federal government to secure and control western lands—the Antiquities Act of 1906 gave him the power to shape the West by preserving lands. The New Deal policies of Franklin Roosevelt saved farms, protected landscapes, and rescued folks from poverty, all policies that strongly affected life in the West. Eisenhower followed with the expansion of federal roads across the Great Plains. In recent years, Obama used the Antiquities Act more than any other president. The political significance of the West has been most apparent in its expanding power over the federal government that had shaped it. This “cross-continental” collection offers a primer on the current presidency of Donald J. Trump, whose desire has [End Page 321] been to rescind policies and revoke the power of Washington, DC, over the lands of the West. Katherine Joslin Department of English Western Michigan University Copyright © 2019 Center for Great Plains Studies

The American President: From Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, by William E. Leuchtenburg

Reviewed by: Stephen J. Randall, University of CalgaryThe American President is a striking example of the best of traditional political history, written by one of its leading practitioners. Leuchtenburg in his 95th year has provided readers of American history with a brilliantly argued, thoroughly researched, and elegantly written overview and penetrating analysis of the ways in which the American presidency has evolved since the end of the nineteenth century, and the contributions (or lack of same) which from Theodore Roosevelt to William Jefferson Clinton have made to the office. Other scholars have provided outstanding studies of individual presidents, but there is no equal to the detailed synthesis which Leuchtenburg has written of the 17 men who occupied the office between 1901 and the end of the Clinton presidency. It is particularly auspicious that the volume ends with Bill Clinton, since at the time of writing this review Hillary Rodham Clinton has just failed to be elected as the first woman to hold the presidential office.Leuchtenburg makes a compelling case that an analysis of is an effective way to understand American history. In his words: twentieth-century America was significantly shaped by its presidents (xiv). Many social and economic historians might dissent from the argument that themselves are such significant factors in shaping history, but such differences among historians do not detract from the excellence of the arguments presented in this volume.Leuchtenburg's treatment of the is balanced, judicious, and critical where criticism is warranted. His main focus is on the two Roosevelts, Harry Truman, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. Franklin Roosevelt's remarkable tenure in office warrants 100 pages of analysis, as do Reagan's and Clinton's. Leuchtenburg presents Theodore Roosevelt as the first of the modern presidents, a man who as president had a Hegelian conception of the primacy of the state (37), and used the office as a bully pulpit to advance his goals and vision. He had a patrician's disdain for the nouveaux riches of his generation, but it was his determination to ensure that the executive office had primacy that greatly determined his efforts to curtail the power of business. Roosevelt's vigorous use of presidential power further influenced Woodrow Wilson's evolving perception of the office. Wilson brought innovation to the office, including addressing joint sessions of Congress and, initially at least, holding press conferences. Although he preferred domestic to foreign affairs, he demonstrated a willingness to use American military power, and like Roosevelt before him, projected American power and prestige abroad. He anticipated the later interpretation of the Supreme Court in US v. Curtiss Wright: that in the area of foreign policy the power of the president was virtually unlimited. It has been in foreign policy and national security that presidential power came to be exercised most dramatically in the course of the century.Leuchtenburg passes lightly over the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover years, portraying their approach to the presidency and its powers as a regression to a pre-Theodore Roosevelt generation. The stock market crash and the deepening depression which brought Franklin Roosevelt to office in 1933, however, marked a dramatic advancement in the way in which the president used his office, from mobilizing public opinion through fireside chats, flooding Congress with legislative initiatives in the first hundred days, or--less nobly--trying unsuccessfully to pack the Supreme Court in order to advance his legislative agenda. …

Gary Scott Smith.Religion in the Oval Office: The Religious Lives of American Presidents.

In Religion in the Oval Office: The Religious Lives of American Presidents, Gary Scott Smith builds upon his earlier Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush (2006). Indeed, at several points Scott refers to the “twenty-two men” he has now profiled as a way of drawing conclusions across the two books. In this new contribution, Smith tackles the religious histories of eleven more presidents: John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William McKinley, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Each chapter reads as a religious biography of an individual president that mostly focuses on their time in office, though not exclusively so. The chapter on Quincy Adams, for example, devotes equally as much effort to untangling the role that Adams’ faith played in his lengthy post-presidential career as an abolitionist firebrand. In order to shed light on what are private beliefs, Smith mines information from a variety of sources, including speeches, correspondence, and testimonies from friends.

BAAS Keynote Speech A Passion for Democracy: Proximity to Power and the Sovereign Immunity Test

In the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, a Bush administration official memorably explained to New York Times reporter Ron Suskind, “when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality … we'll act again … We're history's actors … and you … will be left to … study what we do.” This comment was taken both as the administration's assessment of the intellectual left, and as a window into Bush's executive philosophy. Then many believed then that a different President – a liberal or progressive President – would renounce such unilateralism. But these arguments didn't evidence the peculiarity of George W. Bush's Machtpolitik. Rather, they draw on a deep and relatively unnoticed tradition in US political history and government, of the ever more aggressive executive expansion of presidential powers. That expansion has come through the ambitions, machinations, and moxie of individual Presidents – some of them impressively gifted leaders. It has also come through the active and passive consent of citizens, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The President has come to symbolize both our democratic process and our national power: citizens see him simultaneously as democracy's heart and its avenging sword. That trust, trained into US citizens from our earliest days in school, reinforced by popular culture and by the media, makes citizens want to give the President more power, regardless of the Constitutional checks and balances we also learn to treasure as schoolchildren. Over time, this accumulating consent to ever-increasing presidential power means that Presidents are free to act – even in ways that upset the Constitution's balance of power – and that citizens by and large approve, and those who don't are left studying what they did.

Kennedy, Johnson, and Policy toward China: Testing the Importance of the President in Foreign Policy Decision Making

Presidents and their advisors are absolutely certain that their individual contributions to American foreign policy are significant, unique, and often heroic. An administration's legacy in foreign policy is the product of the president's vision or at least the result of an opportunity seized by a shrewd and decisive leader. In this sense, it is more than literary convention when scholars personify a policy, naming it the Truman Doctrine or Johnson's War or the Reagan Doctrine. This view runs counter to the rise of the Institutional model in presidential studies. This body of work often argues that characteristics of individual presidents are irrelevant; political and legal forces create a context for presidential policy making, and all presidents will react to those forces in a similar manner, making decisions based on rational choice calculations. This debate over whether individual presidents matter is critical to the evolution of presidential studies (Cohen 2009; Dickinson 2009; Jacobs 2009; Mayer 2009; Moe 2009; Rockman 2009; Skowronek 2009; Wood 2009). While scholars may be pleased with their ability to develop parsimonious and more rigorous models of the presidency, veteran policy makers might argue that scholars are missing the essence of decision: people make decisions, and different people make different decisions even in similar situations. (1) The more personality-centered model, often called some variation on Persuasion or Bargaining (hereafter Persuasion model) and derived from the seminal work of Richard Neustadt, sees the ways in which individual presidents choose to wield their power as the crucial characteristic in executive branch decision making. Presidents use their powers of persuasion to bargain with organizations and individuals in an effort to direct policy in a desired direction (Neustadt 1990). In contrast, the Institutional model downplays the importance of the president's decision-making impact, contending that as the presidency has become more institutionalized, it has decreased the importance of the character of the individual president (Moe 1989, 1998, 2009) This article dives into that debate by developing a research design that tries to isolate the impact of the president as a variable. The transition from President John F.Kennedy (JFK) to President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) provides a measure of experimental control that is unique (however morbid). The tragedy of JFK's assassination left LBJ as the leader of JFK's hand-picked foreign policy team facing a set of challenges initially defined by JFK. In short, were any variations in the decision-making structure that followed the transition based on LBJ's idiosyncratic style, or were institutional pressures the cause of any changes? Focusing on a specific policy area, in this case China policy, creates an additional measure of control. If the Institutional model is correct in its assumptions, the replacement of JFK with LBJ should have had little effect on the policy process. The independent variable in the foreign policy process is the set of external and internal institutional pressures facing the administration. Consistency or variation in management structures will be based on the consistency or variation in those institutional pressures. However, if the Persuasion models are correct, the change in the White House should redefine the foreign policy process, since JFK and LBJ are typically considered to be very different types of presidents with very different management styles. The decision-making needs of the individual president are the independent variable. This article first considers the Institutional model and the Persuasion model then develops a case study research design to test the impact of the president on decision making. A structured-focused comparison methodology is used to assess change or the lack of change (George 1979; George and Bennett 2004; George and McKeown 1985). A standard set of questions provides a comparative framework for each case study. …

Do Leaders Matter and How Would We Know?

This paper will explore the ambivalence or conflict in the literature about the extent to which leaders matter in international politics, commonly linked to the level-of-analysis question. One the one hand, national leaders are often larger than life figures with strong preferences and distinctive personalities who seem to leave their stamp on events. On the other hand, most ir scholars place great stress on the incentives and constraints posed by the environment, be it domestic or international. I will proceed in four sections. The first discusses the essential claims at stake, the kinds of evidence that could be adduced to support one position or the other, and the pathways by which individual differences can make themselves felt. The second section examines the implications for morality, responsibility, and democratic theory. This discussion too will point to relevant methods, including ones that are contested. I will then turn to post-Cold War American foreign policy, skeptically examine the claim that individual presidents, even George W. Bush, mattered as much as is generally believed and close by discussing the implications for democratic accountability and control.

The rise of the president's permanent campaign

While the presidency has always been a political office, the distinction between campaigning and governing has become increasingly blurred in recent years. Yet no one until now has documented the phenomenon of the campaign and analysed its impact on the executive office. In this eye-opening book, Brendan Doherty provides empirical evidence of the growing focus by American presidents on electoral concerns throughout their terms in office, clearly demonstrating that we can no longer assume that the time a president spends campaigning for re-election can be separated from the time he spends governing. To track the evolving relationship between campaigning and governing, Doherty examines the strategic choices that presidents make and what those choices reveal about presidential priorities. He focuses on the rise in presidential fund raising and the targeting of key electoral states throughout a president's term in office--illustrating that recent presidents have disproportionately visited those states that are important to their political prospects while largely neglecting those without electoral payoff. He also shows how decisions about electoral matters previously made by party officials are now made by voter-conscious operatives within the White House. Doherty analyses what these changing dynamics portend for the nature of presidential leadership, contending that while such strategies can at times strengthen a president's hand, they can also undermine his role as a unifying national leader, heighten public cynicism, and limit prospects for bipartisan compromise. He further shows how trends in presidential fund-raising undermine the conventional understanding of the predatory relationship between the president and his party. Drawing on new systematic evidence of presidential fund-raising and travel, archival research at presidential libraries, and accounts by presidents and their aides, Doherty musters a mountain of evidence to offer an objective, comprehensive argument about the causes, indicators, and implications of the rise of the permanent campaign--an even handed account that seeks to disparage no individual president. Concise and accessible, it engages crucially important questions about the development of the presidency--as well as larger normative questions about what we want in a leader--as it challenges the convention in political science that has long kept most scholarship on presidential campaigns separate from the study of the presidency itself.

The Politics of Presidential Press Conferences

What explains the president’s tendency to deliver press conferences? Unlike other forms of going public, the press conference presents a unique venue that allows presidents to grapple with their policy and political decisions in a highly public and interactive format with journalists. This should influence how the political environment affects not only the number of press conferences presidents deliver in a month but also the time between press conferences. Indeed, lower approval ratings and unified government lead to more solo press conferences and less time between them. Whereas reelection years and political scandal decrease the number of solo press conferences, only reelection years increase the time between them. This article also reminds us of the relevance of individual presidents to explaining press conference activity and has implications for a broader understanding of the president’s public appeals.

Presidents and black America: a documentary history

and Black America: A Documentary History is the first of its kind to document all of the Presidents and their complex relationships with African Americans, from the earliest days of the Republic through the start of the Obama administration. Scholars and students will be able to follow trends and contradictions in those relationships; such as acceptance and rejection of slavery, the struggle for political rights and economic opportunity, policies of tokenism, the rebuff to affirmative action, and the growth of black political power and influence. This reference will incorporate primary and secondary documents ranging from speeches, executive orders, statutes, and correspondence, to articles and editorials from contemporary African American and mainstream publications, political cartoons, and congressional debates. Many of the documents will contradict established opinions about individual Presidents. For example it is fairly widely-known that Andrew Johnson was an avowed white supremacist but less well-known that Woodrow Wilson tried to segregate previously-integrated government offices. Chapter introductions with historical data on the respective Presidents and short head notes place the documents in context.

Conflicts Over Identity

The final article reviews recent books on the American presidency. Curt Nichols contends that the study of presidential politics has evolved over the past half century from the analysis of the tactics by which individual presidents first amass and then dispense power, to the analysis of how presidents try to implement broad political-economic visions. Nichols applauds scholars’ attention to presidents’ roles in formulating, realizing, and on occasion transforming policy regimes. He, nonetheless, advises scholars to think more about the social bases of support for policy regimes, and to view society dynamically. According to Nichols (who builds on the theoretical and empirical work of Walter Dean Burnham), social trends—for example, industrialization, urbanization, and the emergence of a nation-wide market economy—encourage new political-economic dreams and aspirations among the citizenry. By interpreting presidential action within its broader social context, scholars will acquire a deeper understanding of the incentives, constraints, and opportunities that presidents face as they pursue their political-economic visions.

The Problem with Presidential Databases

There are many ways in which to study presidential communication from both humanistic and social scientific perspectives. From early study of presidential rhetoric (Aune and Medhurst 2008), to debates over rhetorical presidency (Ceaser et al. 1981; Tulis 1987; Medhurst 1996; Medhurst 2008), to generic studies of presidential oratory (Campbell and Jamieson 2008), to longitudinal studies of presidential style (Hart 1984, 1987), to content analysis of presidential discourse (Lim 2003, 2008), to examination of rhetoric's ability to affect public opinion (Edwards 2003), to constitutive function of rhetoric in formation of national identify (Beasley 2004; Stuckey 2004) scholarly attention to communicative dimensions of presidential leadership are ubiquitous. Into this plethora of scholarship step Coe and Neumann with a proposed database of what they label presidential speeches. Their work seems clearly to fall within a social scientific framework as they seek to standardize future analyses so that more meaningful generalizations can be made and more precise replications can be undertaken (Coe and Neumann 2011, 727). Insofar as standardization, generalization, and replication are hallmarks of standard social science, authors clearly seem to be on solid ground. But I wonder about rationale for a new database. only rationale that I see in their article is that proposed database will reduce absolute number of texts that scholars need to consult as they examine presidential rhetoric and that such a reduction and standardization will make generalizations easier to obtain. I do not doubt that such a claim is true. I do doubt its wisdom. First, there already exist at least two databases of presidential discourse--the Public Papers of Presidents of United States and American Presidency Project at University of California, Santa Barbara. Both of these databases have built-in search engines that allow for easy content-analytic searching. Coe and Neumann's database is, in fact, a subset of Public Papers. So only real advantage appears to be reduced amount of data (speeches) included in search domain. But is such a reduction really an advantage? If, for example, a scholar wanted to know what Jimmy Carter thought about Panama Canal Treaties, why would it be an advantage to search only nationally televised speech of February 1, 1978, when Carter gave several speeches on topic, at least one other of which was a address? It would not be an advantage. So if there is no advantage at level of individual president or particular issue, advantage must lie in institutional practice of rhetoric by presidency. But even at this level of analysis, kinds of payoffs envisioned--average word counts per speech, mean words per year, percentage of foreign policy versus percentage of domestic policy speaking--hardly seem worth candle. Worse, such analyses are almost always misleading. So I would like to see a stronger rationale, both in terms of need for a new database and in anticipated scholarly payoffs. Yet even if a stronger rationale could be provided, there are still several philosophical and methodological problems that must be addressed. Philosophical Concerns My concern starts with title of Coe and Neumann's article--The Major Addresses of Modern Presidents. Not or simply major addresses, or, better, selected addresses, but the addresses. One does not have to read very far to learn that the do not include some of most important in presidential history. So why insistence on the? Call me paranoid, but when rhetoricians see language deployed to define--to rope in or to rope out, as Kenneth Burke might say--we become suspicious. The addresses is a definition. Mutatis mutandis anything not included in database is not a presidential address. …