And it's ridiculous that the president's spouse be expected to provide any support they don't choose to provide. The existence of an office for the First Lady presupposes a job for her to do.
It was not till 1977 that the Office of the First Lady was established in the East Wing. I think this was by act of Congress.
What Congress did was authorize the hiring and payment of personnel for the spouse of the president “in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities.” P.L. 95–570. Congress said nothing about the physical location where any such staff work beyond the White House generally.
Did not say the First Lady was being paid. Said the Office of the First Lady was established by an act of Congress. There is much more to an Office than who is the first lady.
It was not till 1977 that the Office of the First Lady was established in the East Wing. I think this was by act of Congress.
What Congress did was authorize the hiring and payment of personnel for the spouse of the president “in connection with assistance provided by such spouse to the President in the discharge of the President’s duties and responsibilities.” P.L. 95–570. Congress said nothing about the physical location where any such staff work beyond the White House generally.
Did not say the First Lady was being paid. Said the Office of the First Lady was established by an act of Congress. There is much more to an Office than who is the first lady.
I didn’t say the First Lady was being paid either. What I said was that Congress authorized “the hiring and payment of personnel for the spouse of the president.” And I also said that the Act of Congress, to which I provided a link, said nothing about any physical office in the East Wing or elsewhere.
Those people working for the First Lady are “the Office of the First Lady” as authorized by Congress.
And it's ridiculous that the president's spouse be expected to provide any support they don't choose to provide. The existence of an office for the First Lady presupposes a job for her to do.
If the partner of a President chooses to support their partner in some capacity, and as you say it should be a choice they make not an expectation much less a requirement, then it seems reasonable to me that there is provision for them to have an office and staff to support whatever reasonable role they choose to take up. And, if they choose to have a very small role then during that term the office is not required (it's probable that some of what the President's partner might choose to do would still need to be done, so the staff would still likely be employed under someone else's office to do the same things). If it is a requirement of the partner of the President to have a semi-official role hosting receptions at the White House, or whatever, then surely that would require the President to run on a joint ticket with their partner?
When my father was in the UK diplomatic service it was expected his wife would act as hostess and do pro social things. The US didn’t run on the same lines - we were provided with servants but expected to host dinners and events for 200 or so people. Whereas if you went to events at the US embassy, might well be bring and share though they did also have staff and hold formal dinners from time to time. I don’t know what the situation is now.
The logic of diplomatic entertaining was it was supposed to help build relationships to the benefit of negotiations between countries. There was also a sense it which you had to - to some extent - match the expectations of the host country. If you are a diplomat in a country where it is expected that power goes with being a rich man and you turn up to a formal event in a ford fiesta, you may not be listened to. It think the ethical balance between pandering and cultural sensitivity can be tricky - and I think all embassies continue to have heads of protocol for this reason.
Trump wants to be treated with pomp - countries doing this get better deals. And I would guess if you host him you need to feed him exactly what he likes - including coke - or ostentatiously fancy food so he feels flattered. But his attitude to women being what is it - I doubt he gives a toss whether the wife of his host is present or involved, only that pretty women are available to be looked at like sentient table decorations. Therefore I doubt he gives a toss about the role of the First Lady - or has thought through its implications in any way.
If it is a requirement of the partner of the President to have a semi-official role hosting receptions at the White House, or whatever, then surely that would require the President to run on a joint ticket with their partner?
While not printed on the ticket I think the First Spouse probably has more impact during a presidency than the VP, but probably less than the Secretary of State. The First Spouse is, more or less, a Presidential appointee, a bit like the Chief of Staff, and there's no expectation for those to be subject to electoral scrutiny. I seem to recall that in the past (probably pre-legislation) other relatives of the President have taken on the hosting role.
Why can’t a future President just change the name. As I understand it over here Trump didn’t go through the correct channels and went for an old building trick. Knock it down while no one really knows it is happing. That way it is done and there is no going back
Comments
Did not say the First Lady was being paid. Said the Office of the First Lady was established by an act of Congress. There is much more to an Office than who is the first lady.
Those people working for the First Lady are “the Office of the First Lady” as authorized by Congress.
The logic of diplomatic entertaining was it was supposed to help build relationships to the benefit of negotiations between countries. There was also a sense it which you had to - to some extent - match the expectations of the host country. If you are a diplomat in a country where it is expected that power goes with being a rich man and you turn up to a formal event in a ford fiesta, you may not be listened to. It think the ethical balance between pandering and cultural sensitivity can be tricky - and I think all embassies continue to have heads of protocol for this reason.
Trump wants to be treated with pomp - countries doing this get better deals. And I would guess if you host him you need to feed him exactly what he likes - including coke - or ostentatiously fancy food so he feels flattered. But his attitude to women being what is it - I doubt he gives a toss whether the wife of his host is present or involved, only that pretty women are available to be looked at like sentient table decorations. Therefore I doubt he gives a toss about the role of the First Lady - or has thought through its implications in any way.
While not printed on the ticket I think the First Spouse probably has more impact during a presidency than the VP, but probably less than the Secretary of State. The First Spouse is, more or less, a Presidential appointee, a bit like the Chief of Staff, and there's no expectation for those to be subject to electoral scrutiny. I seem to recall that in the past (probably pre-legislation) other relatives of the President have taken on the hosting role.