Executive Orders . . . . .

[Kathie in Thorp]

Executive Orders. Macon may knock this off, but I see Executive Orders becoming used more frequently. How do you feel about that? For example:

See: General Order No. 11, Civil War era (1863), by Union General Thomas Ewing (1862): Deemed Southern sympathizers, although few people in Bates County, MO, were slave-holders, because Quantril and his raiders were going back/forth across the Kansas border (as were raiders from Kansas), the County and several neighboring were burned down, to get rid of hiding places. The citizens had limited time to move, limited possessions they could take, and all else was left and taken. Both sides were messing with voter issues: Would Kansas be a free or slave state? Several counties in MO -- all homes, farms, even cemeteries -- were burned/destroyed. Today, the oldest cemeteries start at about 1864. I've been to these Missouri cemeteries, and have talked with old people that remember what their parents went through. And to the museums with these records. We have a friend in Bates County that lives in a very old house, that was built on the foundation of a burned home. There are many old farm properties where the homes were re-built on old foundations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863)

How far can Executive Privlige go?

 

[larryshoat]

Executive orders? They work well for a dictator. Oh...... you asked how do I feel about it? I'm not cool with it.

Larry

 

[highgrit]

I don't like it either, we the people have no say at all. Look at the Presidential pardons what a missuse of power. Remember all the Felons that Clinton gave pardons to?? Just a stab in the back to our justice system.

 

[greybeard]

Every documented EO by year, going back to 1826.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executiv ... it=DISPLAY

 

[Fly-guy]

gb, thanks for the link. It looks like there is a lot of information there.

 

[Sir Loin]

Re:

How far can Executive Privilege go?

To far! Way to far!

Now with that said, I do believe there is a place for Executive Orders in our government.
Such as declaring war in a time of attack on the US.

SL

 

[Jogeephus]

Re:

How far can Executive Privilege go?

To far! Way to far!

Now with that said, I do believe there is a place for Executive Orders in our government.
Such as declaring war in a time of attack on the US.

SL

According to our constitution this requires a vote which in that situation would happen quickly. Its the use of the executive orders and stuff that gets us drug into these little police actions which often times have more to do with politics than our defense.

 

[Kathie in Thorp]

Every documented EO by year, going back to 1826.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executiv ... it=DISPLAY

Thanks for that link, Greybeard.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Re:

How far can Executive Privilege go?

To far! Way to far!

Now with that said, I do believe there is a place for Executive Orders in our government.
Such as declaring war in a time of attack on the US.

SL

The president can't declare war only Congess.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation's armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war.

 

[greybeard]

The very first shooting war this country ever got into, we were already fighting before congress was even notified. The Sailors and Marines were sent into combat by sole order of the president--Thomas Jefferson.
In politics, precedent is everything.

 

[tsmaxx47]

Executive orders? They work well for a dictator. Oh...... you asked how do I feel about it? I'm not cool with it.

Larry

larry, you are 100% right. hugo chavez made good on his promises with them. if our representatives had any guts or pride at all, they'd put a halt to them.

 

[Caustic Burno]

The very first shooting war this country ever got into, we were already fighting before congress was even notified. The Sailors and Marines were sent into combat by sole order of the president--Thomas Jefferson.
In politics, precedent is everything.

Are you trying to compare a war to subdueing some pirates.
Tripoli was holding American hostages and demanding ransom.
He went before Congress to do it as well.
This was after Tripoli declared war on the U.S.
President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean.

 

[greybeard]

The size of the war is moot--or to be specific, relevant to the times. For a young nation, still deep in debt from the revolutionary war, and virtually no Navy, it was a huge undertaking and a huge gamble. It lasted from 1801-1805.
He said: "I sent". Not "I ask permission to send." Not "I am going to send." Not "I might send."
"I sent."
Hostilities were already underway by the time he addressed congress by letter in his 1st state of the union address--back then congress and the executive branch really were separated, and Presidents communicated with them by letter. Your quote above came from that state of the union letter. The little Navy squadron had been quickly piece mealed together, paid for out of the slush fund set aside to pay the Barbary ransoms, and it sailed to the Mediterranean in early June. The first battle took place Aug1, and Congress was notified on Dec 8. Here'sthe scope of the letter in reference to Barbary:

I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded and that of the Atlantic in peril.
The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew.
The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.

Congress of that day, followed Hamilton's view, and was of the opinion that Jeferson acted properly and that congress has the power to "Declare War", but the president has power to go to war if emergency situations dictate between the beginning of hostilities and the time congress can debate it and authorize or declare war.
Congress DID finally authorize and fund this endeavor, but no formal declaration of war was ever made by congress.

Considering the small size of the USA in 1801, the indebtedness, and the condition of the almost non-existent US Navy, this would fully be equivilent to us being in Iraq or Afghanistan today without a declaration of war from congress--or without funding and approval given.

The precedent was set--in 1801---by a Democrat president. History and the Library of Congress says so.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

This is a pretty gray area and I imagine many people look at this as an example of Presidential action. But I think "to go beyond the line of defense," is a pretty important phrase. There was not true Declaration of War even in the short term but only authorizing use of national defense against active threats to American trade in open waters. The vessels were in international waters and being threatened. To enter a sovereign nation and use military might to overthrow a government is beyond that scope of acting in defense.

My $0.02

 

[Caustic Burno]

The size of the war is moot--or to be specific, relevant to the times. For a young nation, still deep in debt from the revolutionary war, and virtually no Navy, it was a huge undertaking and a huge gamble. It lasted from 1801-1805.
He said: "I sent". Not "I ask permission to send." Not "I am going to send." Not "I might send."
"I sent."
Hostilities were already underway by the time he addressed congress by letter in his 1st state of the union address--back then congress and the executive branch really were separated, and Presidents communicated with them by letter. Your quote above came from that state of the union letter. The little Navy squadron had been quickly piece mealed together, paid for out of the slush fund set aside to pay the Barbary ransoms, and it sailed to the Mediterranean in early June. The first battle took place Aug1, and Congress was notified on Dec 8. Here'sthe scope of the letter in reference to Barbary:

I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded and that of the Atlantic in peril.
The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew.
The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.

Congress of that day, followed Hamilton's view, and was of the opinion that Jeferson acted properly and that congress has the power to "Declare War", but the president has power to go to war if emergency situations dictate between the beginning of hostilities and the time congress can debate it and authorize or declare war.
Congress DID finally authorize and fund this endeavor, but no formal declaration of war was ever made by congress.

Considering the small size of the USA in 1801, the indebtedness, and the condition of the almost non-existent US Navy, this would fully be equivilent to us being in Iraq or Afghanistan today without a declaration of war from congress--or without funding and approval given.

The precedent was set--in 1801---by a Democrat president. History and the Library of Congress says so.

Again this is not war, this is the same as protecting American shipping from the Somalia Pirates of today.
The French, Spainard's Dutch, English had all had to send ship's to keep the shipping lanes open at one time against the Barbary Pirates(Muslim's backed by the ottoman Empire, today's Turkey). At the time he dispatched ship's to protect our ship's in free trade, they had captured American's and vessel's and were demanding 225,000 ransom.
As far as Jefferson being a Democrat in 1801 is a long way from a Democrat in 2001. The countries political system was in it's infancy and still forming Jefferson was actually the first president to be elected, Washington and Adams had been appointed more like a king. We had Whig's, Federalist, Republican's and Democrat's working the system. By the time the Civil War got here the majority of the Northern Democrat's went to calling themselves Republican's. From the Civil War till today is when the two party system grew leg's and evolved into what we have today.
At the time of jefferson's election, the Republicans in Congress who were beginning to call themselves Democratic-Republicans, nominated Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Burr was an important fixture in the New York Republican Party. It was clear to many at the time that New York would likely decide the election. The Federalists were strongest in New England and the Republicans in the Soutth. Thus the election would be determined by how the mid-Atlantic states went. Burr would clearly help to swing New York to the Republicans.


Before you quote history you need to quote it all with the political system of the time I am not sure Jefferson wouldn't be a Republican today. As far as the library of Congress goes it is kinda like posting on the internet or writing that the Civil War was fought over slavery has to be true. Again the Civil War was fought over power in and who would get to hold the most seats in Congress. This was the split of the Northern and Southern democrat's and the party lines reformed again.

History is recorded under political view's of the writer as well, have to read all sides to decipher the truth in the middle.
If you read Jefferson's history along with the political parties at the time he was anything but a democrat.
The original "Federalists" were supporters of the ratification of the Constitution in the years between 1787 and 1790. Those who had strong objections to the new document were labeled the "Anti-Federalists." Both Hamilton and Jefferson favored ratification and were regarded as Federalists at that time.

However, following the squabble over the creation of the First Bank of the United States, partisanship entered the Washington cabinet. Hamilton headed the Federalists who favored a strong central government, while Jefferson was the leader of the Jeffersonian-Republicans, those favoring a diffusion of power.

In short, Jefferson and his supporters were Federalists in 1790, but were not a few years later.

If history is correct he was elected by the Republican party . Now this is not the same as the Republican party of today by any mean's. Some of the founding principles still guide both the constitution and less fereral government.

 

[Jogeephus]

When you declare war it is an all out effort as a nation to squash whatever it is you are fighting. Had we actually declared war on North Vietnam we would have levelled the place. Instead we tinkered with them and played politics at the expense of our troops. I don't like these politically driven police actions and am of the opinion that if you go to fight you fight to win with all your country's efforts and resources backing your efforts. We are not the world's police.

 

[Caustic Burno]

When you declare war it is an all out effort as a nation to squash whatever it is you are fighting. Had we actually declared war on North Vietnam we would have levelled the place. Instead we tinkered with them and played politics at the expense of our troops. I don't like these politically driven police actions and am of the opinion that if you go to fight you fight to win with all your country's efforts and resources backing your efforts. We are not the world's police.

I totaliy agree it should be fought as the Russian's did when the German's invaded.
As the Russian's retreated they took the scorched earth policy and killed everything from a Shanghi rooster and a Durham cow leaving nothing for the invading army.
The U.S. also took this policy as well in WWII as we fire bombed cities off the map.

 

[greybeard]

I should have said liberal instead of Dem. I have read the Jefferson Papers in their entirety, so I have a pretty good idea where he stood with his ideology, and he is know as the father of American liberalism for a 'reason'.

And I do understand of course, that a lot of people don't believe that this 1801 Barbary War, Korea, Vietnam, etc measures up to the sho nuff thing--only the War of 1812, Mexican/American War, Spanish American war, ww1 and ww2 are real war and everything else don't count simply because congress didn't officially declare war. The US congress didn't even declare war for the American Civil War, which had 620,000 military casualties.

 

[Jogeephus]

Not saying those "conflicts" weren't terrible. Just saying if we go to war we need to go to war and not play politics because this isn't fair to the troops.

 

[dun]

Not saying those "conflicts" weren't terrible. Just saying if we go to war we need to go to war and not play politics because this isn't fair to the troops.

I'll drink to that!