A week or so ago I wrote a letter to the editor in my small hometown newspaper, the Daily News Journal of Murfreesboro, TN. I simply stated my opinion that our current president was using executive orders to circumvent legislation and was writing his own laws. One commenter told me that all presidents throughout history has done this and that I was uninformed to think this was new. Another told me that I was a Chicken Little alarmist who didn't know what I was writing about.
I was mocked and ridiculed by the "superiorly educated" commenters of my community. Initially, I allowed myself to be drawn into pointless arguments. Of course the attacks quickly turned personal by the commenters. But after one commenter chided me for being a freelance writer that had not done any research on the topic I was speaking about I decided he was right, and that if I was writing an article about executive orders I would have educated myself so on the topic. Therefore, I felt it might be wise to do the same in voicing my opinion, though I do consider an opinion letter to be an off the cuff comment and not something that should require deep research. My resistance to meeting this challenge was the time I knew it would take to make an exhaustive study to become knowledgeable without a doubt on the topic.
So when I told my commenters that I started to read the executive orders but found out that thousands had been written I asked for one vocal rebutter to point me to 5-10 previous presidential executive orders that circumvented laws or examples where a President wrote laws using executive order to help me out in my education process, this was his reply:
My inner response was a sarcastic "lovely" and "what subjective hogwash."
So I guess I am suppose to take this "esteemed, knowledgable-in-his-own-eyes" man's word as fact and "just realize there is nothing unique in the current president issuing" his executive orders.
Oh, what value could there by in reading a slew of executive orders. (maybe finding evidence?)
How silly of me! I am just to believe what I am being told by those who deem themselves more highly knowledgable in these matters.
I am to believe a written history brief that I am directed to or accept their general knowledge or even assume another's awareness of a topic--being that they are in-the-know--without actually verifying their claims as being factual. Ah, I see the newer way of enlightenment and education. I am truly learning the ways of our times in academia!
But being a stubborn lady from the "old school" of learning who enjoys research, who has a brain that still works and who can glean information for myself, I know like Little Red Hen (not Chicken Little) I will have to do the real work of learning about a topic by educating myself. I have always been a person who deeply respects original documents as the best source for education. Thus, I am on a quest of reading each and every executive order given by a United States President.
And hereafter, by reading each document I can speak with authority on this topic instead of what I "believe" to be true.
When I made my original letter to the editor, I wrote from my personal awareness and general knowledge of history to this date, but my understanding collided with my commenters version of their personal historical knowledge. I can't distinctly recall any other president doing this but I am only 50; although America is young compared to other Nations, she has a much longer history than my memory or experience.
Thus-far, I have discovered that executive orders began as presidential letters, similar to a declaration or commentaries to an event. The constitution does not give the president power to write executive order nor are they legally binding. Shall we say an executive order is a President's wish, desire and suggestive directive, but it is not law.
I read beautiful letters from the early 1800's that referred to God's divine providence, blessing and hand in the beginning of our nation and elegantly described through God's use of founding fathers and events. These "executive orders" dealt with honoring of a distinguished citizen and pubic servant or foreign dignitary at their death. The only one that was different was when Andrew Jackson wrote an executive order requesting that deserters of the Army not be allowed to rejoin the Army. Considering that the President is the Commander in Chief by constitution that seems pretty appropriate. After this, it was not until President James K. Polk, on March 23, 1847 addressed an issue of war with Mexico. Of course, this also dealt with a president's role of being a CIC but it also dealt with how to financially treat our "enemy."
I have included it (in full) below because I think it is a pity that we do not currently require enemy Nations to bear the expenses of war which was quite customary until present day. Also Polk noted that their obstinately persistence in protracting war should require the Nation we fight to defray the expense of the war. How could I not think about all these wars that we have been involved in that benefit the people of oil rich countries and how these Nations should be paying American soldiers and our treasury for benefiting from us fighting off their murderous leadership, for blue-on-green murders and for protracting our engagement in assisting/training their citizens in how to protect themselves from terrorist. You might enjoy reading this and seeing if you likewise do not find wisdom in President Polk's words.
I was mocked and ridiculed by the "superiorly educated" commenters of my community. Initially, I allowed myself to be drawn into pointless arguments. Of course the attacks quickly turned personal by the commenters. But after one commenter chided me for being a freelance writer that had not done any research on the topic I was speaking about I decided he was right, and that if I was writing an article about executive orders I would have educated myself so on the topic. Therefore, I felt it might be wise to do the same in voicing my opinion, though I do consider an opinion letter to be an off the cuff comment and not something that should require deep research. My resistance to meeting this challenge was the time I knew it would take to make an exhaustive study to become knowledgeable without a doubt on the topic.
So when I told my commenters that I started to read the executive orders but found out that thousands had been written I asked for one vocal rebutter to point me to 5-10 previous presidential executive orders that circumvented laws or examples where a President wrote laws using executive order to help me out in my education process, this was his reply:
"I see no particular value in reading a slew of executive orders. Just realize there is nothing unique in the current president issuing them. As with any subject, there is usually a history and if not knowledge, at least an awareness and recognition of that history will give you pause before you start accusing the current president of abusing executive orders or blame him/her for the current middle east crisis."
My inner response was a sarcastic "lovely" and "what subjective hogwash."
So I guess I am suppose to take this "esteemed, knowledgable-in-his-own-eyes" man's word as fact and "just realize there is nothing unique in the current president issuing" his executive orders.
Oh, what value could there by in reading a slew of executive orders. (maybe finding evidence?)
How silly of me! I am just to believe what I am being told by those who deem themselves more highly knowledgable in these matters.
I am to believe a written history brief that I am directed to or accept their general knowledge or even assume another's awareness of a topic--being that they are in-the-know--without actually verifying their claims as being factual. Ah, I see the newer way of enlightenment and education. I am truly learning the ways of our times in academia!
But being a stubborn lady from the "old school" of learning who enjoys research, who has a brain that still works and who can glean information for myself, I know like Little Red Hen (not Chicken Little) I will have to do the real work of learning about a topic by educating myself. I have always been a person who deeply respects original documents as the best source for education. Thus, I am on a quest of reading each and every executive order given by a United States President.
 |
| James K. Polk 1847 Source: By Reverie Deviantart |
And hereafter, by reading each document I can speak with authority on this topic instead of what I "believe" to be true.
When I made my original letter to the editor, I wrote from my personal awareness and general knowledge of history to this date, but my understanding collided with my commenters version of their personal historical knowledge. I can't distinctly recall any other president doing this but I am only 50; although America is young compared to other Nations, she has a much longer history than my memory or experience.
Thus-far, I have discovered that executive orders began as presidential letters, similar to a declaration or commentaries to an event. The constitution does not give the president power to write executive order nor are they legally binding. Shall we say an executive order is a President's wish, desire and suggestive directive, but it is not law.
I read beautiful letters from the early 1800's that referred to God's divine providence, blessing and hand in the beginning of our nation and elegantly described through God's use of founding fathers and events. These "executive orders" dealt with honoring of a distinguished citizen and pubic servant or foreign dignitary at their death. The only one that was different was when Andrew Jackson wrote an executive order requesting that deserters of the Army not be allowed to rejoin the Army. Considering that the President is the Commander in Chief by constitution that seems pretty appropriate. After this, it was not until President James K. Polk, on March 23, 1847 addressed an issue of war with Mexico. Of course, this also dealt with a president's role of being a CIC but it also dealt with how to financially treat our "enemy."
I have included it (in full) below because I think it is a pity that we do not currently require enemy Nations to bear the expenses of war which was quite customary until present day. Also Polk noted that their obstinately persistence in protracting war should require the Nation we fight to defray the expense of the war. How could I not think about all these wars that we have been involved in that benefit the people of oil rich countries and how these Nations should be paying American soldiers and our treasury for benefiting from us fighting off their murderous leadership, for blue-on-green murders and for protracting our engagement in assisting/training their citizens in how to protect themselves from terrorist. You might enjoy reading this and seeing if you likewise do not find wisdom in President Polk's words.
SIR: The Government of Mexico having repeatedly rejected the friendly overtures of the United States to open negotiations with a view to the restoration of peace, sound policy and a just regard to the interests of our own country require that the enemy should be made, as far as practicable, to bear the expenses of a war of which they are the authors, and which they obstinately persist in protracting.
It is the right of the conqueror to levy contribution upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in his military possession by conquest and to apply the same to defray the expenses of the war. The conqueror possesses the right also to establish a temporary military government over such seaports, towns, or provinces and to prescribe the conditions and restrictions upon which commerce with such places may be permitted. He may, in his discretion, exclude all trade, or admit it with limitation or restriction, or impose terms the observance of which will be the condition of carrying it on. One of these conditions may be the payment of a prescribed rate of duties on tonnage and imports.
In the exercise of these unquestioned rights of war, I have, on full consideration, determined to order that all the ports or places in Mexico which now are or hereafter may be in the actual possession of our land and naval forces by conquest shall be opened while our military occupation may continue to the commerce of all neutral nations, as well as our own, in articles not contraband of war, upon the payment of prescribed rates of duties, which will be made known and enforced by our military and naval commanders.
While the adoption of this policy will be to impose a burden on the enemy, and at the same time to deprive them of the revenue to be derived from trade at such ports or places, as well as to secure it to ourselves, whereby the expenses of the war may be diminished, a just regard to the general interests of commerce and the obvious advantages of uniformity in the exercise of these belligerent rights require that well-considered regulations and restrictions should be prepared for the guidance of those who may be charged with carrying it into effect.
You are therefore instructed to examine the existing Mexican tariff of duties and report to me a schedule of articles of trade to be admitted at such ports or places as may be at any time in our military possession, with such rates of duty on them and also on tonnage as will be likely to produce the greatest amount of revenue. You will also communicate the considerations which may recommend the scale of duties which you may propose, and will submit such regulations as you may deem advisable in order to enforce their collection.
As the levy of the contribution proposed is a military right, derived from the laws of nations, the collection and disbursement of the duties will be made, under the orders of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, by the military and naval commanders at the ports or places in Mexico which may be in possession of our arms. The report requested is therefore necessary in order to enable me to give the proper directions to the War and Navy Departments.
JAMES K. POLK.I know that is a lot to read but there is nothing better for pure education than having the entire original document. In future postings, as I continue to plug through the slew of documents, I will be detailing other executive orders that have anything of importance in them. This is not to say that elegantly written executive orders honoring American patriots are not important but they are ceremonial and respectful, and therefore shed no information on the quest of finding executive orders that impart the Presidency with legislative power or an overreach of his constitutional authority.
