Posted on 07/24/2016 12:53:14 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Answer: Theodore Roosevelt, President #26.
It has been said that Obama has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined, and the same can nearly be said of Theodore Roosevelt with respect to executive orders.
The first 112 years of America : 25 Presidents.
The first 25 Presidents : 1262 executive orders.
Theodore Roosevelt : 1081 executive orders.
Keep in mind, Roosevelt didn't even serve two full terms, he was in for 7.5 years. And yes, many of these executive orders were explicitly to do an end-run around congressional authority, just like Obama does. Just like Obama.
In which term did Roosevelt issue more executive orders?
First term: 251 - just two shy of being more than any other president before him.(Grover Cleveland issued 253 - in 8 years. Roosevelt did 251 in 3.5 years)
Second term: 830 - more than 5 times any other president in any single term.
Most of those executive orders were issued in his second term, after he would have no longer been up for re-election - a classic scheme that progressives do. They assault us when they can't be held accountable anymore. Sound familiar?
Here is a table for illustrative purposes.
Or perhaps subject them to an immediate up and down vote by congress.
Same with regulations.
This would have the additional benefit of keeping congress so busy that they wouldn’t have time to pass new laws to further control our lives.
It certainly should if people had honor any more. The threat of impeachment was enough for Nixon to resign. However when slick Willy was impeached the dems just ignored it and claimed it was partisan, unfair, etc. If politicians are immoral and corrupt then what you state will not work.
Exactly. Executive orders should be like the orders issued by field commanders after the high command has identified an objective. They should flesh out details, not reorient objectives.
And so?
Congress is supposed to protect its power and put a check on the other branches
It refuses to do so
Too short for what? To cause mischief and misery ?
Hmmmm Your first sentence should be directed at FDR not Teddy
The whole purpose of your argument was that Roosevelt only felt "safe" in using Executive Orders because he wouldn't have to face another election.
But the exact opposite was true. Roosevelt felt that he could get by with the Executive Orders because he felt the people would support him over Congress.
And he was mostly right. Most of the issues he advanced with Executive Orders were extremely popular with the people which isn't surprising given that Roosevelt won by a mind-blowing 18.8% spread in 1904. His issues were so popular, that Taft (his hand picked successor) easily won over William Jennings Bryan in 1908 on the platform that he would continue Roosevelt's policies.
Roosevelt used Executive Orders far more than any President who preceded him, but he did so because he felt he had the public's support, not because he knew he wouldn't have to face them again.
"after he would have no longer been up for re-election - a classic scheme that progressives do."
Even if Roosevelt's policies would've been less popular, he would've done them anyways. Progressives always try to do things when people aren't looking, or change the label, or something else that in effect re-packages the content. Do it on a friday evening, or on the day before/day after Thanksgiving day. Bring in friendly journalists so that they report it a certain way. Any/all of these are fair game and they're not new. They're just more common now.
For progressives, progressivism is always first. Nothing comes before the faith.
As for "safe", yes, I did have a little bit of that in mind, but mostly I'm looking at his ideology. That, and TR was a bold guy. He wouldn't have thought much about "safe", so I wouldn't factor that in too much. This is a question of ideology. Progressive ideology. You do know that TR promised not to run for a third term, correct?
Who knows if TR could have won his third term consecutively - that's a lesser of a question than is why did he make the promise not to in the first place? 100 years ago, the progressives didn't have what they have today - most Americans still knew about the Founders, the actual truth, there hadn't been widespread disinformation at the time. It took their historians and universities a century to put all of this propaganda in place.
His making that specific promise was an acknowledgment of what the people had expected up until that time from a president.
So he boxed himself in(boxed himself out of?) from there ever being any electoral accountability? So what? The end result is the same. Once he won his second term and that was going to be the end of it? It was pedal to the metal, balls to the wall. He's the man of action, he's going to do anything that he wants. That Constitution is not going to stand in TR's way. It's going to be all statism, all Constitution shredding, all the time. And it was. The end result is the same.
I didn’t leave that off because it was irrelevant.
By the time Roosevelt had promised to not run again, he had already racked up hundreds of executive orders.
The position you posit is that he felt free to issue the orders knowing he would never have to face the voters again.
That is just factually false.
The issue of his progressive policies or politics just don’t enter into the falseness of the narrative.
Roosevelt issued those Executive Orders because he was POPULAR, not because he was free from a future election.
In fact, when he came back in 1912, he jumped back into the Republican primary and won 9 of the last 10 primaries. At the convention, backroom deals prevented Roosevelt delegates from being seated even from States he had won during the primaries.
Roosevelt was wildly popular with the country, and after being cheated out of the nomination, formed his own party and ran.
For the only time in our history, a sitting President came in third place and took only two States in the election. Even after four years of safari and adventure, Roosevelt was more popular than Taft.
If the Republican bosses had allowed Roosevelt to seat his delegates at the convention, he would have won the nomination and the Presidency. Wilson would never have won the White House.
And in that case, as Roosevelt would have been in is second full term, he would have continued to use Executive Orders.
Therefore, he wasn’t using them in his second term because “he would have no longer been up for re-election”, he was using them because he had the support of the people and was bypassing Congress.
The base premise of your article is wrong.
It certainly should if people had honor any more. The threat of impeachment was enough for Nixon to resign. However when slick Willy was impeached the dems just ignored it and claimed it was partisan, unfair, etc. If politicians are immoral and corrupt then what you state will not work.I wonder if impeachment should be more like a “vote of no confidence” by the party of the president, like they have in the parliamentary system.
A vote of no confidence would turn the government into a parliamentary system. The Constitution intends the states - not the people of the states but the state governments - to determine the POTUS. Traditionally the states have held at-large elections of their electors, but two states elect only two electors at large, and elect one elector in each congressional district. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority of the votes of the electors, each state - as represented by the majority of its Representatives in Congress - casts one vote for any of the top three electoral vote winners. The problems with impeachment areIf you do noting about the former problem, it is doubtful if anything else will avail - but the second problem might be addressed by an amendment constituting a jury not of 100 Senators but of 50 state governors. In that scenario, a governor who voted to acquit Bill Clinton would be indicating that he reserved the right to comport himself in office the way Bill Clinton did. It is at least possible that even Democrat governors would have blanched at that prospect. Or maybe not . . .
- the 2/3 supermajority required to convict is unattainable to convict a Democrat - and because the Democrats have proved that, almost certainly the Republicans would act the same way in a Nixon scenario in the future.
- the jury consists of senators who - being legislators rather than executives - are a poor choice for “peers” of the POTUS.
It is said that Obama is destroying the US military and the same could nearly be said of George Washington with respect to how many apples he ate.
The second sentence makes just as much sense as the first.
You are right, i was referring to franklin, just lost is all.
Happens to us all from time to time
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.