<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Ask for Pardon, Not Permission	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ask-for-pardon-not-permission</link>
	<description>Hanker: To have a strong, often restless desire, in this case for--you guessed it--history!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 04:29:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: susan stessin		</title>
		<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-884</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[susan stessin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=10054#comment-884</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Always find your posts so interesting! I love to keep learning  ~Susan
And thanks for following my blog -]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Always find your posts so interesting! I love to keep learning  ~Susan<br />
And thanks for following my blog &#8211;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: spencercourt		</title>
		<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-751</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[spencercourt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=10054#comment-751</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[My recollection is that the issue of Presidential war power goes back very far, to the Barbary pirates.  The fig leaf for Presidents is that they have the authority to send troops into combat without a declaration of war because the President is Commander in Chief and so Congress cannot infringe on that. 

And of course there is the issue that the Constitution doesn&#039;t actually say that *only* a declaration of war allows troops to be used. Kinda like, &quot;All elephants have four legs but not all animals with four legs are elephants. IF there is a declaration of war, only Congress can do that.

I am all for circumscribing Presidential power. But if you ask the average American, they expect the President to get things done rather than an often gridlocked Congress.

Take the deficit. The President is supposed to submit a budget. e did. Congress didn&#039;t like it. It is not the President&#039;s job to keep submitting budgets until he satisfies Congress. Let Congress put together a budget it can live with. But these do nothings want to blame the President for not fixing the deficit. It is Congress&#039; job to fix the deficit. 

The real problem is that the Constitution was not developed for an America which would be a world power. it was developed for an agrarian society that would not be focused on world affairs. Let;s get back to that vision, which persisted as late as December 6, 1941. Public opinion had no interest in stopping Hitler; that was a European problem.

 I have no doubt FDR thanked the Lord that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  And I believe he manipulated Japan into attacking us, through an oil embargo and other actions, so the US would be forced into war.

But Korea, VietNam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. None of our business and after initial support for all those (except Korea), most Americans now oppose all of that. Yet, we keep it up.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My recollection is that the issue of Presidential war power goes back very far, to the Barbary pirates.  The fig leaf for Presidents is that they have the authority to send troops into combat without a declaration of war because the President is Commander in Chief and so Congress cannot infringe on that. </p>
<p>And of course there is the issue that the Constitution doesn&#8217;t actually say that *only* a declaration of war allows troops to be used. Kinda like, &#8220;All elephants have four legs but not all animals with four legs are elephants. IF there is a declaration of war, only Congress can do that.</p>
<p>I am all for circumscribing Presidential power. But if you ask the average American, they expect the President to get things done rather than an often gridlocked Congress.</p>
<p>Take the deficit. The President is supposed to submit a budget. e did. Congress didn&#8217;t like it. It is not the President&#8217;s job to keep submitting budgets until he satisfies Congress. Let Congress put together a budget it can live with. But these do nothings want to blame the President for not fixing the deficit. It is Congress&#8217; job to fix the deficit. </p>
<p>The real problem is that the Constitution was not developed for an America which would be a world power. it was developed for an agrarian society that would not be focused on world affairs. Let;s get back to that vision, which persisted as late as December 6, 1941. Public opinion had no interest in stopping Hitler; that was a European problem.</p>
<p> I have no doubt FDR thanked the Lord that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  And I believe he manipulated Japan into attacking us, through an oil embargo and other actions, so the US would be forced into war.</p>
<p>But Korea, VietNam, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. None of our business and after initial support for all those (except Korea), most Americans now oppose all of that. Yet, we keep it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Beatty		</title>
		<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-750</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Beatty]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=10054#comment-750</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[That attitude explains why our penal system is overloaded...folks wondering why breaking the law is wrong and are now seeking forgiveness.  This silly expression is far too malleable to be useful in any real and substantive discussions.  It is a joke to cover minor indiscretions with wan smiles.

The Constitution is a great guideline with no teeth short of impeachment.  In itself it has no power.  Thus, when presidents direct others to act, and they get away with it, pundits and historians get to argue about it.  If, however, others do block the act, as rarely they do, the only remedy is impeachment.

Congress cannot recall troops; they have no power to do so.  They can technically defund them, but that would be a PR nightmare in the age of YouTube.  So, what function does a declaration of war have?  It is not tied to troop action.

Where was the declaration of war in 1861?  Where was it in 1916, when the Army went into Mexico?  Where was it in 1794 before Fallen Timbers, and before every other American Indian conflict? How about 1962, around Cuba? Was the Constitution in suspense in those &quot;special cases&quot; so the president could order troops around without a declaration of war?  

No.  Declaration of war is in the exclusive power of Congress, but it is truly irrelevant except in international diplomatic traditions and maritime law.  Cuba &#039;62 was called a &quot;quarantine&quot; for that very specific reason.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That attitude explains why our penal system is overloaded&#8230;folks wondering why breaking the law is wrong and are now seeking forgiveness.  This silly expression is far too malleable to be useful in any real and substantive discussions.  It is a joke to cover minor indiscretions with wan smiles.</p>
<p>The Constitution is a great guideline with no teeth short of impeachment.  In itself it has no power.  Thus, when presidents direct others to act, and they get away with it, pundits and historians get to argue about it.  If, however, others do block the act, as rarely they do, the only remedy is impeachment.</p>
<p>Congress cannot recall troops; they have no power to do so.  They can technically defund them, but that would be a PR nightmare in the age of YouTube.  So, what function does a declaration of war have?  It is not tied to troop action.</p>
<p>Where was the declaration of war in 1861?  Where was it in 1916, when the Army went into Mexico?  Where was it in 1794 before Fallen Timbers, and before every other American Indian conflict? How about 1962, around Cuba? Was the Constitution in suspense in those &#8220;special cases&#8221; so the president could order troops around without a declaration of war?  </p>
<p>No.  Declaration of war is in the exclusive power of Congress, but it is truly irrelevant except in international diplomatic traditions and maritime law.  Cuba &#8217;62 was called a &#8220;quarantine&#8221; for that very specific reason.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: billgncs		</title>
		<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-749</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[billgncs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:18:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=10054#comment-749</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[few things are as cut and dried as a surprise attack in Hawaii WWII, look at the problems in getting the country to aid England  -- Congress can remove presidents, if they have the stomach for it.  The constitution and its protections are not for the weak hearted.  

This was a good thought provoking post.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>few things are as cut and dried as a surprise attack in Hawaii WWII, look at the problems in getting the country to aid England  &#8212; Congress can remove presidents, if they have the stomach for it.  The constitution and its protections are not for the weak hearted.  </p>
<p>This was a good thought provoking post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Grant		</title>
		<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-748</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Grant]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=10054#comment-748</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-746&quot;&gt;roberta4949&lt;/a&gt;.

The fact that there wasn&#039;t a declaration of war wasn&#039;t the issue. The problem is that the Constitution gives Congress the power to decide whether we go to war. The fact that the president(s) acted outside the scope of their powers is the issue. If you haven&#039;t before, you should check out the Nixon administration. The amount of power he took for himself was insane.

But if you are interested in the declaration of war - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-746">roberta4949</a>.</p>
<p>The fact that there wasn&#8217;t a declaration of war wasn&#8217;t the issue. The problem is that the Constitution gives Congress the power to decide whether we go to war. The fact that the president(s) acted outside the scope of their powers is the issue. If you haven&#8217;t before, you should check out the Nixon administration. The amount of power he took for himself was insane.</p>
<p>But if you are interested in the declaration of war &#8211; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: tkmorin		</title>
		<link>https://hankeringforhistory.com/ask-for-pardon-not-permission/#comment-747</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tkmorin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hankeringforhistory.com/?p=10054#comment-747</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I first heard &quot;It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission&quot; from Star Trek, believe it or not.  And I liked it so much, that when I do something &quot;not quite nice&quot;, I&#039;ll say that in my head.  Funny, really.  Great post, thank you!  :)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I first heard &#8220;It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission&#8221; from Star Trek, believe it or not.  And I liked it so much, that when I do something &#8220;not quite nice&#8221;, I&#8217;ll say that in my head.  Funny, really.  Great post, thank you!  🙂</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: hankeringforhistory.com @ 2025-06-20 05:38:21 by W3 Total Cache
-->