ChrisWeigant.com

From The Archives -- Our Forgotten "Presidents"

[ Posted Monday, February 17th, 2020 – 17:55 UTC ]

[Program Note: As I am occasionally wont to do, I am taking today off because it is a holiday. Sort of. Rather than celebrating the birthday of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington separately, we now have today's catchall holiday instead. Maybe this is for the best, because even George Washington wasn't even born on Washington's birthday -- and that has nothing to do with making all federal holidays fall on Mondays. But that's a different story, of course. Today I decided to reprint an earlier column, on the subject of how many actual presidents we have to celebrate today. And the answer's not as easy as you might think. So happy holiday, everyone, and I promise we'll resume new columns tomorrow.]

Originally Published February 21, 2011

Happy Presidents' Day, everyone!

The two formerly-individual holidays celebrating Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday have been merged into a single federal holiday -- a holiday which, while intended to honor both Washington and Lincoln, has now become somewhat "genericized" (in name, at least) into a celebration of all our presidents. But what about the forgotten presidents? [Or, to be scrupulously accurate, "presidents"?]

I'm not talking about all those nineteenth-century Presidents of the United States who are now little more than dull and meaningless names to be memorized at some point during our schooling. Presidents such as James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore (and all the rest) are now little more than answers to trivia quizzes for those of us who aren't historians. No, I'm talking about even-more-obscure names from our nation's past. At least everyone recognizes the name James Buchanan, in other words, but how many of us know the name John Hanson? Or Cyrus Griffin?

There are two of these obscure names which do look familiar -- John Hancock and John Jay -- but there are a total of sixteen (or perhaps thirteen, or maybe just eight) men who were called "president" (albeit with a very different definition of the term) that schoolchildren usually never even learn about. Because normally, we start with the first "real" president -- the first chief executive of the United States of America, under our Constitution: George Washington.

But George Washington, the "Father of our Country," didn't take office until 1789. And we had declared our independence thirteen years earlier.

The American Revolution took up some of this intervening time, of course (the war didn't officially end until 1783 or 1784, depending on how you define it), and then our first failed attempt at self-governance took up the rest (The Articles of Confederation). If Americans were honest, we'd call our current government the "Second American Republic" -- but we seldom dwell on our mistakes here, so we just sweep this sort of thing under the rug in our collective memories.

The full timeline goes thusly:

First Continental Congress (September - October, 1774)

Second Continental Congress (May, 1775 - March, 1781)

Congress of the Confederacy (March, 1781 - October, 1788)

The Second Continental Congress was the one which passed the Declaration of Independence, in July of 1776, and the Articles of Confederation in November of 1777. The Articles, however, were not ratified by the last state (Maryland) until February, 1781. Almost immediately afterwards, the Congress changed its name and went on with its business. Officially, the Congress of the Confederacy lasted until March of 1789, but the Tenth Congress never achieved a quorum, because by that point the Constitution had been ratified and would take effect in March of 1789, so nobody was paying any attention to the old caretaker Congress.

Each of these Congresses had a president -- sixteen in all, if you start from 1774.

The first three of these can be discounted, because Peyton Randolph and Henry Middleton (and then Peyton Randolph again, briefly) were in charge of a Congress of colonies technically still part of the British Empire.

The next of these is well-known to schoolchildren, because he got to sign the Declaration of Independence first -- John Hancock. He's so well-known in American folklore than his name itself has become synonymous with the word "signature" -- in other words: "Just put your 'John Hancock' right here on the dotted line." If you date the founding of the United States of America from July 4, 1776, then John Hancock was the first person to have the title "President," although it was still technically "President of the Continental Congress" at that point. Hancock missed presiding over the passage of the Articles of Confederation by a month, and instead Henry Laurens was presiding. John Jay was the next President of the Continental Congress, but would obviously be later remembered for being the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, after the Constitution was ratified. Samuel Huntington was presiding over the Congress when the Articles of Confederation were fully ratified and signed, on March 1, 1781. A good case can be made that this was the official date of the birth of self-government in the United States, or perhaps the day after, when the group reconvened as the "Congress of the Confederacy." Huntington was succeeded by Thomas McKean, when he became too ill to continue his duties.

The first man elected "president" under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was John Hanson. By the Articles, we were to be called "The United States of America" (from Article I). So John Hanson was the first "President of the United States," right?

Well, as with this whole subject, it depends on your definitions. True, we were officially "The United States of America," but not so much, in reality. We were closer to what the European Union is today than to something you could actually call a "country." The Articles of Confederation were what today would be called a Libertarian (or, perhaps, "Tea Party," or "Tenth Amendment enthusiast's") dream. There practically was no central government to speak of, and the States themselves regained almost every "sovereign" power -- including being able to raise taxes. This is why the whole thing didn't work, I should mention, but that's neither here nor there for the moment. There was a national Congress, something along the lines of today's Senate -- each state got one vote, and for contentious issues, they needed nine out of thirteen votes to get things done (or a supermajority of over 69%). Congress had no power to tax, there was no federal judiciary, and there was no chief executive to speak of because there were very few of what we would call "executive powers" at all.

While the Articles did codify the term "The United States of America," it actually used the phrase "the United States in Congress assembled" in pretty much every other paragraph of the document -- meaning the central government (such as it was) was the states coming together "in congress" to decide things that couldn't be handled at the state level, such as treaties with other nations.

And the Articles only mention the word "president" once, and only glancingly at best. It is not capitalized, in an age where every important noun seemed to be worthy of capitalization. This fleeting mention is preceded by the verb "to preside" -- which clearly meant the president was nothing more than the guy who got to wield the gavel in "Congress assembled." To put it another way, "President" literally meant: "the one who presides."

Nonetheless, seven other men (Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, Nathaniel Gorham, Arthur St. Clair, and Cyrus Griffin) all held the post at one time or another, before the Articles fell apart and we were forced to come up with the Constitution. Even this list has its footnotes, as various other men presided without the full title (Daniel Carroll and David Ramsay). John Hancock never even showed up for his second term, leaving his duties to be performed by Ramsay, for example.

If this all sounds very confusing, well the times themselves were pretty confusing. There's always a historical gap (with varying degrees of confusion) between overthrowing a previous government and setting up a new one, as can be seen in various places in the Middle East today. During the Revolutionary War, our Congress had to flee a number of times when British troops advanced upon their chosen meeting place. George Washington's army was almost continuously desperately in need of just about everything (including basics such as food and clothing -- to say nothing of guns, powder, and shot), because Congress was seemingly incapable of fast action (some things, at least, have not changed, eh?), and was pretty much continuously broke during this entire period (this got worse, later, when the Articles of Confederation refused to allow the central government to levy any taxes of any type).

But you've got to admire the men who had to attempt to run such an ad hoc government during a war with a country who was (back then) the unquestioned "superpower" of the globe. The first chief executive, and the first man to be called the "President of the United States of America," was unquestionably George Washington. I'm not saying Barack Obama is the "fifty-second president" (or 54th, or 57th, or 60th, depending on where you draw the historical line). Which is why I put the word "Presidents" in quotes in this article's title. John Hancock (and John Hanson, Cyrus Griffin, and all the rest) are not truly in the same category as Washington and Obama... or even Buchanan and Fillmore.

But what is true is that most of these men have been completely forgotten. The only two who are well-known today achieved this status for other accomplishments (first signer of the Declaration, first Supreme Court Chief Justice). All the rest have faded into complete obscurity.

I feel they deserve better than this. The earliest ones were, pretty much by any definition, treasonous rebels, and they served in their posts in fear of their lives (to say nothing of their "fortunes and sacred honor"), since they doubtlessly would have been executed if they had been caught and our revolution had failed. That should stand for something, at the very least.

So, today, I choose to celebrate our forgotten "presidents," rather than our much-better-known and well-loved Presidents Washington and Lincoln (and all the rest). You'll never see Henry Laurens or Samuel Huntington pictured on a mattress or automobile ad in February, of course, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be remembered and honored for their service to our new nation. And since we have one catchall "Presidents' Day" now, it seemed like the best time to do so.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

49 Comments on “From The Archives -- Our Forgotten "Presidents"”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    If I follow your story, these "presidents" were what we'd call today the "speakers of the House".

    It reminds us, or should, that Congress was the original federal government, and that in the Constitution, Congress is the first among equals of the 'three branches' of government thanks to the precedent of the earlier Congress being the ONLY branch of government. Thus the current president's being accused of "obstruction of Congress" in the late impeachment proceedings was a serious charge, as the House managers ably argued and the Senate, tragically, ignored.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But George Washington, the "Father of our Country," didn't take office until 1989.

    Nineteen Eighty-Nine! Well then, I would wager this Washington was a very picturesque fellow by then... probably just hung around the office all day but spoke 1,000 words without ever moving his mouth. ;)

    Just teasing you, of course. I love your history. You'll fix that for us, won't you? ;)

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    how about president warren g. harding? why not write a little something about him, since by my estimation his administration is probably the closest historical parallel to what we're experiencing right now.

    and also, when will you finally forego your slavish dedication to big cake, and give pie a chance? if this blog is supposedly about reality, what about the reality of pie?

    JL

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    JL,

    what hard evidence is there that mccabe perjured himself or committed any other crime? the DOJ never secured an indictment (much less a conviction) in multiple attempts, so it couldn't have been all that strong.

    It's funny how you demand "hard evidence" when it's yer guy..

    But when it's President Trump??

    Hearsay, rumor, innuendo and outright bullshit is sufficient...

    I find that funny.. :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thus the current president's being accused of "obstruction of Congress" in the late impeachment proceedings was a serious charge,

    Yep.. It's such a serious charge, it was codified into Federal Law..

    Except it wasn't.. :smirk: :D

    Must not be THAT serious a charge, eh??

    At least it wasn't with yer messiah, Barack I DON'T NEED CONGRESS, I HAVE A PHONE AND A PEN Odumbo...

    Funny how you didn't mind OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS when it was a GOP Congress, eh??

    :eyeroll: Hypocrite...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thus the current president's being accused of "obstruction of Congress" in the late impeachment proceedings was a serious charge,

    I also am constrained to point out how hilarious it is that you have to go back over 250 years to feed and justify your Trump/America hate...

    :eyeroll:

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Virginia lawmakers reject Northam's assault-weapons ban, as Dems balk
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-assault-weapons-ban-fails-in-legislature

    I guess ya'all's euphoria over VA turning blue was cut short, eh??? :D

    Even when Democrats have a lock on government, they can't push their agenda thru.. :D

    Just one more indication that Democrats must be kept far far away from any government power..

    The 2nd is here to stay, people.. Get used to it..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    More than 100 Virginia cities and counties have declared themselves to be sanctuary jurisdictions for gun rights since Democrats, led by Gov. Northam, took control of the state's government.

    Virginia turned blue??

    Shirley, you jest.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looking Ahead to Trump's Second Term
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/14/looking_ahead_to_trumps_second_term_142396.html

    Better get used to it, people..

    Cuz it's gonna happen.. :D

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Yep.. It's such a serious charge, it was codified into Federal Law..

    Except it wasn't.. :smirk: :D

    There was never need to codify it, because prior to 2008, the GOP followed the norms that allowed our government to function properly — where actions were recognized as being “wrong” or “improper” without it having to be codified as criminal. Republicans have proven that they will go along with anything Trump does. They are cowards.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was never need to codify it, because prior to 2008, the GOP followed the norms that allowed our government to function properly — where actions were recognized as being “wrong” or “improper” without it having to be codified as criminal.

    So, you concede that it's not criminal, it's just etiquette..

    Well, news flash for ya, sunshine...

    President Trump was elected to take ya'all's etiquette and shove it up your collective asses....

    And President Trump is right on schedule to win 4 more years of doing the EXACT same thing.. :D

    Ain't America grand!!?? :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's nice that we all can agree that Obstruction Of Congress, and Abuse Of Power for that matter, are NOT crimes and are, therefore, not impeachable...

    "So say we all"
    -Commander Adama, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bloomberg makes debate stage, facing Dem rivals for 1st time
    https://apnews.com/11669588925e27f7fadc20b227936c34

    Apparently, Democrats think it's perfectly acceptable to buy a primary and buy a spot on the debate stage.. :smirk: :D

    So much for principles and integrity, eh Dims??

    It's all about the money...

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "It's all about the money...."

    Nonsense. It's all about ME.

    After all, you can't spell money without me. :D

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "This is America. There's not a single thing we can't do if we do it together."
    -Joe Biden

    There you go, CW and Liz.

    Biden said we can do One Demand if we do it together.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there's plenty of hard evidence against donald, which is how he got indicted (impeached), and it's also how he's the first president ever to have a vote to convict from a member of his own party. roger stone was both indicted and convicted, because there was a mountain of irrefutable evidence that he had committed crimes.

    mccabe is not "my guy" - he's just some guy donald decided must be guilty of something, but no grand jury would indict, much less a petit jury convict. that's how this society decides such things.

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as for what is a crime and what isn't, the u.s. constitution defines an impeachable offense as treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, and leaves it 100% up to congress to decide what those are and are not, and doesn't require that they be previously codified into criminal law. by the constitutional definition of impeachable offense, both abuse of power and contempt of congress qualify as crimes. since donald was not convicted, neither charge met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, thus he remains in office.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Since Biden has said that we can do One Demand, should we be calling him Pie-den?

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So come on CW. Biden has said we can do anything if we do it together.

    PLEASE write an article about this statement and how Biden should be asked at the debate that if we can do anything if we work together will he commit to running a small donor only campaign in the general election as it something that we not only can do but SHOULD do.

    Or does he believe that citizens working together to support a small donor candidate is something we can't do and why not?

    It would be interesting to hear all the candidates give their position on this commitment and whether or not it is something we can do.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    DH,

    I guess the last time Kick pulled the stick out of her ass her brain came out along with it and fell off before she put the stick back in.

    Oh SNAP!!! :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    there's plenty of hard evidence against donald,

    Yea, ya keep saying that..

    Yet, you can't point to a SINGLE SOLITARY fact that PROVES yer claim..

    and it's also how he's the first president ever to have a vote to convict from a member of his own party.

    BFD... Hate does strange things to people..

    There was more bi-partisan support for Clinton's impeachment.. Funny how ya ignore that..

    mccabe is not "my guy" - he's just some guy donald decided must be guilty of something,

    So, yer saying McCabe is completely innocent of all charges because he has never been convicted??

    So, you would agree that President Trump is ALSO innocent of all charges..

    Right??

    since donald was not convicted, neither charge met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold, thus he remains in office.

    So... You concede that there is reasonable doubt of President Trump's guilt..

    I accept that.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    as for what is a crime and what isn't, the u.s. constitution defines an impeachable offense as treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, and leaves it 100% up to congress to decide what those are and are not,

    Not factually accurate.. Congress cannot create crimes our misdemeanors out of thin air..

    Congress can PROPOSE laws that makes certain actions a crime. And then it will go thru the legislative process..

    But Congress can't wake up one morning and state, "If the President obstructs Congress and won't bend to Congress' will, then that is a crime.."

    Which is EXACTLY what Dumbocrats in Congress tried to do..

    And they failed.. Utterly and completely and unequivocally failed. AGAIN...

    by the constitutional definition of impeachable offense, both abuse of power and contempt of congress qualify as crimes.

    Yea?? Show me the part of the Constitution that says that...

    You can't because it doesn't exist..

    Basically, President Trump's ONLY "crime" is kicking the shit out of Hillary in the Presidential election..

    Note.. You won't find THAT crime in the US Constitution either..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can a Republican take on Trump and survive? Mitt Romney is proving it’s possible.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-a-republican-take-on-trump-and-survive-mitt-romney-is-proving-it-s-possible/ar-BB105SAq

    What a crock.. It's only been a couple weeks..

    Romney is going to go the same way as Flake and good riddance..

    Once again, I am forced to point out the humor in ya'all's hypocrisy..

    Romney was Mark Pellegrino Incarnate in 2012 and could do no right.....

    Now, he is worshiped on the Left as a hero and can do no wrong...

    It's a constant source of amazement and hilarity to me how ya'all's Party/Ideology dictates each and every one of ya'all's opinion.. :D

  24. [24] 
    dsws wrote:

    Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce muddled by and became the relative nobodies on the list of presidents.

    James Buchanan, by contrast, is a big deal -- just not in a good way. He failed to do anything positive about Bleeding Kansas or the financial panic of 1857 (although such panics happened rather frequently back then), and he was complicit in the Dred Scott decision. So he bears more blame for the Civil War than any other individual except Roger Taney.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce muddled by and became the relative nobodies on the list of presidents.

    Who??? :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not factually accurate.. Congress cannot create crimes our misdemeanors out of thin air..

    Congress can PROPOSE laws that makes certain actions a crime. And then it will go thru the legislative process..

    But Congress can't wake up one morning and state, "If the President obstructs Congress and won't bend to Congress' will, then that is a crime.."

    Which is EXACTLY what Dumbocrats in Congress tried to do..

    Imagine the outcry from Democrats if the GOP Congress woke up one day and stated, "It's a crime to be president and have big ears" and impeached Odumbo for this newly created "crime"...

    That is exactly what Dumbocrats tried (and failed) to do with President Trump...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dems Beware: Don’t Be Like Mitt in 2012
    He’s become a folk hero for his impeachment vote, but as a candidate he blew the race. Here's how to avoid the mistakes of 2012.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/17/dan-pfeiffer-mitt-romney-loss-2012-lessons-115340

    Democrats hated Romney...

    Right up to the time that he did something that supports the Trump/America haters' agenda..

    Now he is a folk hero to Trump/America haters and Democrats..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now he is a folk hero to Trump/America haters and Democrats..

    "Mr President!!?? In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant'..."
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kent State 'gun girl' confronted by protesters at Ohio University
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/kent-state-gun-girl-kaitlin-bennett-ohio-university-protest

    Remind me again of the "peaceful" and "tolerant" nature of Democrats???

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary.... :eyeroll:

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is what happens when a Trump supporter goes to a college campus. Leftists at @ohiou started a riot when @Joelpatrick1776 and I showed up, and the @oupolice let it happen. I think @realDonaldTrump should strip funding from universities like this that harbor terrorists.
    -Kaitlyn Bennet

    Abso-frakin'-loutly!!!

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    You've been misinformed about what impeachment is and how it works. Later I'll try to explain again.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've been misinformed about what impeachment is and how it works. Later I'll try to explain again.

    I know perfectly well what you THINK it is..

    But it's black and white in the US Constitution..

    HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS....

    No ambiguity there at all..

    It's NOT

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops..

    It's ***NOT*** HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WHATEVER DUMBOCRATS IN CONGRESS SAY AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT..

    Abuse of Power is **NOT** a crime..

    Obstruction of Congress is **NOT** a crime..

    These are FACTS that you simply cannot spin to mean anything other than their factual meaning..

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I'm relatively new to this highly enjoyable comments section. Would somebody please explain the whole "pie" thing I keep reading about?

    Also, nice historical article CW! I had no idea that this is how we started out.

    And...Michale why do you say that those of us who hate Trump for being the abomination of a President "hate America?"

    I'd point out that, for example, the Repug anti-abortion folks "hate America." How so? Freedom of Religion is meaningless unless it includes freedom from other people's religion. Not everybody's religion says abortion is wrong, yet the anti-abortion folks want to jam their religious beliefs about abortion down everybody's throats. That strikes me as anti-American.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Abuse of Power is **NOT** a crime..

    Obstruction of Congress is **NOT** a crime..

    These are FACTS that you simply cannot spin to mean anything other than their factual meaning..

    Both those "crimes" come under the heading of 'maladministration'. A big word that essentially means that the person/group using the term does not like what the President is doing but they have no legal recourse to stop the President because no crime is being committed..

    The Founding Fathers specifically and decisively discarded 'maladministration' as an impeachable offence because they realized that it was nothing but politics and had nothing to do with justice and/or harm to this country...

    In short, the Founding Fathers made things so that one Party can't successfully accomplish what Democrats tried to do...

    Remove a sitting, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected POTUS, simply because they hated said sitting, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected POTUS..

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [14]

    Don Harris wrote:

    "It's all about the money...."

    Nonsense. It's all about ME.

    After all, you can't spell money without me. :D"

    Touche, Amigo!

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    I'd point out that, for example, the Repug anti-abortion folks "hate America." How so? Freedom of Religion is meaningless unless it includes freedom from other people's religion.

    How is protecting the sanctity of life an infringement of other people's right to freedom FROM religion??

    Not everybody's religion says abortion is wrong

    But everyone agrees, regardless of religion or lack there of, that murder violates the laws of god and man..

    "Murder is contrary to the laws of man and God.
    -M5, STAR TREK

    DOn't get me wrong.. I completely agree with you that Freedom OF Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion..

    I just don't get how you got there from here...

    yet the anti-abortion folks want to jam their religious beliefs about abortion down everybody's throats.

    Abortion has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

    It has to do with over arching morality..

    Murdering a baby in a mother's womb that is days or weeks from being born is NO DIFFERENT that murdering a senile parent who is bed-ridden and has to depend on people and/or machines to survive...

    Do you know how I know that religion has nothing to do with it??

    Because I am as agnostic and anti-religion as they come and even I know that murdering defenseless babies is wrong..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, the Founding Fathers made things so that one Party can't successfully accomplish what Democrats tried to do...

    Remove a sitting, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected POTUS, simply because they hated said sitting, legally, democratically and Constitutionally elected POTUS..

    Even if Democrats had a majority in the Senate the wisdom of the Founding Fathers shines thru... Impeachment based on 'maladministration' is a non-starter from the word go..

    JUST as the Founding Fathers intended..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It’s a fucking baby! .?.?. All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building"
    -Michael Bloomberg, berating an employee who was asking for time off to search for a nanny..

    Yea.. Bloomberg is the Democrats' Great White Hope..

    :smirk: :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Police Officer Kenneth Lester
    Richmond Police Department, Indiana
    End of Watch: Monday, February 10, 2020

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    We are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not everybody's religion says abortion is wrong

    Abortion being wrong has NOTHING to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with what is morally acceptable and unacceptable...

  42. [42] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    What we need is retroactive abortion!

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    What we need is retroactive abortion!

    We have that.. It's called the Death Penalty.. :D

    Big fan...

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Abuse of Power is **NOT** a crime..

    Obstruction of Congress is **NOT** a crime..

    But they are impeachable offenses that got Trump impeached! You can try to rewrite history all you want to try to remove the truth of what a dumpster fire of corruption Trump’s presidency has been, but it will only work on cult members...the rest of the world sees him for the fraud that he is!

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,
    Pie-based voting is a completely democratic alternative to the current system. Instead of voting based on some vague policy proposals that we know will never pass the cake-dominated Congress, why not vote based on which candidates provide substantive desserts by bringing pie?

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    44

    But they are impeachable offenses that got Trump impeached!

    Yes, sir... in perpetuity. The right-wing echo chamber does a great disservice to Americans from coast to coast by advancing the utter ridiculous fabrication that a crime must be committed in order to impeach a president.

    You can try to rewrite history all you want to try to remove the truth of what a dumpster fire of corruption Trump’s presidency has been, but it will only work on cult members...the rest of the world sees him for the fraud that he is!

    It won't work for Trump either. Poor Donald. He can be prosecuted for his multiple crimes when he leaves office; it's that very fact that explains so many of his actions.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    45

    Instead of voting based on some vague policy proposals that we know will never pass the cake-dominated Congress, why not vote based on which candidates provide substantive desserts by bringing pie?

    They are accusing Bloomberg of trying to pie the election. ;)

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m [32]
    You have no idea whatsoever what I think it is. If you did, you wouldn't keep getting it wrong. Article 1, section 2, clause 5 says the house has "sole power of impeachment," which literally means they can at any time redefine any act they think is wrong as a high crime or misdemeanor. Rightly or wrongly, they have that authority.

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Re: abortion
    Right and wrong do matter, but our nation does not have anything resembling consensus on the rightness or wrongness of ending a pregnancy. Unfortunately the next gop Congress would be within their authority to redefine abortion as a high crime and impeach someone for it, but every other form of response is limited by the constitutional rights of a woman to control what goes on inside her body.

Comments for this article are closed.