pull down to refresh

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 2 Oct \ parent \ on: The Complicated Legacy of Andrew Jackson’s Bank War econ
Jackson attempted to usurp Congressional power of the purse in September 1833 by removing the Second Bank’s treasury deposits and giving them to state-run pet banks run by his partisan supporters that lacked any statutory authority and were often of dubious quality.
I think that's the most controversial part.
Otherwise, I wish president's vetoed way more stuff and that seems to be the bulk of the criticism against him.
write
preview
42 sats \ 4 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 2 Oct
I don't see that he had much of an option. He was battling the BellSouth of the era, and that ordeal was resolved by busting into smaller bells that are now trying to re-join together. If a body wanted to stop that, they'd have to use some manner of uni-lateral executive power.
reply
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 2 Oct
Isn't that sort of ends-means reasoning what leads to executive overreach?
reply
42 sats \ 2 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 2 Oct
The truth of the office of the president is that it has no executive overreach if something looks to be the cause of jeopardizing the Union. The Civil War made that clear if nothing else was made evident.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 2 Oct
I think that's the principle that's being called into question, though.
Just because it is that way, doesn't mean it ought to be.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 2 Oct
It is the way it must be. A head without a body is useless.
reply