Presidents What Has Been Shot At

[Bob McKellar]

Compiling the list just for fun.

Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
situations

FDR No
Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No
Ike No ( strange but true )
JFK Yes ( but mostly rammed )
LBJ Yes ( but pretty much bogus )
Nixon No
Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
Carter No
Reagan No
GHW Bush Yes
Clinton No
GW Bush No

Analysis:
Overall; 4 yes, 8 no

Dems 2 yes, 4 no
Repubs 2 yes, 4 no

Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no

Didn't
1 yes 4 no

Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no

Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
Navy 4 yes 2 no

Conclusions: Damfino

Maybe there isn't a real pattern.

Bob McKellar

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...

> Maybe there isn't a real pattern.

John Kerry has a paper trail long enough to demonstrate a pattern of
behavior.

[Bob Tenney]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:21:33 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>Compiling the list just for fun.
>
>Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
>situations
>
>FDR No
>Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No
>Ike No ( strange but true )
>JFK Yes ( but mostly rammed )
>LBJ Yes ( but pretty much bogus )
>Nixon No
>Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
>Carter No
>Reagan No
>GHW Bush Yes
>Clinton No
>GW Bush No
>
>Analysis:
>Overall; 4 yes, 8 no
>
>Dems 2 yes, 4 no
>Repubs 2 yes, 4 no
>
>Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
>
>Didn't
>1 yes 4 no
>
>Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
>
>Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
>Navy 4 yes 2 no
>
>Conclusions: Damfino
>
>Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
>
>Bob McKellar

Or FDR sort of, there _was_ a torpedo sent in his general direction.

http://www.roaring-twenties.com/roaring_twenties_antique_car_museum_article.htm

SCO delenda est.
adress is partially sdrawkcab.

[Jim McLaughlin]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote"

> Compiling the list just for fun.
>
> Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> situations
>
> FDR No
> Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No

SNIPS

Curious as to your reasoning process on Truman. IIRC artillery company
commander in WW I, with a Missouri NG unit. No idea if his battery came
under fire. I _ think_ his unit did fire on German positions, but no idea
if fired back upon.

Have you any more data on Truman's experienceds in WW I? Why conclude
as you did?

--
Jim McLaughlin

Please don't just hit the reply key.
Remove the obvious from the address to reply.

************************************************** *************************




> Ike No ( strange but true )
> JFK Yes ( but mostly rammed )
> LBJ Yes ( but pretty much bogus )
> Nixon No
> Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
> Carter No
> Reagan No
> GHW Bush Yes
> Clinton No
> GW Bush No
>
> Analysis:
> Overall; 4 yes, 8 no
>
> Dems 2 yes, 4 no
> Repubs 2 yes, 4 no
>
> Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
>
> Didn't
> 1 yes 4 no
>
> Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
>
> Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
> Navy 4 yes 2 no
>
> Conclusions: Damfino
>
> Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
>
> Bob McKellar
>

[Leadfoot]

> Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
>

I count 5, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, Eisenhower Korea, LBJ Vietnam, Nixon
Vietnam

[Cub Driver]

>Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )

He was shot at by Squeaky From. That was pretty personal.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Jack Linthicum]

Bob McKellar > wrote in message >...
> Compiling the list just for fun.
>
> Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> situations
>
> FDR No
> Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No

You are wrong.

<more>
On 23 August 1918, the 129th moved into the front lines in the Vosges
Mountains near Kruth, Alsace. This part of the front had been
relatively quiet for nearly four years.

On 27 and 28 August the Germans began harassing artillery fire and
observation balloons were seen. At 8 p.m. on the rainy evening of 29
August Battery D moved into temporary firing position and participated
in a barrage against enemy batteries located at Petit Bailon-Kahler
Wasen area. During a period of 36 minutes each of the batteries of the
129th fired 500 rounds of gas shells. The guns were to have been moved
back immediately after firing, but D Battery's horses were half an
hour late getting there. Starting at 9:30 p.m. the Germans returned
gas and high explosive fire on Batteries D and E for most of the rest
of the evening. When the barrage started, Truman was on horseback. His
horse was hit and fell into a shell hole. Truman had to be pulled from
beneath the horse. About this time, the first sergeant shouted "Run
boys, they've got a bracket on us!" The first sergeant took off and
several men followed him. Truman rallied the battery with some salty
language he had learned while working on the Sante Fe railroad. The
troops were so shocked to hear such language from Truman that they
swung into action immediately. <more>

Ask the horse, http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/truman.htm
> Ike No ( strange but true )
> JFK Yes ( but mostly rammed )
> LBJ Yes ( but pretty much bogus )
> Nixon No
> Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
> Carter No
> Reagan No
> GHW Bush Yes
> Clinton No
> GW Bush No
>
> Analysis:
> Overall; 5/ yes, 8/ no
>
> Dems 3 yes, 3 no
> Repubs 2 yes, 4 no Technical point, Reagan was aDeocrat when he wasn't fired on
>
> Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
>
> Didn't
> 1 yes 4 no
>
> Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
>
> Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
> Navy 4 yes 2 no
>
> Conclusions: Damfino
>
> Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
>
> Bob McKellar

[Bob McKellar]

Bob Tenney wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:21:33 -0500, Bob McKellar >
> wrote:
>
> >Compiling the list just for fun.
> >
> >Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> >situations
> >
> >FDR No
> >Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No
> >Ike No ( strange but true )
> >JFK Yes ( but mostly rammed )
> >LBJ Yes ( but pretty much bogus )
> >Nixon No
> >Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
> >Carter No
> >Reagan No
> >GHW Bush Yes
> >Clinton No
> >GW Bush No
> >
> >Analysis:
> >Overall; 4 yes, 8 no
> >
> >Dems 2 yes, 4 no
> >Repubs 2 yes, 4 no
> >
> >Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
> >
> >Didn't
> >1 yes 4 no
> >
> >Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
> >
> >Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
> >Navy 4 yes 2 no
> >
> >Conclusions: Damfino
> >
> >Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
> >
> >Bob McKellar
>
> Or FDR sort of, there _was_ a torpedo sent in his general direction.
>
> http://www.roaring-twenties.com/roaring_twenties_antique_car_museum_article.htm
>
> SCO delenda est.
> adress is partially sdrawkcab.

Great story! But I stand by my spur of the moment / no research opus.

Bob

[Bob McKellar]

Jim McLaughlin wrote:

> "Bob McKellar" > wrote"
>
> > Compiling the list just for fun.
> >
> > Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> > situations
> >
> > FDR No
> > Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No
>
> SNIPS
>
> Curious as to your reasoning process on Truman. IIRC artillery company
> commander in WW I, with a Missouri NG unit. No idea if his battery came
> under fire. I _ think_ his unit did fire on German positions, but no idea
> if fired back upon.
>
> Have you any more data on Truman's experienceds in WW I? Why conclude
> as you did?
>
> --
> Jim McLaughlin
>

I was posting from ignorance ( not unusual around here ). Jack corrects me
below.

Bob

[Bob McKellar]

Leadfoot wrote:

> > Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
> >
>
> I count 5, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, Eisenhower Korea, LBJ Vietnam, Nixon
> Vietnam

That's why they call Korea "The Forgotten War".

You are correct, of course.

Bob

[Bob McKellar]

Cub Driver wrote:

> >Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
>
> He was shot at by Squeaky From. That was pretty personal.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Personal and very scary, but not military. I did remember
that one ( and some others ).

Bob

[Bob McKellar]

Jack Linthicum wrote:

> Bob McKellar > wrote in message >...
> > Compiling the list just for fun.
> >
> > Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> > situations
> >
> > FDR No
> > Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No
>
> You are wrong.
>

I certainly am. thanks for theinfo/correction!

Bob

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > >Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
> >
> > He was shot at by Squeaky From. That was pretty personal.
> >
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
> > email:
> >
> > see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> > and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
> Personal and very scary, but not military. I did remember
> that one ( and some others ).

When is the CinC not Military?

[Ward C. Douglas]

> wrote in message ...
> Compiling the list just for fun.
> (Snipped alot of interesting stuff)
>
> Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
>
> Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
> Navy 4 yes 2 no
>
> Conclusions: Damfino
>
> Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
>
> Bob McKellar
>


Service Academy graduates, don't you mean 2 yes (President Eisenhower - West
Point & President Carter - USNA)

And I don't understand your VETs info. Just to confirm;

Navy- Presidents, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, George Bush
Army - Presidents, Truman (NG), Eisenhower, Reagan (R)
AF - President, GW Bush (NG)

* NG & R represent original service, were Presidents Bush, Kennedy, and
Johnson USN or USNR? Kinda have a reference for the USNR, being one myself.

We're prob saying the same I'm just missing it. Also interesting;

Branches;
Army; Infantry - Eisenhower
Cavalry - Reagan (then PAO)
Artillery (Red Leg) - Truman
Navy; Aviator - Bush
Surface - Ford, Kennedy (originally INTEL)
Submariner - Carter
Supply - Nixon
Air Force; Pilot (Fighter) - GW Bush

Pretty broad range of communities.

Anybody know what LBJs designator was?

v/r
Ward

[Fred J. McCall]

Cub Driver > wrote:

:
:>Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
:
:He was shot at by Squeaky From. That was pretty personal.

Well, no, he wasn't. He was AIMED AT by Squeaky Fromme. The gun was
not loaded.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
:>
:> Personal and very scary, but not military. I did remember
:> that one ( and some others ).
:
:When is the CinC not Military?

When you're talking about the United States.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Bob McKellar]

"Ward C. Douglas" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > Compiling the list just for fun.
> > (Snipped alot of interesting stuff)
> >
> > Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
> >
> > Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
> > Navy 4 yes 2 no
> >
> > Conclusions: Damfino
> >
> > Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
> >
> > Bob McKellar
> >
>
> Service Academy graduates, don't you mean 2 yes (President Eisenhower - West
> Point & President Carter - USNA)
>
> And I don't understand your VETs info. Just to confirm;
>
> Navy- Presidents, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, George Bush
> Army - Presidents, Truman (NG), Eisenhower, Reagan (R)
> AF - President, GW Bush (NG)
>
> * NG & R represent original service, were Presidents Bush, Kennedy, and
> Johnson USN or USNR? Kinda have a reference for the USNR, being one myself.
>
> We're prob saying the same I'm just missing it. Also interesting;
>
> Branches;
> Army; Infantry - Eisenhower
> Cavalry - Reagan (then PAO)
> Artillery (Red Leg) - Truman
> Navy; Aviator - Bush
> Surface - Ford, Kennedy (originally INTEL)
> Submariner - Carter
> Supply - Nixon
> Air Force; Pilot (Fighter) - GW Bush
>
> Pretty broad range of communities.
>
> Anybody know what LBJs designator was?
>
> v/r
> Ward

The yes and no referred to getting shot at. I found it interesting that neither
of the two academy guys ever got shot at. I don't think it particularly means
anything, but it is interesting.

Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in a plane
that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it were bogus,
but the bullets were apparently real.

BTW, most posts around here with the slightest tinge of politics begin with a
conclusion and work backwards for evidence. This one was actually done without
any predisposition, motivated principally by beer and boredom last night.

Bob

[Michael P. Reed]

Bob McKellar > wrote in message >...
> Compiling the list just for fun.
>
> Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> situations

Continuing to the WWII era.

Prez. Shot at Major military Action

Washington Yes Yes
Adams No Yes
Jefferson No Yes
Madison No Yes
Monroe Yes No
J.Q. Adams No No
Jackson Yes Yes
Van Buren No (I think) Yes (he inherited Jacksons Seminole
War)
W.H. Harrison Yes No (see Taylor)
Tyler No (AFAIK) No
Polk No Yes
Taylor Yes No (didn't have much of a chance)
Filmore No (AFAIK) No
Pierce No (AFAIK) No
Buchanan No No
Lincoln No? Yes (Not sure if so Sac took a
potshot at him or not)
Johnson No (AFAIK) Yes (kinda)
Grant Yes Yes (see below)
Hayes Yes No (depending on if one counts the
Plains wars)
Garfield Yes No
Arthur Yes [?] No (I think served in the ACW)
Cleveland I&II No (AFAIK) No
Harrison Not sure No
McKinley Yes Yes
T. Rooselvelt Yes Yes
Taft No No (he was in PI during the
Insurrection)
Wilson No Yes
Harding No No
Coolidge No (AFAIK) No
Hoover Yes No (was a civlian but took an active
part in the defense of the siege of Tientsen during the Boxer
Rebellion)

12 Yea 16 Nay 1 IDK

5 (or 6) Yea w/war
7 Yea w/o war
7 (or 8) Nay w/war

A couple of those were inherited, but for the most part, I think it
depends upon events of the moment more than actual prior service (or
having "seen the elephant").

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Ward C. Douglas]

Good stuff;

Notes;
John Adams, was quite embarrassed about his lack of "uniformed" military
experience. He, on several occasions during the Revolution, asked to leave
Congress and serve in the militia. The Massachusetts Bay government, and
especially Sam Adams always told him to keep doing what he was best at, in
Congress.

v/r
Ward
--
Ward C. Douglas
"A good economy is not worth a Constitution"
(E) wcdouglasATmindspringDOTcom
(URL) http://wcdouglas.home.mindspring.com/index.htm

[Ward C. Douglas]

Bob;

Your right about the posts. I'd be interested to see if Johnson was a
GURL.




v/r
Ward
--
Ward C. Douglas
"A good economy is not worth a Constitution"
(E) wcdouglasATmindspringDOTcom
(URL) http://wcdouglas.home.mindspring.com/index.htm

[Garrison Hilliard]

> From: (Michael P. Reed)
>
>Continuing to the WWII era.
>
>Prez. Shot at Major military Action
>
>Lincoln No? Yes

Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran, and I can assure you that
John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.

[Tex Houston]

"Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
...
>
> > From: (Michael P. Reed)
> >
> >Continuing to the WWII era.
> >
> >Prez. Shot at Major military Action
> >
> >Lincoln No? Yes
>
> Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran, and I can assure you that
> John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.

Boy! Do you have history scrambled. During the Mexican War Abraham Lincoln
was a member of the House of Representatives and made a rather famous speech
questioning the legality of that war. He did serve in the Blackhawk War as
a member of the Illinois Militia.

Tex Houston

[Steven James Forsberg]

: Your right about the posts. I'd be interested to see if Johnson was a
: GURL.

Nowadays they are called GENURLs.
But Johnson was a USNR Lt. Cmdr. (he made Commander post war).

regards,
-----------------------------------------------------

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>
> When is the CinC not Military?

If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President of the United
States.

If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.

[Steven James Forsberg]

B

: Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in a plane
: that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it were bogus,
: but the bullets were apparently real.

I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a congresscritter
probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it specifically in
order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military duties had
been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets were ver
real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when he
handed out that star....
Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making that
decision, but I think it was the right one.

BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on Guadalcanal.
It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply officer
with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all alike....

regards,
------------------------------------------------

[Garrison Hilliard]

> From: "Tex Houston" >
>
>"Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >Prez. Shot at Major military Action
>> >
>> >Lincoln No? Yes
>>
>> Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran, and I can assure you that
>> John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.
>
>Boy! Do you have history scrambled. During the Mexican War Abraham Lincoln
>was a member of the House of Representatives and made a rather famous speech
>questioning the legality of that war. He did serve in the Blackhawk War as
>a member of the Illinois Militia.

You are right, of course... mea culpa! I still maintain that John Wilkes
Booth shot at Lincoln, though! ;-)

[Bob McKellar]

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

> B
>
> : Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in a plane
> : that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it were bogus,
> : but the bullets were apparently real.
>
> I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
> real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a congresscritter
> probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it specifically in
> order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military duties had
> been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets were ver
> real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when he
> handed out that star....
> Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
> uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making that
> decision, but I think it was the right one.
>
> BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
> bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on Guadalcanal.
> It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
> Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply officer
> with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all alike....
>
> regards,
> ------------------------------------------------
>

Since I got so much wrong earlier, I shall nitpickingly ( wait till the spell checker
sees that one! ) defend myself. I said "His" mission was bogus, not "The" mission,
on purpose, because I see the story the same way you do.

Bob.

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Garrison Hilliard wrote:

> > From: (Michael P. Reed)
> >
> >Continuing to the WWII era.
> >
> >Prez. Shot at Major military Action
> >
> >Lincoln No? Yes
>
> Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran, and I can assure you that
> John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.

Lincoln was the last President of the United States to directly observe a
"battle"

(Fort Stevens) it spawned a famous incident

It was here that the president's distinctive top hat became a likely
target for Confederate sharpshooters as he peered over the breastworks.
Colonel Holmes was said to have minced few words with Lincoln when he
pulled him down and barked, "Get down, you fool!"

Vince

[Erik Von Erich]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
>
> He was shot at by Squeaky From. That was pretty personal.



Gerald Ford actually had two would-be assassins. Squeaky Fromme and
Sarah Jane Moore in two separate incidents. Both were Manson family
morons, AFAIK.

[Cub Driver]

>Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in a plane
>that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it were bogus,
>but the bullets were apparently real.

No, the bullets weren't real. Johnson's plane turned back early and
was never part of the mission as accomplished. Quoting here, referring
to Martin Caiden's "The Mission" upon which all these accounts are
based:

The passage was a gripping account of courage under fire -- except,
according to the sole surviving crew member -- it was pure fiction.

"No way," said retired Army Staff Sgt. Bob Marshall. "No, that story
was made up, put in there in my mind by the author of the book. 'Cause
we never seen Zero, was never attacked. Nothing."



all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
...
> Compiling the list just for fun.
>
> Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> situations
>
> FDR No
> Truman Sorta yes, but I will say No
> Ike No ( strange but true )
> JFK Yes ( but mostly rammed )
> LBJ Yes ( but pretty much bogus )
> Nixon No
> Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
> Carter No
> Reagan No
> GHW Bush Yes
> Clinton No
> GW Bush No
>
> Analysis:
> Overall; 4 yes, 8 no
>
> Dems 2 yes, 4 no
> Repubs 2 yes, 4 no
>
> Presided over a significant war as president 3 yes 4 no
>
> Didn't
> 1 yes 4 no
>
> Service academy graduates 0 yes 2 no
>
> Army/AF vets 0 yes 4 no
> Navy 4 yes 2 no
>
> Conclusions: Damfino
>
> Maybe there isn't a real pattern.
>
> Bob McKellar

You forgot Carter's attack by a "rabbitfire" :-)

Dudley

[Laurence Doering]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:50:21 GMT, Fred J McCall > wrote:
> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>:
>:>Ford Yes ( in an impersonal way )
>:
>:He was shot at by Squeaky From. That was pretty personal.
>
> Well, no, he wasn't. He was AIMED AT by Squeaky Fromme. The gun was
> not loaded.

Y'all are forgetting Sarah Jane Moore, who did fire a shot at Gerald Ford
outside the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco on 22 September 1975 (7 days
after Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme's attempt to shoot him outside the California
State House in Sacramento). Moore had a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver. A
bystander named Oliver Sipple grabbed Moore's arm when he saw the gun and
the shot went wild, wounding a cab driver who was nearby.

Fromme's .45 automatic was loaded (rounds in the magazine), but she either
didn't know she had to work the weapon's slide to chamber a round or forgot
to do it. According to at least one account, she shouted, "It didn't go off.
It didn't go off. Can you believe it?" as she was being handcuffed by a
Secret Service agent, so apparently Fromme intended to shoot Ford. She
most likely would have succeeded if she'd been more familiar with the
gun she tried to use.


ljd

[Steven James Forsberg]

: Since I got so much wrong earlier, I shall nitpickingly ( wait till the spell checker
: sees that one! ) defend myself. I said "His" mission was bogus, not "The" mission,
: on purpose, because I see the story the same way you do.

I shall see your nitpickingly and raise you an argumentational!
"His" mission was as an observer, which was not a bogus mission, just
one that anybody with eyeballs could pretty much accomplish. (awaiting flames
from highly qualified former observers...)
ISTR when I was in that the local helicopter units carried "observers"
when on SAR training missions and such. Almost invariably, they were
attractive young women who had been met at the club. I guess they didn't
have any nurses around so LBJ had to do. :-)

regards,
---------------------------------------------

[Bob McKellar]

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

> : Since I got so much wrong earlier, I shall nitpickingly ( wait till the spell checker
> : sees that one! ) defend myself. I said "His" mission was bogus, not "The" mission,
> : on purpose, because I see the story the same way you do.
>
> I shall see your nitpickingly and raise you an argumentational!
> "His" mission was as an observer, which was not a bogus mission, just
> one that anybody with eyeballs could pretty much accomplish. (awaiting flames
> from highly qualified former observers...)

We have been back and forth several times today with trivial semantic differences. If we
don't get down to slinging offensive names and insults at each other pretty soon, we'll get
disqualified and banned from these news groups!

Bob

[Ken Adams]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
Michael P. Reed > opposed the empire by writing:
> Bob McKellar > wrote in message
> >...
>> Compiling the list just for fun.
>>

[snip]

> A couple of those were inherited, but for the most part, I think it
> depends upon events of the moment more than actual prior service (or
> having "seen the elephant").


I'd like to see a list like this for Stuarts, Tudors, Windsors, et.
al.


--
Ken
http://www.geocities.com/kmadams85
-- Yo momma...
....so stupid when she went to take the 44 bus, she took the
22 twice instead.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> :"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>
> :> Personal and very scary, but not military. I did remember
> :> that one ( and some others ).
> :
> :When is the CinC not Military?
>
> When you're talking about the United States.

In these United States the President is Commander in Chief of the Military,
as delegated by the US Constitution.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >
> > When is the CinC not Military?
>
> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President of the
United
> States.
>
> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.

I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the President.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:>
:> :"Bob McKellar" > wrote in message
:> ...
:> :>
:> :> Personal and very scary, but not military. I did remember
:> :> that one ( and some others ).
:> :
:> :When is the CinC not Military?
:>
:> When you're talking about the United States.
:
:In these United States the President is Commander in Chief of the Military,
:as delegated by the US Constitution.

And is a civilian, not military.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:
:"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
:news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
:> >
:> >
:> > When is the CinC not Military?
:>
:> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President of the United
:> States.
:>
:> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
:
:I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the President.

Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> :
> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
> :>
> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President of
the United
> :> States.
> :>
> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
> :
> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the President.
>
> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.

The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional in
nature.

[Michael P. Reed]

Garrison Hilliard > wrote in message >...
> > From: (Michael P. Reed)
> >
> >Continuing to the WWII era.
> >
> >Prez. Shot at Major military Action
> >
> >Lincoln No? Yes
>
> Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran, and I can assure you that
> John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.

Black Hawk War, not Mexican (he was a militia captain, and wasn't he
opposed to the Mexican War). But there was not exactly much in the
way of shooting, and I don't know (though perhaps I ought) if Lincoln
was actually ever under fire.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Michael P. Reed) wrote:

> Bob McKellar > wrote in message
> >...
> > Compiling the list just for fun.
> >
> > Starting with WWII era, "shot at" limited to military
> > situations
>
> Continuing to the WWII era.
>
> Prez. Shot at Major military Action
>
> Pierce No (AFAIK) No

Pierce served during the Mexican War, 1846-47. Enlisted as a private in
the Concord Light Infantry, appointed a colonel and then a brigadier
general of volunteers. At the battle of Churubusco, he was injured
falling off a horse, the next day, he wrenched the injured leg so
sharply that he fainted from the pain and was unable to take an active
part in the fighting. Might could have been shot at, in a nonspecific
fashion.

> Harrison Not sure No

Yes. He helped raise the 70th Indiana Infantry and commanded the
regiment as a colonel. He served in Kentucky and took part in Sherman's
march to Atlanta. When the war ended in 1865, he held the brevet rank of
brigadier general.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Garrison Hilliard > wrote:

> > From: (Michael P. Reed)
> >
> >Continuing to the WWII era.
> >
> >Prez. Shot at Major military Action
> >
> >Lincoln No? Yes
>
> Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran,

No, Blackhawk War (about a decade earlier); elected as Captain by one
militia unit, served a while as private in two others, never saw combat.

> and I can assure you that John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.

But in neither the Blackhawk nor Mexican wars.

[bw]

"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
om...
> Garrison Hilliard > wrote in message
>...
> > > From: (Michael P. Reed)
> > >
> > >Continuing to the WWII era.
> > >
> > >Prez. Shot at Major military Action
> > >
> > >Lincoln No? Yes
> >
> > Actually, Lincoln was a Mexican War veteran, and I can assure you that
> > John Wilkes Booth did shoot at him.
>
> Black Hawk War, not Mexican (he was a militia captain, and wasn't he
> opposed to the Mexican War). But there was not exactly much in the
> way of shooting, and I don't know (though perhaps I ought) if Lincoln
> was actually ever under fire.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Michael P. Reed

Lincoln was at Fort Stevens during the attack by Jubal Early. There is some
controversy about whether he actually stood in an exposed position.
Brent Wegher

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
:> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
:> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
:> :> >
:> :> >
:> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
:> :>
:> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President of
:the United
:> :> States.
:> :>
:> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
:> :
:> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the President.
:>
:> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
:> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
:
:The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional in
:nature.

False.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> :> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> :> :> >
> :> :> >
> :> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
> :> :>
> :> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President
of
> :the United
> :> :> States.
> :> :>
> :> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
> :> :
> :> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
President.
> :>
> :> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
> :> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
> :
> :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional in
> :nature.
>
> False.

Show me the DoD in the constitution.

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

<snip>

>The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional in
>nature.

Congress only holds the purse strings. DOD is an Executive Branch function.
They work for the president, not congress.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
:> .. .
:> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
:> :> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
:> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
:> :> :> >
:> :> :> >
:> :> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
:> :> :>
:> :> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the President of the United
:> :> :> States.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
:> :> :
:> :> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the President.
:> :>
:> :> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
:> :> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
:> :
:> :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional in
:> :nature.
:>
:> False.
:
:Show me the DoD in the constitution.

Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
Constitutional in nature".

See Article II, Section 2.

[Dave Kearton]

Ken Adams" > wrote in message
...
| A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
| Michael P. Reed > opposed the empire by writing:
| > Bob McKellar > wrote in message
| > >...
| >> Compiling the list just for fun.
| >>
|
| [snip]
|
| > A couple of those were inherited, but for the most part, I think it
| > depends upon events of the moment more than actual prior service (or
| > having "seen the elephant").
|
|
| I'd like to see a list like this for Stuarts, Tudors, Windsors, et.
| al.
|
|
| --
| Ken



The list is even more impressive for Popes. This is waaaaay off
topic, but the number of Popes who expired to unnatural causes is
bizarre - some of them - around 10 - were even killed by their mistresses
(although the actual method is unclear)






Cheers


Dave Kearton



"

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> :> .. .
> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
> :> :> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
> :> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> :> :> :> >
> :> :> :> >
> :> :> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the
President of the United
> :> :> :> States.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
President.
> :> :>
> :> :> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
> :> :> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
> :> :
> :> :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional
in
> :> :nature.
> :>
> :> False.
> :
> :Show me the DoD in the constitution.
>
> Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
> Constitutional in nature".
>
> See Article II, Section 2.

Article II Section 2 proves my contention, but has zero to do with what you
wrote, Fred.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> <snip>
>
> >The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional in
> >nature.
>
> Congress only holds the purse strings. DOD is an Executive Branch
function.
> They work for the president, not congress.

Nope.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:>
:> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
:> .. .
:> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :
:> :> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
:> :> .. .
:> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
:> :> :> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
:> :> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
:> :> :> :> >
:> :> :> :> >
:> :> :> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the
:President of the United
:> :> :> :> States.
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
:President.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
:> :> :> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
:> :> :
:> :> :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional
:in
:> :> :nature.
:> :>
:> :> False.
:> :
:> :Show me the DoD in the constitution.
:>
:> Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
:> Constitutional in nature".
:>
:> See Article II, Section 2.
:
:Article II Section 2 proves my contention, but has zero to do with what you
:wrote, Fred.

Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> :>
> :> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> :> .. .
> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> :> :> .. .
> :> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in
message
> :> :> :> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
> :> :> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> :> :> :> :> >
> :> :> :> :> >
> :> :> :> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the
> :President of the United
> :> :> :> :> States.
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
> :President.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
> :> :> :> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra
Constitutional
> :in
> :> :> :nature.
> :> :>
> :> :> False.
> :> :
> :> :Show me the DoD in the constitution.
> :>
> :> Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
> :> Constitutional in nature".
> :>
> :> See Article II, Section 2.
> :
> :Article II Section 2 proves my contention, but has zero to do with what
you
> :wrote, Fred.
>
> Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.

I have no such problem, Fred.

The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
DoD in the US Constitution.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:40:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
>DoD in the US Constitution.
>
The DoD is, as you indicate, not mentioned in the Constitution. None
of the Cabinet is mentioned in the Constitution. It was assumed, based
on experience with other democracy's chief executive operations
(including the PM in the British Parliament) that the President would
be assisted by trusted associates in managing the government. (As an
aside, DoD only came into being in 1947 as a replacement for the DoW.)

But, more importantly, the power of the President is inherent in the
Constitution and is delegated by the States. The Congress, as a
co-equal branch of government has no delegational authority.

The President is designated in the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief
of the military and by law may not be a military person. The tradition
of civilian control of the military is a basic tenet of stable
democratic systems.

There's still an empty seat in my American Government class any time
you're in the neighborhood, John.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jack Linthicum]

Steven James Forsberg > wrote in message >...
> B
>
> : Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in a plane
> : that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it were bogus,
> : but the bullets were apparently real.
>
> I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
> real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a congresscritter
> probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it specifically in
> order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military duties had
> been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets were ver
> real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when he
> handed out that star....
> Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
> uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making that
> decision, but I think it was the right one.
>
> BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
> bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on Guadalcanal.
> It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
> Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply officer
> with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all alike....
>
>

No mention of good Quaker Nixon getting bombed, I'm sure after he made
Congressman if there was a half-truth that could be inflated to hero
status he would gotten it. He is a home-town boy and I didn't hear any
thing that could pass as secert dope that Dickie had been brave.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-8.htm
Nixon became an attorney for the Office of Emergency Management in
Washington, D.C. where he worked until he accepted an appointment as
lieutenant junior grade in the United States Naval Reserve on 15 June
1942.


Following his appointment, Nixon began aviation indoctrination
training at the Naval Training School, Naval Air Station in Quonset
Point, Rhode Island. After completing the course in October 1942, he
went to the Naval Reserve Aviation Base in Ottumwa, Iowa, where he
served as Aide to the Executive Officer until May 1943. Looking for
more excitement, Nixon volunteered for sea duty and reported to
Commander Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet where he was assigned as
Officer in Charge of the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command at
Guadalcanal in the Solomons and later at Green Island. His unit
prepared manifests and flight plans for C-47 operations and supervised
the loading and unloading of the cargo aircraft. For this service he
received a Letter of Commendation from the Commander South Pacific
Area and South Pacific Force for "meritorious and efficient
performance of duty as Officer in Charge of the South Pacific Combat
Air Transport Command... " On 1 October 1943, Nixon was promoted to
lieutenant.


From August through December of 1944, Nixon was assigned to Fleet Air
Wing EIGHT. From December through March 1945, he served at the Bureau
of Aeronautics, Navy Department, Washington, D.C. In March, his next
assignment was as the Bureau of Aeronautics Contracting Officer for
Terminations in the Office of the Bureau of Aeronautics General
Representative, Eastern District, headquartered in New York City. In
that capacity he had temporary additional duty at various places,
including Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Buffalo, New York City, and
East Hartford, Connecticut. When he was released from active duty on
10 March 1946. He was promoted to Commander in the Naval Reserve on 1
June 1953.


While on active duty besides the Letter of Commendation, Nixon earned
the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and
the World War II Victory Medal. He is entitled to two engagement stars
on the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal for supporting air action in
the Treasury- Bougainville operations from 27 October to 15 December
1943 and for consolidation of the northern Solomons from 15 December
1943 to 22 July 1944. Nixon transferred to the Retired Reserve of the
Naval Reserve on 1 June 1966.

add: Lt. Richard M. Nixon's Letter of Commendation Citation

COMMENDATION BY COMSOPAC, 25 SEP 1944
TO
LIEUTENANT RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON
UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE


"For meritorious and efficient performance of duty as
Officer-in-Charge of the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command at
Bougainville and later at Green Islands from January 1 to June 16,
1944. During this period, Lieutenant Nixon displayed sound judgment
and initiative in organizing the South Pacific Combat Air Transport
Command activities at both Bougainville and Green Islands. He
established the efficient liaison which made possible the immediate
supply by air of vital material and key personnel, and the prompt
evacuation of battle casualties from these stations to rear areas. His
able leadership, tireless efforts and devotion to duty were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

Pertinent verses from H.M.S. Pinafore, slightly altered to fit the
circumstances

5. I was so brave that I was sent
By Commie bashing into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
He never thought of thinking for himself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Whole Navee!
He thought so little, they rewarded he
By making him the Ruler of the Whole Navee!

6. Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Whole Navee!
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Whole Navee!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> Steven James Forsberg > wrote in message
>...
> > B
> >
> > : Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in
a plane
> > : that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it
were bogus,
> > : but the bullets were apparently real.
> >
> > I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
> > real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a
congresscritter
> > probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it specifically
in
> > order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military duties
had
> > been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets were
ver
> > real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when he
> > handed out that star....
> > Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
> > uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making that
> > decision, but I think it was the right one.
> >
> > BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
> > bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on
Guadalcanal.
> > It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
> > Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply
officer
> > with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all alike....
> >
> >
>
> No mention of good Quaker Nixon getting bombed, I'm sure after he made
> Congressman if there was a half-truth that could be inflated to hero
> status he would gotten it. He is a home-town boy and I didn't hear any
> thing that could pass as secert dope that Dickie had been brave.

You go on to list an article that indicates he served his years, did his
duty, actually sought to get into the combat theater...and yet all you can
do is poke fun at him. He never claimed to be a combat hero, and he never
was awarded a bogus Silver Star like LBJ. He did not come back home and
start labeling his compatriots as war criminals without a sound basis in
fact, as your buddy Kerry did. So just what is your beef with Nixon's
service? Would you like him better if he had made up stuff, like you have
done with your laughable "trained on demo at Camp Perry" crap, Jack?

Brooks

<snip>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:40:51 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is
no
> >DoD in the US Constitution.
> >
> The DoD is, as you indicate, not mentioned in the Constitution. None
> of the Cabinet is mentioned in the Constitution. It was assumed, based
> on experience with other democracy's chief executive operations
> (including the PM in the British Parliament) that the President would
> be assisted by trusted associates in managing the government. (As an
> aside, DoD only came into being in 1947 as a replacement for the DoW.)

All Cabinet level Executive positions are Congressional Authority delegated
to the Excutive. The reason the GAO can investigate Cabinet level officers
and their offices is because they exist as an extension of Congress.

> But, more importantly, the power of the President is inherent in the
> Constitution and is delegated by the States. The Congress, as a
> co-equal branch of government has no delegational authority.

LOL

The Congress has proven that they can Delegate spending authority to the
Executive.

> The President is designated in the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief
> of the military and by law may not be a military person. The tradition
> of civilian control of the military is a basic tenet of stable
> democratic systems.

Non-sequitur.

The President of these United States is Commander of the Military because
George Washington insisted on the Power. Washington, as Commander of the
Army of Virginia, was the most powerful man in North America and he was not
interested in being President without command of the Military.

No George Washington, no Constitution.

> There's still an empty seat in my American Government class any time
> you're in the neighborhood, John.

I would not wish to be contaminated by your negative knowledge, Rasimus.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...

>
> The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the
power
> to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
> president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not
merely
> give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting George
Washington to agree to be President.

The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level Executive
heads.

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
>
> I have no such problem, Fred.
>
> The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
> DoD in the US Constitution.

This is Meaningless

The constitution, not congress grants the president all "executive" authority

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America.....

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia
of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
he may require the opinion, in
writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any
subject relating to the duties of their
respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for
offenses against the United States,
except in cases of impeachment.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the power
to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not merely
give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.

Vince

[Tarver Engineering]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had
the
> > power
> > > to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander".
The
> > > president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does
not merely
> > > give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.
> >
> > The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting
George
> > Washington to agree to be President.
>
> you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as
commander
> in chief derives from the constitution.

I am educating you professor, don't attempt to project your confusion on to
me.

> > The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
> > Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level
Executive
> > heads.
>
> no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress
that can Advise and consent.
> has nothing to do with the spending power.

All Cabinet level positions are created by Congress to spend Congress'
money. It is a way for Congress to evade their responsibility for spending.
If Congress had to write a check each time, as provided for by the
Constitution, there would be no excuse for out of control spending.

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the
> power
> > to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
> > president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not
> merely
> > give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.
>
> The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting George
> Washington to agree to be President.

you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as commander
in chief derives from the constitution.


>
> The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
> Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level Executive
> heads.

no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress that
can Advise and consent.
has nothing to do with the spending power.

Vince


he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall
appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme
Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the
Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they
think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of
departments.

Vince

[Steven James Forsberg]

B

: You go on to list an article that indicates he served his years, did his
: duty, actually sought to get into the combat theater...and yet all you can
: do is poke fun at him. He never claimed to be a combat hero, and he never
: was awarded a bogus Silver Star like LBJ. He did not come back home and
: start labeling his compatriots as war criminals without a sound basis in
: fact, as your buddy Kerry did. So just what is your beef with Nixon's

No, Nixon never started labeling his compatriots as war criminals.
He labeled them as commies and pinkos, instead. Or stood by while his
constituency did so. Just ask Marshall... ;-)

regards,
----------------------------------------------------

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Steven James Forsberg > wrote in message
> >...
> > > B
> > >
> > > : Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was riding in
> a plane
> > > : that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for it
> were bogus,
> > > : but the bullets were apparently real.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
> > > real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a
> congresscritter
> > > probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it specifically
> in
> > > order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military duties
> had
> > > been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets were
> ver
> > > real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when he
> > > handed out that star....
> > > Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
> > > uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making that
> > > decision, but I think it was the right one.
> > >
> > > BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
> > > bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on
> Guadalcanal.
> > > It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
> > > Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply
> officer
> > > with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all alike....
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No mention of good Quaker Nixon getting bombed, I'm sure after he made
> > Congressman if there was a half-truth that could be inflated to hero
> > status he would gotten it. He is a home-town boy and I didn't hear any
> > thing that could pass as secert dope that Dickie had been brave.
>
> You go on to list an article that indicates he served his years, did his
> duty, actually sought to get into the combat theater...and yet all you can
> do is poke fun at him. He never claimed to be a combat hero, and he never
> was awarded a bogus Silver Star like LBJ. He did not come back home and
> start labeling his compatriots as war criminals without a sound basis in
> fact, as your buddy Kerry did. So just what is your beef with Nixon's
> service? Would you like him better if he had made up stuff, like you have
> done with your laughable "trained on demo at Camp Perry" crap, Jack?


"I know this is hard for you but the comments are supposed to have
some relevance to the thread. I didn't knock Nixon, I didn't mention
any thing about medals or war criminals or even your favorite fantasy
that I was never at Camp Peary (correct spelling, Camp Perry is in
Ohio where they hold the gun contests). I will introduce to my plumber
sometime, he joined the Navy at 17 went to Seal school, got sucked
into the CIA's favorite game of using others and now has regular
sessions with his psychiatrist. We share Camp Peary as an alma-mater.

You see Nixon came back from what war he had seen and needed to defeat
a very popular Democratic politician, Jerry Voorhees. He decided that
Voorhees was a New Dealer and therefore too Liberal. This at a time
when liberal was good and conservative bad in Southern California.
Nixon won, almost to his amazement. So when he went for the Senate
against Helen Gahagen Douglas the campaign was destined to be one of
the nation's most famous--and infamous. Nixon, waging an inspiring
red-baiting campaign, was unrelenting in his charges. If he never
actually called her a communist, saying she was "pink right down to
her underwear" was not a fashion critique. His legions were yet less
restrained. Murray Chotiner, Nixon's campaign manager, printed an
infamous flyer that was handed out at rallies. Printed on pink paper
(and, thus, forever known as the "pink sheet"), it more than implied a
connection between Douglas and communism.

Other Nixon campaign workers called Douglas a communist when they
approached strangers on the street. They called her a communist when
they telephoned thousands of homes the night before the election. In
an era when the nation's fear was palpable, the strategy was a great
success. On election day Nixon won handily. Douglas never again ran
for public office. She did not, however, leave the spotlight. A
tireless public speaker and activist, Douglas lobbied for liberal
causes until her death on June 28, 1980, in New York. "

Now where did I say anything about Nixon that would imply that he was
disloyal and made stuff up? You are advised to 1) Learn to answer the
questions and not make up your own and 2) Try to keep your responses
(I can't call them answers as they are not) within the topic under
discussion.

[B2431]

>From: "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
>Date: 2/18/2004 3:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >
>> > The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Congress had the
>> power
>> > to create an army and navy, but the president was its "commander". The
>> > president gives "military" orders to subordinate commanders. He does not
>> merely
>> > give "policy" direction as the Prime minister did in England.
>>
>> The President is "commander" because that was the price of getting George
>> Washington to agree to be President.
>
>you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as
>commander
>in chief derives from the constitution.
>
>
>>
>> The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
>> Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level Executive
>> heads.
>
>no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress
>that
>can Advise and consent.
>has nothing to do with the spending power.
>
>Vince
>
>
>he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
>shall
>appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
>Supreme
>Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are
>not
>herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the
>Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they
>think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads
>of
>departments.
>
>Vince
>
Vince, tarver has never allowed reality to get in the way and will never admit
when he's wrong. If you need a laugh do a Google search of his name in
newsgroups like this one and RAH. He's spewed in many others and has even
claimed to be an expert on a wide range of subjects.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Steven James Forsberg > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > B
> > > >
> > > > : Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was
riding in
> > a plane
> > > > : that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for
it
> > were bogus,
> > > > : but the bullets were apparently real.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
> > > > real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a
> > congresscritter
> > > > probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it
specifically
> > in
> > > > order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military
duties
> > had
> > > > been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets
were
> > ver
> > > > real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when
he
> > > > handed out that star....
> > > > Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
> > > > uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making
that
> > > > decision, but I think it was the right one.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
> > > > bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on
> > Guadalcanal.
> > > > It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
> > > > Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply
> > officer
> > > > with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all
alike....
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > No mention of good Quaker Nixon getting bombed, I'm sure after he made
> > > Congressman if there was a half-truth that could be inflated to hero
> > > status he would gotten it. He is a home-town boy and I didn't hear any
> > > thing that could pass as secert dope that Dickie had been brave.
> >
> > You go on to list an article that indicates he served his years, did his
> > duty, actually sought to get into the combat theater...and yet all you
can
> > do is poke fun at him. He never claimed to be a combat hero, and he
never
> > was awarded a bogus Silver Star like LBJ. He did not come back home and
> > start labeling his compatriots as war criminals without a sound basis in
> > fact, as your buddy Kerry did. So just what is your beef with Nixon's
> > service? Would you like him better if he had made up stuff, like you
have
> > done with your laughable "trained on demo at Camp Perry" crap, Jack?
>
>
> "I know this is hard for you but the comments are supposed to have
> some relevance to the thread. I didn't knock Nixon,

Nah, of course not...that whole HMS Pinafore ditty was not directed at the
subject you were discussing, now was it?

I didn't mention
> any thing about medals or war criminals or even your favorite fantasy
> that I was never at Camp Peary (correct spelling, Camp Perry is in
> Ohio where they hold the gun contests). I will introduce to my plumber
> sometime, he joined the Navy at 17 went to Seal school, got sucked
> into the CIA's favorite game of using others and now has regular
> sessions with his psychiatrist. We share Camp Peary as an alma-mater.

Sure you do, Jack. You and Walter Mitty, that is...

<snip>

>
> Now where did I say anything about Nixon that would imply that he was
> disloyal and made stuff up?

I didn't say that. I asked if you'd have been happier with him if he had
made stuff up, like you do...

Brooks

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:>
:> Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.
:
:I have no such problem, Fred.
:
:The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is no
:DoD in the US Constitution.

No, the DoD is an EXECUTIVE agency, so it can hardly be "Congressional
Authority". Go read that Constitution again, right where I told you
to, where it talks about "heads of executive agencies" or some such.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Steven James Forsberg]

: Which beats the hell out of giving aid and comfort to the enemy
: like Hanoi Bob. The fact that Macarthy was right about Communists
: in the State Department never seems to appear in these discussions.
: Kerry's campaign song ought to be something entitled "Commie Chameleon"
: a rework of that Boy George thingie err... thingie.

Tailgunner Joe was rather like the Southern sherrif who actually
accidentally lynched a few criminals during a career of lynching blacks.
Not that Joe was always wrong. Take for example his declaiming the
US military for using "Gestapo Tactics" and resigning in protest from
a committee investigation -- protesting US "tribunals" used by the military
to convict accused German war criminals tried at Dachau. He thought that the
US was committing a grave injustice in the methods it used to try, among
others, those accused of the Malmedy massacres.
I guess since Germany had been defeated it was no longer giving aid
and comfort to the "enemy"? ;-)
I
regards,
----------------------------------------------------------

[Jack Linthicum]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Steven James Forsberg > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > B
> > > > >
> > > > > : Johnson got a direct commission while a congressman. He was
> riding in
> a plane
> > > > > : that was attacked. His "mission" was bogus, the decorations for
> it
> were bogus,
> > > > > : but the bullets were apparently real.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't call the missio "bogus." The aerial missions were very
> > > > > real, it's just that LBJ volunteered to go along. His being a
> congresscritter
> > > > > probably assisted in the process, and he may have done it
> specifically
> in
> > > > > order to fight charges of being 'yellow'. His previous military
> duties
> had
> > > > > been in war production and inspection tours. However, the bullets
> were
> ver
> > > > > real. On the other hand, most agree that Mac was kissing arse when
> he
> > > > > handed out that star....
> > > > > Personally, I think that keeping serving congressfolks out of
> > > > > uniform is a splendid idea. ISTR that FDR got some flak for making
> that
> > > > > decision, but I think it was the right one.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, does anyone know specifically if Nixon was present during a
> > > > > bombing? Would that get counted as "shot at"? Nixon served on
> Guadalcanal.
> > > > > It was right after the pullout of Japanese ground troops, but didn't
> > > > > Henderson field still get bombed once in a while? He was a supply
> officer
> > > > > with the Pacific air forces, but bombs (like rain) fall on all
> alike....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No mention of good Quaker Nixon getting bombed, I'm sure after he made
> > > > Congressman if there was a half-truth that could be inflated to hero
> > > > status he would gotten it. He is a home-town boy and I didn't hear any
> > > > thing that could pass as secert dope that Dickie had been brave.
> > >
> > > You go on to list an article that indicates he served his years, did his
> > > duty, actually sought to get into the combat theater...and yet all you
> can
> > > do is poke fun at him. He never claimed to be a combat hero, and he
> never
> > > was awarded a bogus Silver Star like LBJ. He did not come back home and
> > > start labeling his compatriots as war criminals without a sound basis in
> > > fact, as your buddy Kerry did. So just what is your beef with Nixon's
> > > service? Would you like him better if he had made up stuff, like you
> have
> > > done with your laughable "trained on demo at Camp Perry" crap, Jack?
> >
> >
> > "I know this is hard for you but the comments are supposed to have
> > some relevance to the thread. I didn't knock Nixon,
>
> Nah, of course not...that whole HMS Pinafore ditty was not directed at the
> subject you were discussing, now was it?
>

You then have forgotten the Gilbert and Sullivan costumes, er
uniforms, that RMN wanted for his 'palace guard'? And William
Rehnquist's 'Lord High Executioner' stripes for his robes?

> I didn't mention
> > any thing about medals or war criminals or even your favorite fantasy
> > that I was never at Camp Peary (correct spelling, Camp Perry is in
> > Ohio where they hold the gun contests). I will introduce to my plumber
> > sometime, he joined the Navy at 17 went to Seal school, got sucked
> > into the CIA's favorite game of using others and now has regular
> > sessions with his psychiatrist. We share Camp Peary as an alma-mater.
>
> Sure you do, Jack. You and Walter Mitty, that is...
>

Walt didn't make it, washed out 'cause he couldn't spell Peary. And I
thought you grew up around there, looks like you didn't, grow up, that
is.

> <snip>
>
> >
> > Now where did I say anything about Nixon that would imply that he was
> > disloyal and made stuff up?
>
> I didn't say that. I asked if you'd have been happier with him if he had
> made stuff up, like you do...
>
>

Yes, I do quote stuff you can't get from reading Army training
manuals. 'Parafin oil', anyone?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :>
> :> Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.
> :
> :I have no such problem, Fred.
> :
> :The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is
no
> :DoD in the US Constitution.
>
> No, the DoD is an EXECUTIVE agency, so it can hardly be "Congressional
> Authority".

What color is the sky in your world, Fred?

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> > you are confusing rationale with the basis for power. The status as
> commander
> > in chief derives from the constitution.
>
> I am educating you professor, don't attempt to project your confusion on to
> me.
>

I'm always happy to be educated. I studied Constitutional law. I've even
published on it.
see below


>
> > > The DoD is a mechanism whererby Congress' money is spent. That is why
> > > Congress has the Authority to confirm, or reject, Cabinet level
> Executive
> > > heads.
> >
> > no, The constitution confers that power , and its the senate, not congress
> that can Advise and consent.
> > has nothing to do with the spending power.
>
> All Cabinet level positions are created by Congress to spend Congress'
> money.

Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

> It is a way for Congress to evade their responsibility for spending.
> If Congress had to write a check each time, as provided for by the
> Constitution, there would be no excuse for out of control spending.

nonsense. Spending is an executive function. Congress "appropriates" money

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations
made by law; and a regular
statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be
published from time to time. "

Appropriation is a legislative function. Spending money is an executive
function.

Vince

[Tarver Engineering]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...

> Its the governments money, not "congress'" money

Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
Congress'.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:


> > >
> > > "I know this is hard for you but the comments are supposed to have
> > > some relevance to the thread. I didn't knock Nixon,
> >
> > Nah, of course not...that whole HMS Pinafore ditty was not directed at
> > the
> > subject you were discussing, now was it?
> >
>
> You then have forgotten the Gilbert and Sullivan costumes, er
> uniforms, that RMN wanted for his 'palace guard'?

I was honored to be in the "cheering White House crowd" during their
single public appearance, a visit by the UK PM. The media never quite
got the embarrassed looks on the police faces. OTOH, _nobody_ knew what
they were, so perhaps they could brush it off.

Gad, they looked ridiculous.

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Its the governments money, not "congress'" money
>
> Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
> Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
> Congress'.

But the Treasury is the executive's. Its just like the army, the Congress can
provide for one, but the president is in charge of it. that's how it works.

Vince

[Tarver Engineering]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Its the governments money, not "congress'" money
> >
> > Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of
the
> > Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
> > Congress'.
>
> But the Treasury is the executive's. Its just like the army, the Congress
can
> provide for one, but the president is in charge of it. that's how it
works.

Non-sequitur.

You are back to confusing Constitutional Authority with Enabling Law, Vince.

What crank outfit published anything you wrote about the constitution,
Vince. Is there a link to the paper?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
...

Your claim to have written to Constitutional Law was just some cut and
paste, Vince.

[Prof. Vincent Brannigan]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Its the governments money, not "congress'" money
> > >
> > > Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of
> the
> > > Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution. The purse is
> > > Congress'.
> >
> > But the Treasury is the executive's. Its just like the army, the Congress
> can
> > provide for one, but the president is in charge of it. that's how it
> works.
>
> Non-sequitur.
>
> You are back to confusing Constitutional Authority with Enabling Law, Vince.

nonsense. The constitution divided spending authority between the executive
and the legislature.

See below

>
>
> What crank outfit published anything you wrote about the constitution,
> Vince. Is there a link to the paper?

my particular work is in contrasting federal and state regulatory power cf

Brannigan, Applying New Laws to Existing Buildings: Retrospective Fire Safety
Codes,
60 U. DET. J. URB. L. 447, 460 (1983)


But the issue you are confused on is clearly stated in Cases such as BOWSHER.
the constituion clearly sets out separate spheres of action for congress and the
president. Its constituional not statutory.

"We noted recently that "[the] Constitution sought to divide the delegated
powers of the new Federal Government into three defined categories,
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983).
The declared
purpose of separating and dividing the powers of government, of course, was to
"[diffuse] power the better to secure liberty." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Justice Jackson's
words
echo the famous warning of Montesquieu, quoted by James Madison in The
Federalist No. 47, that "'there can be no liberty where the legislative and
executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates'. . . ."
The Federalist No. 47, p. 325 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

Even a cursory examination of the Constitution reveals the influence of
Montesquieu's thesis that checks and balances were the foundation of a
structure of government that would protect liberty. The Framers provided a
vigorous Legislative Branch and a separate and wholly independent Executive
Branch, with each branch responsible ultimately to the people. The Framers also
provided for a Judicial Branch equally independent with "[the] judicial Power .
.. . [extending] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States." Art. III, § 2.

Other, more subtle, examples of separated powers are evident as well. Unlike
parliamentary systems such as that of Great Britain, no person who is an
officer of the United States may serve as a Member of the Congress. Art. I, §
6. Moreover, unlike parliamentary systems, the President, under Article II, is
responsible not to the Congress but to the people, subject only to impeachment
proceedings which are exercised by the two Houses as representatives of the
people. Art. II, § 4. And even in the impeachment of a President the presiding
officer of the ultimate tribunal is not a member of the Legislative Branch, but
the Chief Justice of the United States. Art. I, § 3.

[6]That this system of division and separation of powers produces conflicts,
confusion, and discordance at times is inherent, but it was deliberately so
structured to assure full, vigorous, and open debate on the great issues
affecting the people and to provide avenues for the operation of checks on the
exercise of governmental power.

]The Constitution does not contemplate an active role for Congress in the
supervision of officers charged with the execution of the laws it enacts. The
President appoints "Officers of the United States" with the "Advice and Consent
of the Senate. . . ." Art. II, § 2. Once the appointment has been made and
confirmed, however, the Constitution explicitly provides for removal of Officers
of the United States by Congress only upon impeachment by the House of
Representatives and conviction by the Senate. An impeachment by the House and
trial by the Senate can rest only on "Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors." Art. II, § 4. A direct congressional role in the removal of
officers charged with the execution of the laws beyond this limited one is
inconsistent with separation of powers.

BOWSHER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES v. SYNAR, MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
ET AL.
No. 85-1377
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 714; 106 S. Ct. 3181; 92 L. Ed. 2d 583; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 141; 54
U.S.L.W. 5064


Vince

[B2431]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>Well then Brannigan, you clearly never had a sufficient understanding of the
>Constitution to puvblish anything WRT the Constitution.

<Begin quote>

Vincent Brannigan


Vincent Brannigan

Professor, J.D.
Professor Vincent Brannigan holds his Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown
University and is a member of the Maryland and D.C. Bars. He has been a full
time faculty member at the University of Maryland since 1977. Prior to joining
the faculty, he worked at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National
Fire Prevention and Control Administration and the Center for Fire Research at
the National Bureau of Standards. He authored the legal materials for the Open
Learning Fire Service Program and has been an adjunct faculty member at the US
Fire Academy since it was founded.

Professor Brannigan's primary research and teaching areas are product liability
and government regulation of technology, with a special emphasis on the problem
of dealing with novel technologies. He has been a consultant on technology and
the law to the Office of Technology Assessment and other federal agencies and
has assisted numerous local regulatory officials.

<end quote>

Source: http://www.cee.umd.edu/fireprotect/fac/fac_Brannigan.html

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[fudog50]

LOL at Tarver!!! Read what Fred is saying for crying out loud! You
guys are going back and forth like a coupla kids!
Nice to see I'm not the only one that sees some loss of comprehension
on his part!

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:28:42 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>:
>:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
>:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>:>
>:> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
>:> .. .
>:> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>:> :>
>:> :> :
>:> :> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
>:> :> .. .
>:> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>:> :> :>
>:> :> :> :
>:> :> :> :"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
>:> :> :> :news:ZHsYb.331816$I06.3436307@attbi_s01...
>:> :> :> :> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>:> :> :> :> >
>:> :> :> :> >
>:> :> :> :> > When is the CinC not Military?
>:> :> :> :>
>:> :> :> :> If "CinC" means "Commander in Chief", then when he's the
>:President of the United
>:> :> :> :> States.
>:> :> :> :>
>:> :> :> :> If you mean something else in context, please define CinC.
>:> :> :> :
>:> :> :> :I am refering to the Constitutional authority delegated to the
>:President.
>:> :> :>
>:> :> :> Which does not make him 'military' any more than the Secretary of
>:> :> :> Defense is 'military' or the Secretary of the Navy is 'a sailor'.
>:> :> :
>:> :> :The DoD is delegated Congressional authority and extra Constitutional
>:in
>:> :> :nature.
>:> :>
>:> :> False.
>:> :
>:> :Show me the DoD in the constitution.
>:>
>:> Show me Tarver in the Constitution. That's doesn't make you "extra
>:> Constitutional in nature".
>:>
>:> See Article II, Section 2.
>:
>:Article II Section 2 proves my contention, but has zero to do with what you
>:wrote, Fred.
>
>Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> LOL at Tarver!!! Read what Fred is saying for crying out loud! You
> guys are going back and forth like a coupla kids!

Fred is ****ing up a rope.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
:>
:> :"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
:> .. .
:> :>
:> :> Work on that reading comprehension, Tarver.
:> :
:> :I have no such problem, Fred.
:> :
:> :The DoD is Congressional Authority delegated to the Executive. There is
:no
:> :DoD in the US Constitution.
:>
:> No, the DoD is an EXECUTIVE agency, so it can hardly be "Congressional
:> Authority".
:
:What color is the sky in your world, Fred?

Well, my world is called 'Earth' and the country under discussion is
named "the United States of America". I'm not sure where the ****
you're coming from, but it is obviously someplace quite different.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

:
:"fudog50" > wrote in message
.. .
:> LOL at Tarver!!! Read what Fred is saying for crying out loud! You
:> guys are going back and forth like a coupla kids!
:
:Fred is ****ing up a rope.
:

And Tarver is licking it off.