Why Grover Cleveland and not Coolidge or Jefferson?

[MaxPower]

Actually I rank the Quasi-War as an accomplishment. France violated our national sovereignty by attacking our neutral trading ships and seizing their goods and our men for France. Then they had the balls to demand a bribe form us to restore peace? Bullcrap! Act of war if I ever heard of one. And unlike Jefferson, who thought it was cool to go to war without a declaration, Adams got authorization from Congress to attack French warships.

On a side note, we also got this from a Supreme Court ruling of the time: "Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress." And that should be recognized today!

Jefferson didn't "go to war without a declaration." Congress had actually drafted a bill before he even took office putting forces on command for Jefferson to employ in defense of American ships which were actively being attacked- and remember, even Ron Paul supported immediate defensive action against Al Qaeda without a formal "declaration of war." The idea is that strictly defensive reactions can be undertaken forthwith, but the Congress has to declare war before you can launch an offensive or long-term military campaign.

This is a particularly frustrating meme because Jefferson was one of history's most scrupulous defenders of the notion that the president does not have the power to go to war without a declaration from Congress; in fact, he himself explicitly wrote that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." Congress subsequently passed a bill explicitly authorizing him to undertake all such "acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

[MaxPower]

I get so sick and tired of you Jefferson arsekissers trashing on John Adams. That man was a greater President and human being than Thomas Jefferson ever was. There is no such thing as a "marginal" violation of the Constitution. That is like saying Obama is a great President for "marginally" violating the Constitution by forcing socialized healthcare on everyone. And yes, I know about the Alien and Sedition Acts. But you know what? I'm not afraid to face the negative aspects of Adams' Presidency while all you Jefferson cronies do is make excuse after excuse why its ok for Jefferson to be immoral and unconstitutional. Its disgusting.

No, Jefferson was a far better president than Adams. Adams raised internal taxes and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson, working with the Democratic-Republican Congress, repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts, pardoned those prosecuted under them, abolished the Whiskey Tax, property tax, and all other standing internal taxes, prohibited the trans-atlantic slave trade, and cut the national debt by a third. In terms of accomplishment for libertarian causes, Jefferson was absolutely one of the very best presidents the United States has ever had.

As for the Louisiana Purchase, I disagree; there is such a thing as a marginal violation of the Constitution. Much as I wish it were not, the Constitution is actually ambiguous in some areas the drafters did not make provision for, including territorial expansion. Now, the president has diplomacy/treaty-making power with foreign nations, without any specific enumeration or prohibition of certain types of treaties, and territorial expansion is something traditionally affected through treaties, so it does not seem terribly obvious that territorial expansion through a presidential treaty is unconstitutional. Congress subsequently ratified the treaty, as the Constitution requires.

It was because Jefferson was such a strict and consistent constitutionalist, rightly wary of accepting the notion of the kind of "implied powers" I've just suggested, that he was even concerned about the issue of the power for; few other presidents would have given it a second thought. Anyway, what Jefferson did in the Louisiana Purchase falls into a sort of grey area wherein the Constitution itself is (unfortunately) ambiguous, and is not at all comparable to Obama's health care act or any other such law which goes directly against the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

[SpicyTurkey]

Even granting that it was a treaty, there are still serious problems regarding the legality of the Louisiana Purchase.
For one thing, Napoleon had no right under the French constitution to sell it.
For another, France had agreed that it would never sell or alienate the territory when it acquired Louisiana from Spain.

Those are Frances problems, not America. France was held responsible to the treaties.

[Conza88]

/thread

[Occam's Banana]

Those are Frances problems, not America. France was held responsible to the treaties.

Well. the way things actually worked out, I guess it really wasn't anyone's problem.

But if things had been a bit different, it very well could have become our problem.

I don't know if Spain had any complaints about France violating the terms of their treaty, but if the Spaniards had had strong objections - and had been in a position to militarily assert those objections - history might be quite a bit different. Or if Napoleon had, say, been overthrown and had the new French regime told America, "Give the Louisiana territory back - it's ours - Bonaparte had no authority to sell it to you!"

A militant Spain (or a France freshly divested of Napoleon) would have been correct in assertiing that the Louisiana Purchase was an illegal transaction.

That didn't happen, of course. But it could have.