Yes, FFA, the Articles allowed us more freedom than did the Constitution, but both were POLITICAL, committee documents, loaded with compromises of principle, that re-established the State, which the Declaration, a PHILOSOPHICAL document, had abolished.

Quite so. Time was literally of the essence. And communication tools months. It was a wise decision.

Yes, VERY interesting. My understanding is that Congress has authorized Jefferson to purchase a bit of the area around New Orleans for $7,000,000 so that the USA could have control of the sea port that provided access to/from most of the interior country.

Because of Napolean's great need of money, he offered a huge area that included land to or near tnear the Canadian border, an area that more than doubled the size of the USA at the time ... for $15,000,000. There was no way to contact Congress, no trans-Atlantic cable, no wireless technology, no long-flight carrier pigeons. Napoleon would not keep that offer open to wait for ships to cross the Atlantic twice, plus time for Congress to debate the issue. Jefferson accepted the offer, yes, unconstitutionally. Excellent decision, I think,.

And the articles of confederation, too.

Snowden and Napolitano are both our heroes and champion of freedom.

'tho the Declaration is a far better document.

other false-flag disaster in the next 3 months would be unsurprising. The Statists are desperate.

Well, the immediate reference to the "Dictator's Handbook" to support the thesis that Jefferson sought to expand his power as president - does just that - directly implies.

And go back to your original post, every elected president since Jefferson's "precedent" has sought to increase dictatorial powers.

Again, I think your characterization of Jefferson is off the mark.

I never said, nor implied, Jefferson = dictator. My point was, and is, once a person gains power the person seeks to enhance that power. The other things I mentioned simply were to illustrate the point. The late Robert Le FEvre wrote about this, too, but the "Dictator's Handbook" is more recent.

This is interesting history, but easily distorted without references. Such as the site is, Wickipedia mentions the promise/pledge made by France in 1801. The problem with this as an impediment to legality is that it was not in the Treaty. Essentially under contract law, France could do what they wanted. Sure it may chap a hide or two, but that is nowhere near the level of breaking a Treaty.

Also part of the problem with this thesis is that Napoleon had taken both executive and legislative power in 1799. He could do what he wanted. Uncomfortably close to a certain Obummer today.

And apparently the transfer was made effective from Spain to France in October of 1802, and was actually signed into agreement in April of 1801. At least a year or more before transferring it to the United States.

So, all the machinations between France and Spain aside, none of this casts aspersions on Jefferson's presidency. It appears the two biggest political situations in his presidency was the Purchase in his first term and the Embargo issue in his second term. The Purchase makes absolute sense - don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Sure, there was nothing providing for this in the Constitution, but nothing preventing it either. While the later embargo issue may or may have not been a mistake or bad policy, it was duly passed by Congress - no usurpation of power here either.

I see nothing yet justifying characterizing Jefferson as a dictator. Napoleon, yes, Hitler, yes, Stalin, yes, Obama, yes, Jefferson - no.

The point, again, is not how the expansion is done. The point is that once in power, those who advocate less power will actually expand their power the best way they can. The book "The Dicatator's Handbook" explains this very well.

My information about Jefferson I unearthed by accident when researching for my upcoming historical novel: "If Abe Had Been Honest." I document the Louisana Purchase there.

Most domestic objections were politically settled. One problem, however, was too important to argue down convincingly: did Napoleon have the right to sell Louisiana to the United States?

The sale violated the 1800 Third Treaty of San Ildefonso in several ways. Furthermore, France had promised Spain it would never sell or alienate Louisiana to a third party. Napoleon, Jefferson, Madison, and the members of Congress all knew this during the debates about the purchase in 1803. Spain protested strongly, and Madison made some attempt to justify the purchase to the Spanish government, but was unable to do so convincingly. So, he tried continuously until results had been proven remorsefully inadequate.

Spain's argument that Napoleon did not have a right to sell Louisiana was explicated by the historian Henry Adams, who wrote: "The sale of Louisiana to the United States was trebly invalid; if it were French property, Bonaparte could not constitutionally alienate it without the consent of the Chambers; if it were Spanish property, he could not alienate it at all; if Spain had a right of reclamation, his sale was worthless."

The sale of course was not "worthless"—the US actually did take possession. Furthermore the Spanish prime minister had authorized the U.S. to negotiate with the French government "the acquisition of territories which may suit their interests." Spain turned the territory over to France in a ceremony in New Orleans on November 30, a month before France turned it over to American officials.

So, peaceful expansion through Treaty is wrong? And why can't a Treaty involve a purchase?

I would be interested to see references to support your disparaging opinion.

That is what they all say. But, his actions were to almost double the size of territory under his command. Which speaks closer to the truth? Besides, most of the good stuff he said was BEFORE he became president and partook of the elixor of power.

I have no ambition to govern men; it is a painful and thankless office.

Thomas Jefferson

Exactly. France was a threat in Europe. That is why Bonapart needed more money. He could barely fight those wars and could not start a new one in the Western Hemisphere. Besides, France only owned the Louisana Territory for three weeks before selling to the US. Nonetheless, my overall point was politicians once in power seek to make whatever they control bigger and more under their authority.

They characterized it as a treaty only to get around the Constitution. They stretched from over substance. The substance was a purchase. It as this stretching and twisting that causes me to say Jefferson shred the Constitution. The other issues of the legality (or lack of it) on the French side are not relevent here.

Ask the people in Europe and Russia at the time if France wasn't a threat.

Funny you should mention OBozzoCare. I got a canned phone call today telling me how cheap and easy it is to get on the government run health program. I think there may be some worrying going on about the dismal failure it is.

Move to Texas and get a C&C license

And stored in that huge computer complex the government is building. Soon, if not now, they will be tracking every one of us.

That's a travesty! It should be part of being a scout! I thought it was, actually! Ugh.

And as part of that procedure is the Constitutional Doctrine known as the Equal Footing Doctrine. This doctrine maintains that any new states admitted are done so on an Equal Footing with the original 13. Very interesting when considering the Enclave Clause (Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 17) and the supposedly "federal public lands" within a State.

I know that the Equal Footing Doctrine is explicitly written into the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 and the Enabling Act of 1864 for my home State - Nevada.

I wonder if the Louisiana Purchase Treaty has it in there. Oh, boy, more homework.