Did you know … today actually isn’t Presidents Day?
posted at 6:25 pm on February 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe
In case you missed the Headlines item about this, today is actually “the day that isn’t.” For The American Spectator, Peter Hannaford explains:
In 1968 sentiment grew for a Uniform Monday Holiday Act that would move several national holidays from their specific dates to the nearest Monday, thereby reducing down-time for the economy and giving workers a series of three-day holidays. An early draft of the enabling bill would have renamed the Washington’s Birthday holiday “Presidents’ Day” to honor both Washington and Lincoln, whose birthday is on February 12 and has never been a national holiday.
The bill passed and was signed into law as the Uniform Monday Holiday Act on June 28 that year. George Washington’s birthday, February 22, was moved from that date to the third Monday of the month and remains officially, the George Washington’s Birthday Holiday. The term “Presidents’ Day” is not mentioned in the Act.
Before the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, though, there was the President’s Day National Committee, a group that hoped to create an actual President’s Day (possessive, not plural) to honor the office of the president, not any particular president.
Even though today is not that day, it’s still a good time to reflect favorably on the highest office in the country. When the Founders fashioned the presidency, they created something quite new — a leader with sufficient power to execute the laws, but with no claim to power other than that which the people gave him by his election. They considered all options — consuls, triumvirates, administration by committee — and concluded that an energetic executive — unified, durable, adequately provided for and empowered — would best get the job done. Such an energetic executive was neither a king nor a dictator. After all, power from the people — and, crucially, the possibility of removal — was a far cry from the divine right of kings and an hereditary monarchy.
Anti-Federalists were still concerned that the office of the presidency was invested with too much power and, these days, many Americans are apt to agree. Under Obama’s administration, we’ve seen the expansion of the bureaucracy, legislation by executive order and the appointment of corrupt and incompetent individuals to important posts. It’s easy to feel discouraged and to think the Constitution surely could have provided more curbs to the growth of executive power. Abuses of the office, though, don’t diminish the genius of the office as it was constructed, from the manner of the president’s election by the electoral college to the length of the term he would serve. Instead, such abuses are an invitation to revisit the Founders’ original vision for the presidency and to seek to place someone in the office who will respect it and uphold his oath to defend the Constitution itself.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It’s OK, the law is irrelevant to a Dictator.
And it’s especially irrelevant to an affirmative action, Ivy League educated Communist.
It’s all good.
- Barack Obama
OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM
Wouldn’t April 1st be more appropriate?
sharrukin on March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM
I’m sure that April 1st would be more appropriate.
steebo77 on March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM
WRONG. 100% Bi-partisan last year as his budget got ZERO VOTES FROM EITHER PARTY.
hillsoftx on March 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Give the man a break, you homophobes, Dog Eater’s August vacation in Martha’s Vineyard isn’t going to plan itself you know. Bark has things to do that you lowlifes couldn’t possibly understand.
Bishop on March 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM
I’m okay with this. The closer to April 15th… the worse the rollout of his “increased revenue” plan.
blammm on March 8, 2013 at 5:38 PM
FIFY.
hillsoftx on March 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM
Slight difference – in 1988, the deadline was one month earlier (or 33 days to be exact).
Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM
I took a poli sci class in college. It was Government Budgeting.
Shit … all the Professor had to ask, on the final, and all I needed to answer was:
Exam Question – Explain, in detail, the Federal government’s budgetary process?
Exam Answer – There isn’t one, and the government doesn’t give a shit.
That’s a smokin’ “A,” if I’ve ever seen one.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2013 at 5:42 PM
In the ObamiNation, every day that isn’t April 15 is April 1.
Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2013 at 5:42 PM
This is nothing more than an Obama press event scheduled for 12:00 that starts at 1:30.
It shows a lack of leadership and an undisciplined staff who doesn’t take deadlines seriously.
Happy Nomad on March 8, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Or afford. But neither could he except that the filthy bastard isn’t the one doing the paying.
Happy Nomad on March 8, 2013 at 5:46 PM
I wonder if the confiscatory State would mind very much, if we reneged on our timely, tax paying duties?
OhEssYouCowboys on March 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM
The GOP will hold Bark accounta
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry, I just couldn’t get all the way through it.
Bishop on March 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM
Hmmm, this sounds familiar… don’t tell me, I’ll get it… seems like if something is ‘due by law’, then not doing it… damn, it escapes me… not doing it is… bad, or something, and… wait a sec… has… consequences?
What again are the consequences for failure to do something that is ‘due by law’? I know that I fail to do any number of things that are ‘due by law’, I will certainly be fined, and depending on the infraction, may get the pleasure of doing some community service or of being a guest of the state for a vacation to a correctional facility for some amount of time.
I’m curious – these politicians of ours seem to continually fail to do things that are ‘due by law’ – or do things that are ‘against the law’ with shocking regularity – where are their f*cking consequences, hmmm?
Midas on March 8, 2013 at 5:50 PM
bho does not have a flippen clue what a budget is or what is used for, so why would he do one? It wouldn’t matter if bho did do a budget, it wouldn’t get any vote in congress anyways? dingy dong harry wouldn’t bring it up for vote because it might mean he had to DO HIS job?
Afterall, bho is so busy on AF1 campaigning and golfing he doesn’t have time for all that presidental stuff, don’t you know?
L
letget on March 8, 2013 at 5:51 PM
the dude’s getting fitted for an asbestos face mask so when the exploding goes off he won’t be burned so badly this time
He has to be the only president that has never had a single vote for one of his budgets.
I am still cracking up about Andy Harris (?) the congressman from Maryland smacking the CDC guy a couple of days ago. That right there is probably causing a huge rewite.
DanMan on March 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM
exploding ciger…
DanMan on March 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Dear NYT: Can you check your archives and let us know what BO’s excuse was for being 98 days late in 2009 when Dems had control of Senate and House? Heightened bipartisanship?
Buy Danish on March 8, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Nine weeks,more like nine months late!
(sarc).
canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 5:59 PM
“This indicates a troubling unwillingness to lead,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the new delay. “It is odd to me that the president would not have a plan and want the Congress to consider it.”
“Will he ever commit himself to a plan? He has been very effective in criticizing others,” Sessions said. “The budget is so late, it doesn’t give me much confidence. It is almost like he is leading from behind even more that before. “
====================================
Zero Plan from Zero Man,Hopey The Kicking Can Down the Road Warrior!!
canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM
But he’s so dreamy……<3
tru2tx on March 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM
That chart is screwed up. Carter submitted the 1982 budget? Reagan submitted the 1990 budget?
I think the screw up starts with the Nixon-Ford transition. I have no idea whether the timeliness tracks President or year so be wary.
Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM
And what exactly are the Republicans doing about it, exactly? Passing continuing resolutions? That’ll show him.
Daemonocracy on March 8, 2013 at 6:22 PM
I’d have to go back to the Budget Control Act but the President is not submitting just a budget. He is also supposed to submit a ledger of what was spent. I forget the details but the bottom line is that Congress doesn’t get an opinion of what will be needed next year — his proposed budget — but an accounting of the financials of the government, so Congress can do it’s job in financing the government.
Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM
canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:02 PM
But he’s so dreamy……<3
tru2tx on March 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM
tru2tx:Lol,ya especially in Mom Jeans,haha!:)
canopfor on March 8, 2013 at 6:31 PM
Don’t know if this has been posted yet.
Rand Paul OPED
He’s not done :)
Please let him attack the lack of a budget next.
gophergirl on March 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM
[Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:18 PM]
Ignore that. I jumped the gun before looking at the submission dates and assumed the year was the year of the submission.
Dusty on March 8, 2013 at 6:39 PM
No surprise there. He’s always been a day late and a dollar short.
As for the whores at the New York Times, meh! Does anyone really read that rag?
GarandFan on March 8, 2013 at 6:42 PM
…45 days late…is a little better than 4 years late
KOOLAID2 on March 8, 2013 at 7:01 PM
But I’m sure Reagan’s budget was a serious one. A budget for which he actually received votes in Congress. Thus far, none of Obama’s budget submissions have received a single vote.
TarheelBen on March 8, 2013 at 7:08 PM
banana in the tailpipe…
VegasRick on March 8, 2013 at 7:24 PM
It’s a function of who is President when the deadline was supposed to be. From the 1930s through 1990, it was before the inauguration of the next President. It may have made some sense when the federal fiscal year began on July 1, but that was changed in 1976.
In any case, a Presidential budget is, even when one party controls both the Presidency and Congress, essentially advisory only. Each Congressional budget uses its own language and numbers, and then it doesn’t even do more than set soft limits on the approprations bills that actually are the spending.
Steve Eggleston on March 8, 2013 at 7:26 PM
GG: Thanks for posting Rand Paul’s op-ed. It is a great follow up.
My own senator, Pat Toomey, sent out a weekly update email and had this to say about Rand Paul:
Sen. Toomey also explained in his email what he told Obysmal at the dinner on Wednesday. Toomey is a fiscal conservative, interested in the growth and prosperity of our nation. I will post his remarks next.
onlineanalyst on March 8, 2013 at 7:42 PM
What Sen. Toomey said in re to the Wednesday dinner talks with Obysmal (and other fiscal issues):
Late last week, automatic spending cuts went into effect. I continue to believe it is important for the modest magnitude of those cuts to be implemented. I authored a bill that would have allowed the president and federal agency managers to make those reductions in a smarter way. Unfortunately, my idea was not adopted by the Congress.
Nevertheless, I am continuing to work to find a solution and get our country on a sustainable fiscal path. That’s why this week, I accepted President Obama’s invitation to dinner to discuss these issues. I am happy to work with the president if he is willing to work with us. We had a candid and constructive conversation on both sides – most of it about fiscal issues.
There are areas where we could reach common ground, but it’s not going to happen over one dinner. If this were easy, we’d have done it years ago. This is only the beginning of a process and there’s a lot of work left to do.
Speaking with President Obama, I stressed that in order to have economic growth and job creation, we must first get on a sustainable fiscal path. This means long-term structural reforms of the mandatory health care programs. The second huge opportunity that I stressed is that we must have tax reform in order to have strong economic growth and, as a result, more jobs. That means simplifying the tax code, wiping out preferences and lowering marginal rates for all Americans and employers.
As your U.S. Senator, I am willing to work with anyone for the good of everyone in our state and country, and I will continue to seek solutions for our fiscal problems.
onlineanalyst on March 8, 2013 at 7:46 PM
What difference does it make? The only budget that the dog-eater and his cronies can come up with is one with higher taxes and more spending. Do we really want to have to deal with more of that? Screw their budget.
HiJack on March 8, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Is Obama planning on submitting a budget that can actually get a vote? This thing is just a big scam. The Democrats got big budget increases, when they had the power, and they really don’t plan on giving the House, the people who supposedly control the purse strings, any control over the budget at all.
Keep in mind, the House could have gotten control over the budget over 2 years ago. How? Simple, insist on a budget from the Senate. It would have entailed a lot of negative publicity, from Pravda and Izvestia, but eventually, the Senate would have had to propose a budget. Then, in regular order, the budgets would go to reconciliation to work out the differences. The Democrats refused to do this because they wanted to keep their increased spending and, I suspect, the Republicans were willing to go along because the liked the increased spending too.
Don’t be fooled by all the chit/chat from these people, the Democrats would have had to cave if the Republicans held out for a budget from the Senate, because it’s the law. The Republicans willingly bypassed the law by signing CR’s which allowed all of this.
It’s sort of like Congress passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, rather than declaring war on Vietnam. Johnson got the power to bomb and none of the cowards were actually held responsible for declaring war. Just think, the cowards only cost us 58,000 lives. I wonder how many lives would have been lost if they actually had to vote on a declaration of war?
bflat879 on March 8, 2013 at 10:14 PM
(small correction)
landlines on March 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Just wanted to make you aware of latest Sequester travesty – and this is much bigger than WH tours – cancelling all tuition assistance to our soldiers. The link is for Army but I believe all the branches are doing the same thing
https://www.goarmyed.com/public/public_display_news.aspx?news_id=1670&type=5
The Secretary of the Army has approved the suspension of Tuition Assistance effective March 8, 2013. Soldiers will no longer be permitted to submit new requests for Tuition Assistance. However, Soldiers currently enrolled in courses approved for Tuition Assistance are not affected, and will be allowed to complete current course enrollment(s).
This change in the Army Tuition Assistance program applies to all Soldiers, including the Army National Guard and Army Reserves. The Army understands the impacts of this decision and will re-evaluate the decision if the budgetary situation improves.
robertb on March 9, 2013 at 11:28 AM
I don’t think you understand fully.
That is the quote that you should have used. The CR ends March 27. The Feb BLS data came in good. Sequester happened in March. Any and all negative input will be blamed on the sequester and Republican adherence thereof. April 8 is the Monday following the first week; which means that all economic data for March, and 1st Quarter, will be in and have a weekend of “news”. Why such, what looks like, excessive improvement in Feb? Linear narrative – Jan, Feb, March, April’s wahhhmbulance.
Conspiracy? Sure. Plausible? Yes. Bill Clinton just admitted to a conspiracy on DOMA.
John Kettlewell on March 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM