« Prev Page

Handover Horror Stories

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

1800- 01
The administration of George Washington was nonpartisan, but as his second term ended in 1796, two competing philosophies squared off. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, banks, military and judiciary, while the Republicans prized states' rights and a laissez-faire federal approach. Due to a deadlock, the election of 1800 was not decided until February, but John Adams knew he was out of contention early on. From December to the Inauguration in March (which Adams refused to attend), the incumbent added 16 Federalist judges. He also created the Judiciary Act, granting the federal courts greater power—especially over land and financial matters. Upon taking office, Jefferson repealed the act and denied many of the justices' commissions. This led to the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, which solidified the Supreme Court's authority.

1797
John Adams was sworn in as the second president on March 4, 1797, and within a few weeks had moved out of the president's house a block away from Independence Hall. President George Washington had left his servants in charge of the transition, who'd had a series of parties in the two weeks between when Washington vacated the house and when Adams moved in. The furniture was wrecked and most of the silverware and china had been taken. He wrote to his wife, Abigail, on March 22: "There is not a chair to sit in. The beds and bedding are in a woeful pickle. This house has been a scene of the most scandalous drinking and disorder among the servants that I ever heard of. I would not have one of them for any consideration."

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mikep007 @ 01/30/2009 6:41:32 AM

The author of this article failed to note that it cost the American tax payer, over $200,000 to do the GAO report after the Clinton-to-Bush administration. The GAO rightly noted that they did not know WHO did the damage. IE It very well could have been the new Bushies looking to slander the outgoing regime. Also, the Clinton regime, back in 1993 had made similar claims abiout the HW Bush administration.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ellisliza @ 01/16/2009 4:11:57 PM

I told a young woman yesterday who said she had been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, that he is not who she thinks he is. I said, "he wants to invade and occupy Afghanistan with 90,000 troops." She said bluntly, "he does not want to invade and occupy Afghanistan." I looked at her in the eye and said, "Do you believe he intends to?" She said, "No, that is not what we campaigned for." I said, I believe that certainly.

There are two versions of Obama, the media hyped glossing over the bad reality of him, with eager pretense as if that will work, and the Obama version which is a truthtelling hypocrit, using claims of strong catch words of :"peace" when he wants to "occupy" Afghanistan and, yes, he HAS SAID he wants 90,000 troops and he is hypocritical because NO COUNTRY will ever allow "occupation" with 90,000 troops. Moreover, in the beginning of his campaign he threatened Pakistan's Mushareff with a challenge that was not to Mushareff's face but to a supposed war enthusiastic supporting BUSH audience, but the public is not who they ought to be, they are obviously able to say Heil Obama as easily as Hitler. I would not. Not all did in Germany either. The United Nations has called for a cease fire in Gaza. THE MEDIA delivers Obama's hypocrisy. When a man talked with me, and answered my accusation that Obama has no sense of courage or honor or proper diplomacy when he made that statement, a second Obama enthusiast (aka believer in the two party opposition that is a supposed contrast that does not require voters to think about the candidate, and to believe the media forced two party supposed contrast as if there is any difference), a clear Democrat Party guy, said, "Oh, he's just young and naive! He doesn't mean it." I looked at him and said, " but you will vote for someone who you think doesn't mean what he says?" He thinks Obamas statements are innocent. I do not. I voted for honor and upholding democracy and peace for proper policy that nets both a budget on track and peace policy by someone who knows the difference between a gesture of assistance to a country who is troubled by terrorists and a gesture of more terror on top of what is already Being nice when there is every reason to be nice, is diplomacy. The Middle East deserves "nice" not threats of obliterators in the making. Crack the Whip? THAT MEANS IMPEACH BUSH AND PUT OBAMA ON NOTICE FOR HIS CONFLICTING AND ILLEGAL CLAIMS. PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE MEDIA LIES without substance: hope, change, and peace. Obama doesn't offer those any more than healthcare. NADER did. The media didn't what that reality. There was a real candidate not being allowed in front where he belonged. Nader. OBAMA IS RED INK, RED BLOOD AND INCREASED WEAPONS AND THREATS. I do know certainly that is NOT who the young woman campaigned for. She should have been on the Nader campaign!
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ellisliza @ 01/16/2009 12:26:52 PM

If he has no such intentions, already showing, in my opinion, is TREASON the correct appraisal of the matter at hand? And, whose TREASON is it, obviously he owns responsibiliity for HIS ACTIONS, certainly, and his WORDS. The public owns responsibility for WATCHING and not objecting and worse, VOTING FOR a "KING" which is NOT our CONSTITUTION. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, knows this, as well as his partner in objecting, author of "Warrior King: The Case to Impeach George W. Bush" by John Bonifaz, Esq. a Boston Private Attorney. It is a brief, succinct, and well written book available in paperback, and prefaced by John Conyers, Esq. House of Representatives. There is a HUGE ACTIVIST PEACE MOVEMENT in this country and the press considers them :"outside" their duty, obviously, as to coverage, only the PROTESTS when in large numbers are given coverage, as if they do not belong as part of the real picture, the actual facts and themes of what we object to as required taken seriously for proper upholding of a free democracy with a government worthy of respect at home and abroad, and by our literal neighbors in North America and South America. We in the peace movement utterly depise Bush and the majority of voters were supposed to have the opportunity to see the full slate of agenda driven candidates who are not corrupt, who offer peace policy as reality.