Here's Where It Gets Interesting - 17. Sharon Answers Your Questions #1

Episode Date: August 16, 2021

Introducing Sharon Answers Your Questions! This marks the first episode of Sharon randomly selecting five questions from her listeners and answering them with wit, heart, and as always -- stone-cold facts. The topics of this episode include: executive orders and Second Amendment sanctuary states. Are executive orders constitutional, and what is a Second Amendment sanctuary? As well, Sharon will explain how to weigh a historical figure’s positive contributions against their problematic beliefs and behaviors. Should past presidents be role models? Sharon will also address how to respond compassionately to people that are unintentionally spreading disinformation online and explain ways that we are currently more united as a country than in the past… These episodes are fueled by YOU. What are you curious about? Drop a voice memo here, and Sharon might answer your question on the next episode of Sharon Answers Your Questions! For more information on this episode including all resources and links discussed go to https://www.sharonmcmahon.com/podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, friends. Welcome. Delighted you could be here. This episode is about y'all. Y'all have been leaving me voice memos with your questions. And today I am delighted to be randomly choosing five and delivering an answer for you. So let's dive into the first episode of Sharon Answers Your Questions. I'm Sharon McMahon, and welcome to the Sharon Says So podcast. All right, today's first question is from Eric. Hi, Sharon. This is Eric. Great website, by the way, and everything. I have a question about executive orders. How does a president come to have executive orders? I don't believe they're allowed in the Constitution, if I remember correctly. How did that power fall to the executive

branch? And what's your opinion on executive orders? Should there be a limit to them? Just kind of expand on that if you would. Okay. That is actually a fantastic question, Eric. And a lot of people have asked me that. So you are not alone in wondering this because it is true. When you look at the Constitution, it's not like it says, and a president can just go ahead and write all the executive orders they feel like. It's no problem. Whatever you want to say, no bigs, go ahead and write it down. We'll make sure it happens. It doesn't say that, right? This is where the executive power comes from, the executive power to write executive orders. It comes from Article 2 of the Constitution, and this is what it says. The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States.

This has been interpreted to mean that a president has the power of executive orders. This goes all the way back to George Washington. He wrote the very first executive order, which was about, hey, all of y'all in the executive departments in my cabinet, write me like a note and tell me what you guys are doing. I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing, but between the period of George Washington's presidency and the end of Calvin Coolidge's presidency, beginning of Herbert Hoover's presidency at the turn of the century, beginning of Herbert Hoover's presidency at the turn of the century. We didn't even keep track.

We didn't number them. Through the historic record, we have estimated how many people wrote, but estimates range from like 1,500 to 50,000 different executive orders. George Washington, we know, wrote eight executive orders. Just to give you a little bit of historic context, Woodrow Wilson wrote 1,800 executive orders. FDR wrote 3,721 executive orders. One of the most famous executive orders, of course, written by Abraham Lincoln, which was the Emancipation Proclamation. That was an executive order. And most of us look back on that now and we're like, dang, that was the best move ever. That was the right move. And yet it was a move that was wildly unpopular with approximately half the United States. It is not something that people in the South were like, I agree with that executive order. Good job. No, obviously they were so unhappy

about it and other circumstances that they were willing to go to war over it. Just to give you a little bit more recent context, Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all two term presidents issued 364, 291, and 276 executive orders. During Donald Trump's single term, he issued 220 executive orders. Biden so far has issued 53. Obviously, he's not even been in office for a year yet as of this recording, so that number is going to continue to grow. But this is something that people continue to make use of. One of the things that's unique about executive orders is that the next president can just undo them. Some of the things that Biden did on his first day in office were to undo some of Trump's previous executive orders. This is in contrast to a law. A president cannot come in

and just be like, you know what? Erase that signature. I do not like that you signed that law. Erase. I withdraw that law. That is not how it works. Whereas with an executive order, a president can, with the stroke of a pen, essentially eliminate a previous president's executive order. There are some limitations to executive orders. One of them is you cannot do anything that's unconstitutional. If you do, the Supreme Court can override your executive order. You cannot do anything that violates existing laws. So if the existing law says we need to provide funding and money for special needs students in public schools, the next president cannot just come in and be like, no, we don't. No, we don't. Absolutely not. You cannot undo existing laws with executive orders. Also, Congress has the power of the purse

that is guaranteed to them constitutionally. So a president cannot just come in and unilaterally decide to spend a bunch of money or cancel spending a bunch of money. Those jobs belong to Congress. Now, is it possible that Congress could delegate some emergency funds for discretionary use to the president and they could use them how they would like? Yes, that has happened in the past, but they cannot just come into office and be like, the tax rate is now 100%. Can't do that. They also cannot do anything that is expressly forbidden. So they cannot get into office and say, I am now the king of America. Also turns out not permitted. People have varying perspectives on how much a president should be using executive orders. If you agree with the current president, chances are good that most of their executive orders, you're like, yeah, good idea. I like that. If you dislike the person who is currently in office, chances are good you

don't like a lot of their executive orders, or you're like, why are we writing all these executive orders? You chafe at the idea that a president would have the power to do that. So great question, Eric. The answer is it is in Article 2 of the Constitution. I did not even dive into delegated power given to the president via Congress, especially when it relates to emergencies. It's another level of executive power, but it has been used for everything from, hey, can you guys write me a letter and let me know what you guys are up to? Okay, thanks. All the way up to, and now the enslaved shall be free. And everything in between. All right, let's get to our next question, which comes from Annie.

I live in Oklahoma, which was just declared a 2A sanctuary state. I don't understand. How does this affect regular people? How does this affect people with guns in their home or gun licenses? Thank you. This is a fantastic question. I have been DM'd this question a bunch of times. What does it mean to be a Second Amendment sanctuary? These are laws that have been passed all over the country. Sometimes they've been passed by like a county or a city or sometimes by an entire state. There are some states where the entire state like Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Montana, et cetera, they have said, hey, we're Second Amendment sanctuary states. And so people are like, well, what, et cetera, they have said, hey, we're Second Amendment sanctuary

states. And so people are like, well, what does that even mean? What does that mean to be a sanctuary state? Here is the bottom line. It is a symbolic act that does not have any real force of law. It's symbolic. And what it is symbolic of is a resistance of federal gun laws. It is their way of saying, we are not going to use any local law enforcement resources to enforce federal gun laws. Now, is that constitutionally permissible for them to say to the federal government, we are not going to enforce your laws? It's not because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States. But then it would be up to the federal government to determine in what way they would like to force states to comply. So that is the short answer.

Number one, it is states and local jurisdictions saying we do not want to enforce any federal gun laws. And number two, it is largely symbolic if the feds wanted to step in, they could do that. And to what extent they will do so is TBD. I hope that helps. All right. Our next question is from Kendall. This is Kendall. I am a Texan transplanted in California. I have always loved Thomas Jefferson. If someone ever asked me who my favorite president was, I would say Thomas Jefferson. But in recent years, I've done some research and I've learned that he's not perfect. And there's a lot of things about him and his personal life that I didn't know. And it's kind of tainted my image of him. So my question for you is, should we have favorite presidents?

And how do we reconcile imperfect people with the perfect role models that we want them to be? Kendall, I love this question. This is a question so many of us are wrestling with right now. What you are saying is exactly what so many people are thinking. I'm Jenna Fisher. And I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends. And together we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office with insane behind-the-scenes stories, hilarious guests, and lots of laughs. Guess who's sitting next to me? Steve! It's Steve Carell in the studio! Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from the office and our friendship with

brand new guests. And we'll be digging into our mailbag to answer your questions and comments. So join us for brand new Office Ladies 6.0 episodes every Wednesday. Plus, on Mondays, we are taking a second drink. You can revisit all the Office Ladies rewatch episodes every Monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode. Well, we can't wait to see you there. Follow and listen to Office Ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts. How do we reconcile people who have made positive contributions to US history with their extremely problematic viewpoints and behaviors. How do we say, wow, Thomas Jefferson, you helped craft the Declaration of Independence and America would be nothing without you, and also say, wow, you enslaved a lot of people and fathered

children with one of your slaves? How do we separate out the good from the bad? And there is not a magic formula to this. And we are all going to likely land at different conclusions. So I am not here to tell you that, ding, ding, ding, I have it all figured out. You're going to walk away being like, now I get it. Because this is an issue to be grappled with. There is not a simple solution. For me, I think taking the totality of their life is something important. So for example, let's say somebody committed a crime and went to prison. And then when they got out of prison, they were a changed person. They apologized sincerely. They spent the rest of their life working at the homeless shelter and raising money

for nonprofits. If we looked at their entire life as a whole, we could say, yeah, they made these mistakes. They should not have committed that crime. And yet they also made these positive contributions. They turned it around in later years. They worked to make restitution. They tried to be better. Just like it would be fair to do that to a private citizen, I think it's also fair to

do that to historic figures, to look at their life as a whole and say, yeah, they did these bad things and it was not okay. We don't have to pretend that the bad things that they did were okay because they also did some good things. Just like we would not do that for a private citizen. We would be like, yeah, that person should not have robbed that store at gunpoint. That should not have happened. We can look back on a private person and say, shouldn't have done that. And yet here are all the ways that they tried to make up for it or all the ways they tried to be a positive force in their community. We need to do the same, in my opinion, for historic figures. Does that mean that we give equal weight to their positive

and negative contributions? No, it means we look at their life as a whole and we weigh their positive contributions against their negative contributions. Let me give you an example. Andrew Jackson, such an interesting, interesting character in US history. He did some positive things, but on balance, his whole life, in my opinion, his negative contributions far outweigh his positive contributions. Absolutely. If you look at Abraham Lincoln as a whole, did he make some mistakes? Was he too soft on slavery when he first got elected to office?

Sure. Yes, he was. But overall, his positive contributions outweigh his negative contributions. Doesn't mean we overlook the negative contributions. Doesn't mean we don't call a spade a spade. Doesn't mean we don't say, Thomas Jefferson, the fact that you owned Sally Hemings and fathered her children is unacceptable. It doesn't mean we don't say that, but it also doesn't mean that we're just like, well, the Declaration of Independence meant absolutely nothing. Forget it. Does that make sense? This is something that every individual will have to weigh for themselves,

but that is how I approach a situation. I look at the contributions as a whole, look at their life in its entirety, and call a spade a spade, both positive and negative. All right, the next question is from Rebecca. So somebody that I know recently posted on their Instagram stories something along the lines about how what's happening in America is so similar to what happened in pre-Nazi Germany and then, of course, during World War II when the Nazis reigned, and how some people are just turning a blind eye to it and saying that it's for our safety, it's for equality. From what I could gather, this is in reference to the COVID-19 response in the U.S. I'm assuming that she has drawn this comparison based off of things that she's,

you know, seeing from media outlets and probably more specifically her social media. And I'm just wondering, how do I help her understand that that is number one, a very extreme comparison, a very inaccurate comparison? And how do I help her feel less fearful and extreme about not even just the COVID-19 response, but a party being in quote unquote power that she doesn't align with. Rebecca, that is a fantastic question, a thoughtful question. And I have a few things to say. The first one is when people ask me, how can I get somebody to see X? How can I help somebody change their mind about Y? Whatever it is. The answer is you can't. You cannot get somebody to change their mind about X or Y. And the evidence demonstrates that the more you persist in trying to force people to change their minds about something,

the more deeply ingrained that thinking becomes, the more they will resist you, and the more they will cling to their current way of thinking. So my recommendation would never be to be like, that is ridiculous. What kind of an idiot are you? That's not going to work. If just shaming people into stopping a certain behavior or ceasing to believe something actually worked, this would be a very different world, right? If we could just be like, stop believing that stupid thing. Stop believing in Hitler. If we could just say the words and people would be like, you know what? I've changed my mind. Obviously, we would be in a very different place in history. So just know that you can't.

What you can do, I love the words of Nedra Tawwab. She has been a guest on this podcast before. You change the people around you by changing yourself, by being an example, by being a light that others want to look to. If the room is dark and you light a candle, someone's eyes immediately go towards the light, right? You don't enter a dark room and then yell at people about why the room is dark. You light the candle. So the best way to get her to change her mind is to be an example of the change, to embody the kind of peace that she is undoubtedly looking for.

And I know that that is taking the high road. And I know that that is taking the hard and high road. Sometimes people are like, when do I get the easy road? When is my easy road here? Why am I always on this high road that is like full of tree stumps? When is my paved road coming? I get that. But absolve yourself of the responsibility to change her because it's not your responsibility to change her. Okay, let's get into the meat of your question though, which is about comparisons between the United States and pre-war Germany. First of all, it does demonstrate a serious lack of understanding about what history is like. To make that comparison absolutely demonstrates someone's lack of understanding. So perhaps approach it with that sense of compassion. Perhaps approach

it with like, this person, wow, didn't actually understand what it was like for Hitler to rise to power. Didn't understand what it was like during this global economic crisis of the 1930s. Didn't understand what it was like for the debts that Germans were supposed to pay under the Versailles Peace Treaty after World War I. Didn't understand what it was like to not be able to pay those anymore, and for millions of Germans to lose their jobs. They don't understand the full historic context if that is the comparison they're making. Secondly, I don't believe in entertaining any more comparisons between anything and the Nazis. Literally. This needs to be a thing that needs to go away. I just don't even know how to say it forcefully enough. In many cases, it borders on disinformation, anti-Semitism,

to compare anything to the Holocaust, unless it is another genocide. To compare anything, genocide. To compare anything, the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews to anything, unless it is also the systematic slaughter of a people, is disingenuous at best and extraordinarily harmful at worst. So it is time for Americans to stop comparing things to the Nazis. It is disrespectful to the families of 6 million people who lost their lives to say, well, this is just like the Nazis. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. That is a hill I am willing to die on.

No, it isn't. Unless you are coming to me discussing actual systematic slaughter of human beings on the basis of their ethnic and religious background, no, it isn't. You can tell this fires me up. There's just a couple little facts about what actually was going on in Germany before World War II got started. First of all, they were having tons of new elections. They would just call a new election when they felt like it. They had one election and literally a couple of months later, they had another election. We have the rule of law in the United States. We don't do things like that. Another example is they arrested 10,000 people, communists, because of their political beliefs. The United States is not arresting, imprisoning, and sending people to forced labor

camps on the basis of their political beliefs. They are not torturing people in forced labor camps. They are not killing them in forced labor camps. Stop drawing the comparison. Again, I'm not speaking directly to you. I'm just talking to Americans in general. Need to stop comparing anything to the systematic slaughter of humans. Burning down buildings, arresting people who disagreed with them, shipping people off on trains never to be heard from again because they were killed, the government stealing all of your personal possessions of value. No, there is not a comparison. And I want to hear everybody listening to this commit to not making that comparison anymore. I could talk about this

for a really long time, but hopefully that helps. You can't convince her. You need to be the light and be willing to take the high road. And also all of us need to stop comparing things to the Nazis unless it is actual real life genocide. The end. And the last question today comes from Melissa. So through Instagram, you've given tons of great examples of how our country's been super divided before this. Can you give us some examples of where you see our country being united in ways it has never been before? This, I love this. I just chose five questions at random and I love that this is the last question I picked. This is such a great note to end this episode on because I can give you a couple of examples of ways that we are currently

more united than we perhaps have been in the past. One of the areas that both sides, and of course, there are more than two sides. If you think about political alignment in the form. One of the areas that both sides, and of course there are more than two sides, if you think about political alignment in the form of a spectrum of people being far on one side, far on the other side, this is something that nearly everyone agrees with and nearly everyone is on board with and that perhaps even 50 years ago was not the case. And that is the desire to have a criminal justice system that is fair, that responds appropriately, that convicts only the guilty, that seeks the truth. Now, do we currently have that? Of course not. That is a goal that needs to be worked towards. But nearly everyone in this country agrees that is a goal worth having. And we should work towards a criminal justice system,

a legal system that seeks the truth, convicts only the guilty, and is applied fairly. And I'll give you another example, and that is about the role of women in society. Even 100 years ago, women had just barely been given the right to vote, and it was still controversial. There were still a lot of people who were like, women's place is in the home. What does a woman know about politics? What does a woman know about voting? And that has thankfully changed dramatically for the better. It is now a fringe weirdo who has the opinion of women should not be able to vote, right? If you hear somebody on the internet being like, I don't know if women should be able to vote, everybody's like, what? Do you know what I mean? Like we now collectively are like, that's ridiculous. So we can all unite now around this idea that people should have equal rights, no matter

what kind of body they were born into, and that they should have the right to receive an appropriate education, no matter the income or education level or political position or social status that their parents come from. It used to be that only the wealthy, only the male, only the white, only the landowners were afforded the privilege of an education. And we can all now unite around this idea that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status and regardless of the type of body they were born into, we should all be treated equally and fairly in the eyes of the law. So that's another example of a lot of progress that we have made in this country over the past 200 plus years.

That even 100 years ago was still real sketchy, real sketchy about whether people agreed that women should have the right to vote. There are more examples too, but those are just a couple off the top of my head that I can give you of ways that we are more united than we were even a hundred years ago or even 50 years ago. That is it, you guys.

I hope you liked this episode. I cannot wait to answer more of your questions. Thanks for being here today. Thank you so much for listening to the Sharon Says So podcast. I am truly grateful for you. And I'm wondering if you could do me a quick favor. Would you be willing to follow or subscribe to this podcast

or maybe leave me a rating or a review? Or if you're feeling extra generous, would you share this episode on your Instagram stories or with a friend? All of those things help podcasters out so much. I cannot wait to have another mind blown moment with you next episode. Thanks again for listening to the Sharon Says So podcast.