Talk:Executive Order 9981

Regulation of the Land and Naval forces

One of the enumerated powers given in Article I to Congress is: "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;". So I would suppose that Congress had passed Legislation allowing the President to "regulate the land and naval forces"; without the Consent of Congress? Does any one have a link to that act? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The President is the Commander-in-chief so I'm guessing that he was exercising his authority as such.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Being Commander-in-chief gives him operational command of the military but does not give him the power to regulate it as that is a power expressly given to Congress in Article I. Just something else to prove my theory that the President has become too powerful. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@Maximillion Pegasus: The president is forbidden to give orders to the military that violate laws passed by Congress, but as long as he does not run afoul of those laws, he can make rules for the military. Giving such orders is his authority as commander in chief. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Before Executive Order 9981"

The "Before Executive Order 9981" section appears to be heavily opinionated, and looks to given from a personal point of view rather than a neutral and unbiased one. Furthermore, the editor admits to have based his source for the information off of a historical paper he wrote for an event, rather than acquiring the information from a neutral source. Finally, the entire history section appears to have been relegated to a second-hand position despite bearing first source information on the subject. Vivaporius (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson

Not one word about Wilson's segregation of the armed forces. Without some explanation of how the services became segregated, the article is weak. Abenr (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wilson did not do it--armed services had been segregated since civil war. Rjensen (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Executive Order 9981. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721102246/http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/iaf-fm.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-FM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources not found

None of the Truman Library sources listed in the "Sources" section exist anymore. They go to the website, which gives a "page not found" notification.--66.223.139.72 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Link to the Dixiecrats?

Wasn't this a big motivator for the rise of the Dixiecrats and the South switching from D to R? I know I need sources for this, but I feel it could be a short section at the end MoreLike5AMEdit (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Material from The Conservationist

Diannaa,

Thanks for the edits on the article.

The material that was used from The Conversation was released under Creative Commons. According to the copyright owner, it is OK to use the copyrighted material.

In the future, please don't threaten me. I usually don't respond well to threats.

Thanks.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does.— Diannaa (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)