Their retrospective numbering of the orders extended back only to the Civil War, and many remained unnumbered due to a poor filing system. Thus, a given executive order might be in the numbered series or the unnumbered series. The numbered series dates from to present, while the unnumbered series dates from to President Hoover took steps to regularize the filing of executive orders in , but a few unnumbered orders persisted until the s. The Federal Register Act of required that every executive order be filed with the Office of the Federal Register, and that, beginning in , all such orders of general applicability be published in the Federal Register.
Thus, beginning in the great majority of Executive Orders can be found by consulting the:. Skip to main content. Statements of Administration Policy , which are delivered to Congress regarding pending legislation, are posted on the OMB web site. The Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents formerly Weekly Compilation includes speeches, communications to Congress, signing statements, and more. A1 Historical Papers Until , there was no systematic official publication of Presidential papers.
Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. This is the retrospective compilation authorized by Congress. There were actually several different editions published, each of which covered different time periods and divided the time periods differently by volume. Below is shown the coverage by volume for the original edition shelved under Dewey call number Un3M2 , and explanations of the coverage of later editions. Harding Papers: a Microfilm Edition. Messages and Addresses: The Papers of John Adams.
A26 Grant, Ulysses. The Papers of Ulysses S. G74 Johnson, Andrew. The Papers of Andrew Johnson. J66 Lincoln, Abraham. Collected Works. Presidential Addresses and State Papers. R78 The Works of Theodore Roosevelt. R Washington, George. The Papers of George Washington. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. W Return to top Executive Orders Presidential executive orders are a particular type of presidential document that has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute.
Thus, beginning in the great majority of Executive Orders can be found by consulting the: Federal Register Official site, present.
Via Hein Online , current. These personality differences express themselves in various linguistic habits.
For example, people high on openness to experience use more tentative words and longer words [ 7 ], people low on extraversion prefer rich vocabulary and use more formal language [ 15 ], people high on conscientiousness dislike using discrepancies should, would , causation and exclusive words [ 16 ]. Conservatives also score higher than liberals on need for closure, which reflects preferences for reducing ambiguity and uncertainty [ 17 ]. By consequence, conservatives prefer using nouns over verbs and adjectives, because they convey more certainty [ 9 ].
They may also prefer shorter and clearer sentences. Compound sentences with multiple clauses, on the other hand, are more likely to convey ambiguity, and may thus appeal more to liberals who are generally more open-minded and tolerant of ambiguity. Such patterns are plausible in the American context, but the extent to which they transcend is unclear. The work discussed so far relies heavily on a one-dimensional, conservative-liberal conceptualization of ideology [ 18 ].
The terms liberal and conservative, however, do not travel well across the Atlantic, and mean different things in Europe and the US. What is more, European politics is generally characterized by political competition along two dimensions, rather than just one [ 19 ]: a sociocultural conservative-liberal dimension and an economic left-right dimension.
The former dimension typically includes issues like European integration, immigration and the environment [ 19 ]. In our view, linguistic complexity is most likely related to the sociocultural liberal-conservative dimension because personality traits such as openness to experience, conscientiousness [ 14 , 20 ], need for closure [ 21 ], authoritarianism and need for cognition [ 22 ] are more strongly associated with social conservatism than with economic conservatism.
Across contexts, we expect the language of culturally conservative politicians to be less complex than the language of culturally liberal politicians. The associations between economic left-right ideology or economic conservatism and traits such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, need for structure and the value of conformity and security have been found to be much more dependent on voter and country characteristics [ 20 , 21 , 23 ].
- Archived Speeches of Former President Levin | Office of the President.
- U.S. and World Coal Production, Federal Taxes, and Incentives?
- Dubious Definitions: A Dictionary of Misinterpretation;
- The War Tiger Or, Adventures and Wonderful Fortunes of the Young Sea Chief and His Lad Chow: A Tale of the Conquest of China?
- Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community, Updated edition.
- A Distant Summer.
As such we expect the economic left-right dimension to be less consistently associated with complexity. Beyond ideology, contextual factors may also influence complexity of language. For example, speeches by American presidents have become simpler over time because they became more directed toward the public rather than a small political elite [ 24 — 27 ].
Increased media attention also demands less complex language. Rather than a linear time trend, the complexity of speech may vary depending on the economic and social context of the time. Philip Tetlock and colleagues [ 4 ] describe how differences in the complexity of speech between liberals and conservatives fluctuate. For example, Democrats deliver less complex speeches in a Republican-dominated Congress [ 4 ]. Other examples for this phenomenon include the decrease in the integrative complexity of statements by Tony Blair and George W.
Furthermore, incumbency itself seems to increase speech complexity. US-American presidential candidates use more complex language once elected [ 2 ] and MPs of the governing party in the Canadian House of Commons systematically use more complex language than MPs of opposition parties [ 30 ]. In order to account for these factors, we add time and government-oppositions status of the party of the speaker as control variables to our models.
Our analysis relies on three dataset: 1 ParlSpeech [ 31 ], 2 EUSpeech [ 32 , 33 ] and 3 a dataset of party congress speeches [ 34 ]. Combined, these datasets contain speeches from 10 European countries and span a long period of time up to a maximum of 70 years, between The different corpora contain speeches targeted at various audiences: members of parliament Parlspeech ; partisans and party members party congress speeches ; ordinary voters and various political and societal elites EUSpeech.
Independent news email
This diverse corpus of speeches allows us to evaluate the generalizability of the claim that liberals use more complex language than conservatives. Tables A. The ParlSpeech [ 31 ] dataset contains parliamentary speeches from seven European parliaments, fully covering periods of up to 28 years. It is a full sample of all available speeches in the different parliaments; thus, they cover a wide variety of topics and speakers. All speeches were delivered in the country-specific language, and transcribed verbatim.
Remarks by the President at Presidential Medal of Freedom Ceremony
In order to exclude interruptions, we only consider speeches with more than ten sentences of at least five words. We also exclude all chair wo men speeches, since they mostly serve to organize the debates e. The EUSpeech dataset [ 32 , 33 ] consists of all publicly available speeches from elites in the main European institutions, the IMF, and speeches of prime ministers—or president in the case of France—of 10 EU member states for the period ranging from early to late For the analysis in this paper, we use all English-language prime minister PM speeches in this corpus. The speeches target various audiences: MPs, party members, interest groups, public officials, foreign officials, or citizens at rallies or events.
The number of speeches we analyze per country varies between 63 in Italy and the United Kingdom, amounting a total of see S1 Appendix. The third dataset contains speeches at party congresses in Denmark and the Netherlands, covering the time period — [ 34 ]. Furthermore, since the Freedom Party does not have a party organization in the traditional sense in fact, it only has one member , our analysis included speeches delivered at meetings aimed to present the party and its new MPs, as these events are closest in form to a traditional party congress.
In general, the majority of speeches are delivered by the party leader, the party chair, and other prominent party members.
LBJ Presidential Library | Research
Nowadays, party congresses usually take place on an annual basis, with additional, extraordinary congresses during times of election. In the past, party congresses were more likely to take place on a bi-annual basis. The function of a party congress differs between parties and has changed over time [ 35 ]. Such speeches typically contain sections on policies and policy-making, on party strategy and coalition possibilities, and also on the performance of the party itself. These speeches are delivered with different goals: to strengthen the internal cohesion of the party, to signal policy priorities to policy activists or alert voters, or to communicate strategic intentions to other parties.
These speeches are public and it is likely that journalists report on them.
- Search form!
- John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.
- Organization: IBBY official website!
- My Feelings.
- New Nationalism Speech - Teaching American History.
- Preaching Through Ephesians (Preaching Through the Bible)?
- Site Information Navigation!
This corpus is particularly interesting because of the various publics involved: party members, other parties, and voters. Speakers at party congresses have more agency regarding the topics of their speech than MPs, as they are not responding directly to someone, nor are they part of an ongoing debate. Most commonly, linguistic complexity is measured as an index of the average number of words per sentence and the average word length.