The Great Depression Doomed the Constitution

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, May 3, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.
    a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.
    Glenn Greenwald, “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”

    Greenwald is way Left, but, as you can see above, conservatives have much in common with ethical and educated Liberals....


    2. But when uneducated and self-absorbed Liberals assume power, the result is often catastrophic for this great nation. Wilson, FDR and Obama...all anti-constitutionalists.

    a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


    b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    c. The Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”
    Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


    d. But, what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts?

    That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.”

    “While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. . .. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. . ..“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.


    e. So there you have it. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.

    From Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 9


    So you see, our friend, Liberal constitutional lawyer Greenwald, who offers "The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force..." does what so many Liberal Progressives do....

    ...they support the law, and the Law of the Land, the Constitution, when it supports their wishes...
    ...otherwise 'economic interests of the State may justify rending the Constitution.'

    There is an axiom, "Reality is defined by actions, not by words."
    Either one supports the Constitution, or one does not.

    So, in November, the choice is one of substance.

    The Left or the Constitution.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,536
    Thanks Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,573
    To PoliticalChic: Great thread.

    Socialists did, indeed, use the Great Depression to doom the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been their weapon of choice. The Affordable Care Act should be viewed as the Left’s final assault on the Constitution. Happily, Jim Byrd destroys the Left’s misuse, and misinterpretation, of the Commerce Clause:


    Harvard Law, the Commerce Clause, and the Obamacare Mandate
    Jim Byrd Friday, May 11, 2012

    Harvard Law, the Commerce Clause, and the Obamacare Mandate

    I think you’ll enjoy the remaining details in the linked article.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. percysunshine
    Offline

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,652
    Thanks Received:
    2,260
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,820
    So which ammendment to the Constitution says "The Constitution is not valid when an idiot gets elected to office" ?
     
  4. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    81,437
    Thanks Received:
    7,982
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,295
    So when the founding fathers produced the Constitution they protected the rights of the rich and powerful by allowing slavery, allowihg only rich gentry to run the nation(since there was no pay for term of service)and allowed only the landed white European men only to elect the president and vice president.
    Althrough US history the Constitution was not enforced and neither was it used in the justice or penal communities. cruel and unusual punishment was meted to those convicted and awaiting conviction.

    I do oppose those aricles posted by polichic because they are produced with a poltical propaganda which she falls for and is hooked upon.
    She is as bad as those she despises.
    There is no moderation in her tone or message. She will now respond to my post with a juvenile insult, as she does with many posters that do not see her fanatsism.
    Don't you Love living in a free nation where the Constitution enables her right to protest openly and falsly about our nation and her leaders.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    So very glad to have the opportunity to answer that question.

    1. Each of the winners of the office of the President of the United States take the following oath:
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    It can be found in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight.

    a. The assumption is that the men who have assumed the presidency are honorable men, and will uphold that oath.

    b. With respect to the Constitution, the following men have been found wanting: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Barack Obama.


    2. Here is the test of their repute:
    "The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the Constitutional text. The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    3. So, my querulous friend, it is not a question of 'which ammendment to the Constitution says "The Constitution is not valid when an idiot gets elected to office"' but, rather, which men who have won the presidency have been honorable.

    The Founders, it seems, mistakenly assumed that only honorable men would be elected.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815

    "She will now respond to my post with a juvenile insult,..."

    How could one possibly insult anyone who uses such a juvenile avi as you do?

    You are your own insult: a glace at your avi immediately identifies you as non-insultable.

    I'd be wasting a good insult, as the old saying goes:
    "The drowning man is not disturbed by the rain."
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    1. An interesting and heartening article, to be sure, and I wish I felt as secure as Byrd...but
    consider the view of Jeffrey Rosen, Legal Affairs Editor of the New Republic:

    a. There are Conservatives, and Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues.

    These conservatives favored TARP, and the use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases. Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.

    b. Reminder...

    “Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.” Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. It would seem that you and I rather agree with Barnett...


    a. The three clauses that have been used by the courts since the New Deal to expand federal power are the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxation Clause, which give birth to the spending clause.

    b. Professor Randy Barnett: “I have always been attracted to Madison’s view that there is no freestanding Spending Clause, but only a power to spend what is necessary and properly incident to the enumerated powers. Madison did not believe that the spending power grew out of the taxation power, but instead that all exercise of the spending power had to be incident to the other enumerated powers.”
    “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi, p. 263.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012
  8. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    Wow, good job being so dense.
    So let me get this straight. You not going to waste your time insulting him, after you just finished insulting him? Twice.
    Good job, I am thoroughly impressed.
    :clap2:
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    "... I am thoroughly impressed."

    I'm so happy....I live to impress you.


    Glad you took the time to produce such a pithy post.....but shouldn’t you be off cavorting at the dysfunctional family follies, or something?
     
  10. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,536
    Thanks Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,573
    To PoliticalChic: I’m relying on overturning the Affordable Care Act as the best way to weaken the Left’s grip on interpreting the Commerce Clause. Should it not be overturned there will be no stopping socialism even if the XVI Amendment is repealed. As it stands now the Income Tax Amendment is socialism’s funding mechanism.

    Socialists can only govern by telling people what they must do rather than what they must not do. In that sense the income tax becomes superfluous when every American is forced to purchase everything the government dictates. And it’s not only purchasing. The Commerce Clause will continue to expand until the government dictates every aspect of daily life. They are almost there now. That is why I find Eric Hoffer’s observation following my signature so timeless.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2012

Share This Page