When The Constitution Died….

[PoliticalChic]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt.




1.The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution, called ‘the law of the land.’

According to the Founders of our nation, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.



Mull this over:

To which should an American give his support, the Constitution, or to the current President of the moment?



2.The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause




3.In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

4.During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Ibid.



Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues.
The General Welfare Clause





5. Why would FDR, who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, tear it asunder? Because he saw the success, the power, of his ‘friends’…the dictators, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
Because Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to swim with the sharks....to be one with the other dictators, not fight them.


It was a terrible decision for Roosevelt to have to choose between Stalin and Hitler....but he did.
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Details to follow.


Warning: the violence done to the Constitution by Roosevelt is graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

This is all nonsense. There are several fallacies in your arguments.

1. You seem to think the founding fathers were all seeing and all knowing and could see in the future. The world they lived in was much different than the world we lived in. There are challenges that the founding fathers never even contemplated and could never contemplate.

2. The size of the US has changed. When the Constitution was created, the US consisted of 13 states. Today the US goes north to south from Alaska to Texas. From east to west, Florida to Hawaii. That creates challenges that did not exist in the 1700's.

You claim to speak for the founding fathers yet you cannot. The times were completely. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution yet as President he took on the Barbary pirates. He did not consider the Constitution a straitjacket.

"2. The size of the US has changed. When the Constitution was created, the US consisted of 13 states. Today the US goes north to south from Alaska to Texas. From east to west, Florida to Hawaii. That creates challenges that did not exist in the 1700's."

Good work, Captain Obvious.....you must have been trained by Agent Starling.



But....what does that have to do with the Constitution as the law of the land?????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt.




1.The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution, called ‘the law of the land.’

According to the Founders of our nation, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.



Mull this over:

To which should an American give his support, the Constitution, or to the current President of the moment?



2.The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause




3.In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

4.During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Ibid.



Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues.
The General Welfare Clause





5. Why would FDR, who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, tear it asunder? Because he saw the success, the power, of his ‘friends’…the dictators, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
Because Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to swim with the sharks....to be one with the other dictators, not fight them.


It was a terrible decision for Roosevelt to have to choose between Stalin and Hitler....but he did.
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Details to follow.


Warning: the violence done to the Constitution by Roosevelt is graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

This is all nonsense. There are several fallacies in your arguments.

1. You seem to think the founding fathers were all seeing and all knowing and could see in the future. The world they lived in was much different than the world we lived in. There are challenges that the founding fathers never even contemplated and could never contemplate.

2. The size of the US has changed. When the Constitution was created, the US consisted of 13 states. Today the US goes north to south from Alaska to Texas. From east to west, Florida to Hawaii. That creates challenges that did not exist in the 1700's.

You claim to speak for the founding fathers yet you cannot. The times were completely. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution yet as President he took on the Barbary pirates. He did not consider the Constitution a straitjacket.

"You claim to speak for the founding fathers yet you cannot. The times were completely. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution yet as President he took on the Barbary pirates. He did not consider the Constitution a straitjacket."

Did you think that post made sense??? If so, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

NFL teams sometimes have a script for their first offensive plays.

Tell me when you are willing to answer questions. Even when I disagree I find your logic interesting. You've just been shy and coy hiding your opinions or answers to questions lately.

"...you've just been shy and coy hiding your opinions..."


Are you slow-witted or simply nuts?

Yes.

So about the Civil War. I say that's when the power of the Feds crossed the Constitutional line.

Mind tou I'm not debating if Lincoln was wrong, I wouldn't want to insult u by claiming a Republican team member of yours could ever be wrong.

Or is the way to think of the Civil War as the Southern States sure did have the right to leave and Lincoln had a right to an agressive war?

Did Franklin Roosevelt deal a death blow to the Constitution...purposely and with aforethought....by seducing the Supreme Court?

I THINK it was already dead. Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did.

Were parts of the New Deal unconstitutional? I'm sure something was. By and large it did expand the Federal Government But no one who supports the post 9-11 surveilance acts can tell me it was.

What's your civil war take with it killing the Constitution as written?

"Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did."

OMG!!!


Your ignorance is on display.....again.


FDR tried to 'stack' the court by adding additional judges.

Trump has never done or suggested such a thing.

He has nominated judges to replace any who have left or passed on.


BTW.....FDR's first nominee was a KKKer.

But....FDR was known as a bigot who hated minorities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt.




1.The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution, called ‘the law of the land.’

According to the Founders of our nation, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.



Mull this over:

To which should an American give his support, the Constitution, or to the current President of the moment?



2.The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause




3.In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

4.During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Ibid.



Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues.
The General Welfare Clause





5. Why would FDR, who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, tear it asunder? Because he saw the success, the power, of his ‘friends’…the dictators, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
Because Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to swim with the sharks....to be one with the other dictators, not fight them.


It was a terrible decision for Roosevelt to have to choose between Stalin and Hitler....but he did.
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Details to follow.


Warning: the violence done to the Constitution by Roosevelt is graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

This is all nonsense. There are several fallacies in your arguments.

1. You seem to think the founding fathers were all seeing and all knowing and could see in the future. The world they lived in was much different than the world we lived in. There are challenges that the founding fathers never even contemplated and could never contemplate.

2. The size of the US has changed. When the Constitution was created, the US consisted of 13 states. Today the US goes north to south from Alaska to Texas. From east to west, Florida to Hawaii. That creates challenges that did not exist in the 1700's.

You claim to speak for the founding fathers yet you cannot. The times were completely. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution yet as President he took on the Barbary pirates. He did not consider the Constitution a straitjacket.

Republicans certainly believe The Constitution is a straightjacket.

What do you suppose the phrase 'law of the land' means?


Have someone with a higher than your double digit IQ explain what Chief Justice Rehnquist meant here:

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country.

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf





Here's the prob for Liberals....when you're a part of the 'masses'.....sometimes the 'm' is silent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. The last attempts by an independent Supreme Court can be found here:

In invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional,that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."


He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
Manly, “The Twenty Year Revolution,” p. 70.



a. And in the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc08.html]

He was saying that said power is in the amendment process.


If only the Court had stuck to its guns!!!!



12. The President reacted as one would after having received a kick in a sensitive area. He went to the American people with a fireside chat on March 9, 1937, and stated:

"we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself."
Charles Evans Hughes, Volume Two [Columbia University Press New York, 1963, p.754 ">[2]

Roosevelt declared war on the Supreme Court.




Sadly, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.
So ended federalism, states rights, and independence from the federal government.

Constitution. R.I.P.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. According to the Founders, of our nation, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


The 'Progressive Era' began prior to Saturday, March 4, 1933, the date of Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration....but make no mistake: this friend of Joseph Stalin was central to the destruction of the Constitution.


" On April 12, 1937, the United States ceased to be a republic of limited constitutional government. The Supreme Court upheld the Wagner Labor Relations Act.
No longer would the enumerated powers of the Constitution apply....now we would be a European model welfare state, in which the national legislature has power to regulate industry, agriculture, and virtually all the activities of the citizens.

The coda came when the court upheld the Social Security Act on May 24, 1937, …."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 68-69




The fading hopes for America rested on the shoulders of four Madisonian justices: Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter.
In the middle, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


3. Two cases began the evisceration: in Article 1, section 10, which stated that no state may pass any " Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."

a. In the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,the “Four Horsemen” — the Madisonians — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism, the Progressives.

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.

c. 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:it ruled in express contravention of the constitutional prohibition. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.





Did I mention that Progressives on the courts feel no responsibility to obey the 'law of the land, the United States Constitution?

 

[Moonglow]

6. Individual liberty is the fulfillment of the Founder's promise to build a nation with the 'rules,' the Constitution, slanted toward the individual and with restrictions on what government could do.
To which should an American give his support, the Constitution, or to the current President of the moment?

Progressive Woodrow Wilson made no secret of his desire to treat the Constitution thus:
“ …it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment,..."

Franklin Roosevelt actually did so.




To put that another way, acceptance of Progressive governance makes Democrat voters the "Duh, you always know what's best, boss" voters.

But there is a sense that New Deal Progressives knew there was a limit to what Americans would put up with....
...after all, they used the amendment process from article five to institute the income tax....
... and the amendment process gave women the right to vote....and for prohibition.


But….Franklin Roosevelt found a far simpler way to destroy the Constitution: control the Court.

As Coulter said: “The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’”

#6 except for slaves and Native American Indians and the Irish..

 

[Toronado3800]

NFL teams sometimes have a script for their first offensive plays.

Tell me when you are willing to answer questions. Even when I disagree I find your logic interesting. You've just been shy and coy hiding your opinions or answers to questions lately.

"...you've just been shy and coy hiding your opinions..."


Are you slow-witted or simply nuts?

Yes.

So about the Civil War. I say that's when the power of the Feds crossed the Constitutional line.

Mind tou I'm not debating if Lincoln was wrong, I wouldn't want to insult u by claiming a Republican team member of yours could ever be wrong.

Or is the way to think of the Civil War as the Southern States sure did have the right to leave and Lincoln had a right to an agressive war?

Did Franklin Roosevelt deal a death blow to the Constitution...purposely and with aforethought....by seducing the Supreme Court?

I THINK it was already dead. Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did.

Were parts of the New Deal unconstitutional? I'm sure something was. By and large it did expand the Federal Government But no one who supports the post 9-11 surveilance acts can tell me it was.

What's your civil war take with it killing the Constitution as written?

"Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did."

OMG!!!


Your ignorance is on display.....again.


FDR tried to 'stack' the court by adding additional judges.

Trump has never done or suggested such a thing.

He has nominated judges to replace any who have left or passed on.


BTW.....FDR's first nominee was a KKKer.

But....FDR was known as a bigot who hated minorities.

True. That non vote was pretty Constitutionally shady though

Ey, did I miss your opinion on that civil war question?

Or has Ann not given youone yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. According to our Founders, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.


“During FDR’s presidency, the federal government grew exponentially in size. The federal government usurped traditional state power; it regulated minute details of Americans’ everyday lives. The American governmental structure changed fundamentally – yet no constitutional amendment justified that change. Instead, FDR claimed authority in the original text of the Constitution. The American people never had to face the fact that by approving FDR’s program, they were altering the Constitution. FDR never had to face the political fallout of altering the Constitution.”
Ben Shapiro
FDR’s ‘rewriting’ of the Constitution - WND




This is the classical liberalism/conservatism that the nation and the Constitution was founded on:
Individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.o

The least Liberals/Democrats should do is provide an accurate eulogy for our late, great, Constitution.

 

[Moonglow]

14. According to our Founders, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Hardly was it based on freedom for all since the slaves, the Native American Indians were not allowed to live by the document you claim to be sacred...

 

[Moonglow]

So the American experiment is a half truth...But only Frankiln was a bad man....gheesh..

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...you've just been shy and coy hiding your opinions..."


Are you slow-witted or simply nuts?

Yes.

So about the Civil War. I say that's when the power of the Feds crossed the Constitutional line.

Mind tou I'm not debating if Lincoln was wrong, I wouldn't want to insult u by claiming a Republican team member of yours could ever be wrong.

Or is the way to think of the Civil War as the Southern States sure did have the right to leave and Lincoln had a right to an agressive war?

Did Franklin Roosevelt deal a death blow to the Constitution...purposely and with aforethought....by seducing the Supreme Court?

I THINK it was already dead. Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did.

Were parts of the New Deal unconstitutional? I'm sure something was. By and large it did expand the Federal Government But no one who supports the post 9-11 surveilance acts can tell me it was.

What's your civil war take with it killing the Constitution as written?

"Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did."

OMG!!!


Your ignorance is on display.....again.


FDR tried to 'stack' the court by adding additional judges.

Trump has never done or suggested such a thing.

He has nominated judges to replace any who have left or passed on.


BTW.....FDR's first nominee was a KKKer.

But....FDR was known as a bigot who hated minorities.

True. That non vote was pretty Constitutionally shady though

Ey, did I miss your opinion on that civil war question?

Or has Ann not given youone yet.

"Or has Ann not given youone yet."


My name isn't Ann.

You seem quite put out at having run up against another of my perfectly constructed threads.....again.


Won't be the last time.

 

[Toronado3800]

Yes.

So about the Civil War. I say that's when the power of the Feds crossed the Constitutional line.

Mind tou I'm not debating if Lincoln was wrong, I wouldn't want to insult u by claiming a Republican team member of yours could ever be wrong.

Or is the way to think of the Civil War as the Southern States sure did have the right to leave and Lincoln had a right to an agressive war?

Did Franklin Roosevelt deal a death blow to the Constitution...purposely and with aforethought....by seducing the Supreme Court?

I THINK it was already dead. Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did.

Were parts of the New Deal unconstitutional? I'm sure something was. By and large it did expand the Federal Government But no one who supports the post 9-11 surveilance acts can tell me it was.

What's your civil war take with it killing the Constitution as written?

"Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did."

OMG!!!


Your ignorance is on display.....again.


FDR tried to 'stack' the court by adding additional judges.

Trump has never done or suggested such a thing.

He has nominated judges to replace any who have left or passed on.


BTW.....FDR's first nominee was a KKKer.

But....FDR was known as a bigot who hated minorities.

True. That non vote was pretty Constitutionally shady though

Ey, did I miss your opinion on that civil war question?

Or has Ann not given youone yet.

"Or has Ann not given youone yet."


My name isn't Ann.

You seem quite put out at having run up against another of my perfectly constructed threads.....again.


Won't be the last time.

Yeah, I mean I was just asking you a question about Lincoln. Thought you might know something about it and have an opinion.

Then I was gonna compare and contrast the situations. Talk a bit about what was the right thing to do in each case.

INSTEAD,

Ann hasn't given you an opinion on Lincoln I guess so your bosses don't let you post one. Seemed simple. Everyone on a discussion forum loves to discuss things.

You're a bit more into copying and pasting what your masters have given you permission to.

That's fine, I don't wanna get you into trouble!

From now one I'll just talk to everyone else with questions pertaining to your pastes.

 

[Anathema]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt..

No. FDR just exhumed the remains of the document that Abraham Lincoln has assassinated in 1861 and evuscerated it again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did Franklin Roosevelt deal a death blow to the Constitution...purposely and with aforethought....by seducing the Supreme Court?

I THINK it was already dead. Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did.

Were parts of the New Deal unconstitutional? I'm sure something was. By and large it did expand the Federal Government But no one who supports the post 9-11 surveilance acts can tell me it was.

What's your civil war take with it killing the Constitution as written?

"Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did."

OMG!!!


Your ignorance is on display.....again.


FDR tried to 'stack' the court by adding additional judges.

Trump has never done or suggested such a thing.

He has nominated judges to replace any who have left or passed on.


BTW.....FDR's first nominee was a KKKer.

But....FDR was known as a bigot who hated minorities.

True. That non vote was pretty Constitutionally shady though

Ey, did I miss your opinion on that civil war question?

Or has Ann not given youone yet.

"Or has Ann not given youone yet."


My name isn't Ann.

You seem quite put out at having run up against another of my perfectly constructed threads.....again.


Won't be the last time.

Yeah, I mean I was just asking you a question about Lincoln. Thought you might know something about it and have an opinion.

Then I was gonna compare and contrast the situations. Talk a bit about what was the right thing to do in each case.

INSTEAD,

Ann hasn't given you an opinion on Lincoln I guess so your bosses don't let you post one. Seemed simple. Everyone on a discussion forum loves to discuss things.

You're a bit more into copying and pasting what your masters have given you permission to.

That's fine, I don't wanna get you into trouble!

From now one I'll just talk to everyone else with questions pertaining to your pastes.

There's no "Ann" here....just me schooling you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt..

No. FDR just exhumed the remains of the document that Abraham Lincoln has assassinated in 1861 and evuscerated it again.

We had a functioning Supreme Court in 1861.


Not so when Franklin Roosevelt emasculated it in his first term.

The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt.




1.The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution, called ‘the law of the land.’

According to the Founders of our nation, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.



Mull this over:

To which should an American give his support, the Constitution, or to the current President of the moment?



2.The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause




3.In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

4.During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Ibid.



Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues.
The General Welfare Clause





5. Why would FDR, who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, tear it asunder? Because he saw the success, the power, of his ‘friends’…the dictators, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
Because Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to swim with the sharks....to be one with the other dictators, not fight them.


It was a terrible decision for Roosevelt to have to choose between Stalin and Hitler....but he did.
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Details to follow.


Warning: the violence done to the Constitution by Roosevelt is graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

I second some date during the Civil War. Mentioning FDR is just for drama sake and with other posts shows your preoccupation with him.

What's your take on the Homestead Act and similar programs from the previous century?

Next she'll say that FDR raped the Constitution..

Not sure about that, but Obama did wipe his ass with it.

 

[Moonglow]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt.




1.The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution, called ‘the law of the land.’

According to the Founders of our nation, and memorialized in our founding documents, our nation was based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

America was America from 1789 to 1933....nearly a century and a half. The Constitution was in effect, and served as a guide for our government.



Mull this over:

To which should an American give his support, the Constitution, or to the current President of the moment?



2.The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause




3.In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.

At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

4.During the Depression, FDR asked for an receive unprecedented powers. Some poorly crafted legislation went to the courts. The first of the new deal statutes to reach the Supreme Court for review, arrived in January 1935. In the sixteen months following, the court decided ten major cases or groups of cases involving new deal statutes. In eight instances out of ten the decisions went in favor of the United States Constitution and against the new deal. Eight of the ten pieces of "must legislation" were found to be unconstitutional. Ibid.



Under FDR’s threats to pack the court, they threw in the towel. In doing so, they said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare." The supreme court surrendered to the new deal on the most fundamental of constitutional issues.
The General Welfare Clause





5. Why would FDR, who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution, tear it asunder? Because he saw the success, the power, of his ‘friends’…the dictators, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
Because Roosevelt wanted nothing more than to swim with the sharks....to be one with the other dictators, not fight them.


It was a terrible decision for Roosevelt to have to choose between Stalin and Hitler....but he did.
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

Details to follow.


Warning: the violence done to the Constitution by Roosevelt is graphic. Viewer discretion is advised.

I second some date during the Civil War. Mentioning FDR is just for drama sake and with other posts shows your preoccupation with him.

What's your take on the Homestead Act and similar programs from the previous century?

Next she'll say that FDR raped the Constitution..

Not sure about that, but Obama did wipe his ass with it.

Oh, what a turn-on!-Not, just like the absurd logic Polivinylchic uses...

 

[Toronado3800]

I THINK it was already dead. Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did.

Were parts of the New Deal unconstitutional? I'm sure something was. By and large it did expand the Federal Government But no one who supports the post 9-11 surveilance acts can tell me it was.

What's your civil war take with it killing the Constitution as written?

"Obviously just like Trump is gonna stack the court in his view's favor FDR did."

OMG!!!


Your ignorance is on display.....again.


FDR tried to 'stack' the court by adding additional judges.

Trump has never done or suggested such a thing.

He has nominated judges to replace any who have left or passed on.


BTW.....FDR's first nominee was a KKKer.

But....FDR was known as a bigot who hated minorities.

True. That non vote was pretty Constitutionally shady though

Ey, did I miss your opinion on that civil war question?

Or has Ann not given youone yet.

"Or has Ann not given youone yet."


My name isn't Ann.

You seem quite put out at having run up against another of my perfectly constructed threads.....again.


Won't be the last time.

Yeah, I mean I was just asking you a question about Lincoln. Thought you might know something about it and have an opinion.

Then I was gonna compare and contrast the situations. Talk a bit about what was the right thing to do in each case.

INSTEAD,

Ann hasn't given you an opinion on Lincoln I guess so your bosses don't let you post one. Seemed simple. Everyone on a discussion forum loves to discuss things.

You're a bit more into copying and pasting what your masters have given you permission to.

That's fine, I don't wanna get you into trouble!

From now one I'll just talk to everyone else with questions pertaining to your pastes.

There's no "Ann" here....just me schooling you.

Folks, I would say the New Deal was a continuation of the big government programs of the 1800's. In 1870 we could enlarge the economy by using the plunder we gained in wars with Mexico or the Indian lands we bought from France.

Come the 1900's we could no longer just give land away to companies across America as payment for this or that. SO, a New Deal was created.

Was the Patriot Act Constitutional? Dubiously. Was it what Republicans and most of America at the time thought was needed? Sure was, and is. Thus was the New Deal.

What elements of the New Deal do you all think stretched the Constitution the most?

 

[dudmuck]

Died, it did, and, it wasn’t a natural death….it was a cold blooded, calculated, assassination by the Brutus called Franklin Roosevelt..

No. FDR just exhumed the remains of the document that Abraham Lincoln has assassinated in 1861 and evuscerated it again.

We had a functioning Supreme Court in 1861.


Not so when Franklin Roosevelt emasculated it in his first term.

The fateful year was 1937: up until that year the Congress of the United States conducted its business within the boundaries of seventeen enumerated powers granted under Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution; these powers defined clearly the areas within which Congress could enact legislation including the allocation of funds and levying of taxes.

Anything not set down in the enumerated powers was considered outside the purview of the national government and hence, a matter for the states. There were occasional challenges to the concept but it was not until Franklin Roosevelt's new deal that it was attacked in deadly earnestness. The General Welfare Clause

Youve left out Helvering v. Davis, sorry you lose, try again.