The Bell Curve of American History

[PoliticalChic]

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.
The ascendency of the materialist 32nd President....ended the noble experiment of limited constitutional government, and of American history.

m = y2-y1/x2-x1 with a solution value of -1




1. Those of us born after the 1940s, pretty much all of us, live in the brave new United States....awesome in so many ways.....yet cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Slowly, from the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson through that of Franklin Roosevelt, the America envisioned by the Founders was put to death, a slow, lingering demise.

The heart of the republic, the Constitution, was ripped out as the savage Magua ripped out the beating heart of Colonel Munro.



a. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution could be "stripped off and thrown aside."

b. Franklin Roosevelt demanded emergency powers: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net


c. And under Roosevelt, a clique of five Justices, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, conspired to end the Founders' plan: limited constitutional government.

And they did.


Prior to their actions, the federal government was constrained by Article 1, section 8, the enumerated powers, a list of specified uses for federal funds.




2. It was August 14, 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act. As it was unassociated with any of the enumerated powers, the question as to whether the government could dun Americans for that purpose was put to the courts for a test.

The court case that delivered the coup de grace to the United States Constitution was Helvering v. Davis.

"Helvering v. Davis, (May 24, 1937)...a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, .... It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional." Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Be clear: this decision was a direct contravention of the judicial understanding of the phrase "general welfare."
In one fell swoop, this rogue court destroyed the idea that the federal government was, in any way, limited in its spending authority.


Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts., writing in 1951, said in effect: "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."



4. Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. At ratification of the Constitution, the problem did not go unnoticed. They knew that some would use the phrase "general welfare" to mean anything. Madison tried to cut them off: the introduction stated that the government had the power to tax and spend what it accrued. The list, he said, summarized what the funds could be used for.

" Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, ... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" Federalist #41



The whole point of enumerating the powers of the federal government, i.e., the list of seventeen, was to proclaim that these, and only these, were authorized.


a. Be clear: the anti-federalists were stating their fear that "general welfare" would be interpreted as it has come to be...as an unqualifed and absolute power to spend.....

...and the federalists who pooh-poohed the idea, i.e., 'no one would think that'?

Were there any?

None of the federalists argued in favor of such.

None. Not even Hamilton...who changed his tune two years after ratification.

Robert G. Natelson. "The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original Understanding"
"The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original " by Robert G. Natelson

 

[TNHarley]

you know that our SECOND president legislated silencing the opposition, right? JW
You know Lincoln shit on the Constitution, right? JW

 

[DGS49]

And yet...consider the public and legal debates on the Constitutionality of the "penalty" under O'Bama-Care for not having insurance. If the "general welfare" expansion (to neuter the 10th Amendment) were universally accepted, then it would not have been necessary for Roberts to declare that the "penalty" was not actually a penalty, but it was in fact a tax - which Congress is clearly empowered to enact.

If Congress were free to legislate anything that it deemed necessary to promote the General Welfare, then it would not have been necessary to pull this rabbit out of his figurative hat.

All is not lost. Yet.

With a couple of new USSC appointees who have at least read the Constitution, we might be able to bring ourselves back from the brink.

Which is why it is necessary to "Hold Your Nose and Vote for Trump!"

It is better to have someone who might be a disaster than someone who is sure to be a disaster.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And yet...consider the public and legal debates on the Constitutionality of the "penalty" under O'Bama-Care for not having insurance. If the "general welfare" expansion (to neuter the 10th Amendment) were universally accepted, then it would not have been necessary for Roberts to declare that the "penalty" was not actually a penalty, but it was in fact a tax - which Congress is clearly empowered to enact.

If Congress were free to legislate anything that it deemed necessary to promote the General Welfare, then it would not have been necessary to pull this rabbit out of his figurative hat.

All is not lost. Yet.

With a couple of new USSC appointees who have at least read the Constitution, we might be able to bring ourselves back from the brink.

Which is why it is necessary to "Hold Your Nose and Vote for Trump!"

It is better to have someone who might be a disaster than someone who is sure to be a disaster.

"All is not lost. Yet."

I have your theme music here....

 

[rightwinger]

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.
The ascendency of the materialist 32nd President....ended the noble experiment of limited constitutional government, and of American history.

m = y2-y1/x2-x1 with a solution value of -1




1. Those of us born after the 1940s, pretty much all of us, live in the brave new United States....awesome in so many ways.....yet cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Slowly, from the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson through that of Franklin Roosevelt, the America envisioned by the Founders was put to death, a slow, lingering demise.

The heart of the republic, the Constitution, was ripped out as the savage Magua ripped out the beating heart of Colonel Munro.



a. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution could be "stripped off and thrown aside."

b. Franklin Roosevelt demanded emergency powers: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net


c. And under Roosevelt, a clique of five Justices, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, conspired to end the Founders' plan: limited constitutional government.

And they did.


Prior to their actions, the federal government was constrained by Article 1, section 8, the enumerated powers, a list of specified uses for federal funds.




2. It was August 14, 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act. As it was unassociated with any of the enumerated powers, the question as to whether the government could dun Americans for that purpose was put to the courts for a test.

The court case that delivered the coup de grace to the United States Constitution was Helvering v. Davis.

"Helvering v. Davis, (May 24, 1937)...a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, .... It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional." Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Be clear: this decision was a direct contravention of the judicial understanding of the phrase "general welfare."
In one fell swoop, this rogue court destroyed the idea that the federal government was, in any way, limited in its spending authority.


Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts., writing in 1951, said in effect: "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."



4. Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]

Easy solution....Why don't Republicans repeal Social Security?

It will make them so popular with strict Constitutionalists

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.
The ascendency of the materialist 32nd President....ended the noble experiment of limited constitutional government, and of American history.

m = y2-y1/x2-x1 with a solution value of -1




1. Those of us born after the 1940s, pretty much all of us, live in the brave new United States....awesome in so many ways.....yet cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Slowly, from the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson through that of Franklin Roosevelt, the America envisioned by the Founders was put to death, a slow, lingering demise.

The heart of the republic, the Constitution, was ripped out as the savage Magua ripped out the beating heart of Colonel Munro.



a. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution could be "stripped off and thrown aside."

b. Franklin Roosevelt demanded emergency powers: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net


c. And under Roosevelt, a clique of five Justices, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, conspired to end the Founders' plan: limited constitutional government.

And they did.


Prior to their actions, the federal government was constrained by Article 1, section 8, the enumerated powers, a list of specified uses for federal funds.




2. It was August 14, 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act. As it was unassociated with any of the enumerated powers, the question as to whether the government could dun Americans for that purpose was put to the courts for a test.

The court case that delivered the coup de grace to the United States Constitution was Helvering v. Davis.

"Helvering v. Davis, (May 24, 1937)...a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, .... It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional." Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Be clear: this decision was a direct contravention of the judicial understanding of the phrase "general welfare."
In one fell swoop, this rogue court destroyed the idea that the federal government was, in any way, limited in its spending authority.


Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts., writing in 1951, said in effect: "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."



4. Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]

Easy solution....Why don't Republicans repeal Social Security?

It will make them so popular with strict Constitutionalists

So glad you dropped by to fill in the lacunae in your education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. So...how to explain a 7-2 decision in Helvering v Davis?

Well, Cardozo admitted that precedent and history were being tossed: Founders be damned!


"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents." Benjamin Cardozo



Everyone should take notice of the phrase "settled by decision." This is the homage that Progressives pay to 'caselaw,' which denies the idea that it is the Constitution that is meant to guide the nation! Somehow, unelected judges are of a higher authority than the memorializing document itself.




7. What could be more 'Progressive' than to decide, by fiat, that Hamilton's, the most extreme views, in fact ones that he couldn't dare mention at the time, or there would not have been a Constitution ratified, were it declared to be those of the founders.


The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'

It was counterfeit under Franklin Roosevelt.


The seeds of destruction of the nation imagined, created, by the Founders can be found in article III of our Constitution.
The courts.
The Judges.

 

[rightwinger]

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.
The ascendency of the materialist 32nd President....ended the noble experiment of limited constitutional government, and of American history.

m = y2-y1/x2-x1 with a solution value of -1




1. Those of us born after the 1940s, pretty much all of us, live in the brave new United States....awesome in so many ways.....yet cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Slowly, from the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson through that of Franklin Roosevelt, the America envisioned by the Founders was put to death, a slow, lingering demise.

The heart of the republic, the Constitution, was ripped out as the savage Magua ripped out the beating heart of Colonel Munro.



a. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution could be "stripped off and thrown aside."

b. Franklin Roosevelt demanded emergency powers: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net


c. And under Roosevelt, a clique of five Justices, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, conspired to end the Founders' plan: limited constitutional government.

And they did.


Prior to their actions, the federal government was constrained by Article 1, section 8, the enumerated powers, a list of specified uses for federal funds.




2. It was August 14, 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act. As it was unassociated with any of the enumerated powers, the question as to whether the government could dun Americans for that purpose was put to the courts for a test.

The court case that delivered the coup de grace to the United States Constitution was Helvering v. Davis.

"Helvering v. Davis, (May 24, 1937)...a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, .... It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional." Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Be clear: this decision was a direct contravention of the judicial understanding of the phrase "general welfare."
In one fell swoop, this rogue court destroyed the idea that the federal government was, in any way, limited in its spending authority.


Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts., writing in 1951, said in effect: "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."



4. Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]

Easy solution....Why don't Republicans repeal Social Security?

It will make them so popular with strict Constitutionalists

So glad you dropped by to fill in the lacunae in your education.

I've offered you your solution. If the actions of FDR were unconstitutional....repeal them

Republicans control Congress ....where is your bill to repeal that unconstitutional Social Security?

 

[GaryDog]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.
The ascendency of the materialist 32nd President....ended the noble experiment of limited constitutional government, and of American history.

m = y2-y1/x2-x1 with a solution value of -1




1. Those of us born after the 1940s, pretty much all of us, live in the brave new United States....awesome in so many ways.....yet cultivating the seeds of its own destruction.

Slowly, from the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson through that of Franklin Roosevelt, the America envisioned by the Founders was put to death, a slow, lingering demise.

The heart of the republic, the Constitution, was ripped out as the savage Magua ripped out the beating heart of Colonel Munro.



a. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution could be "stripped off and thrown aside."

b. Franklin Roosevelt demanded emergency powers: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”
Freedomsite.net


c. And under Roosevelt, a clique of five Justices, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, conspired to end the Founders' plan: limited constitutional government.

And they did.


Prior to their actions, the federal government was constrained by Article 1, section 8, the enumerated powers, a list of specified uses for federal funds.




2. It was August 14, 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act. As it was unassociated with any of the enumerated powers, the question as to whether the government could dun Americans for that purpose was put to the courts for a test.

The court case that delivered the coup de grace to the United States Constitution was Helvering v. Davis.

"Helvering v. Davis, (May 24, 1937)...a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, .... It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional." Helvering v. Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Be clear: this decision was a direct contravention of the judicial understanding of the phrase "general welfare."
In one fell swoop, this rogue court destroyed the idea that the federal government was, in any way, limited in its spending authority.


Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts., writing in 1951, said in effect: "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."



4. Article 1, section 8 begins as follows: "Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

After this introduction, come seventeen enumerated power.

[The phrase appears in the preamble, "...to promote the general welfare...." but this is rarely used to find the loophole for spending authority.]

Easy solution....Why don't Republicans repeal Social Security?

It will make them so popular with strict Constitutionalists

So glad you dropped by to fill in the lacunae in your education.

I've offered you your solution. If the actions of FDR were unconstitutional....repeal them

Republicans control Congress ....where is your bill to repeal that unconstitutional Social Security?

Stop begging!!!


More of that sorely needed education will follow shortly!!!

Now...back to the last seat in the dumb row.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

 

[rightwinger]

FDR turned us into a modern democracy

One that cares about the plight of its people, on that helps those needing help, one that is more concerned with the welfare of We the People than defending the rights of corporate profit

I can see why conservatives are outraged

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR turned us into a modern democracy

One that cares about the plight of its people, on that helps those needing help, one that is more concerned with the welfare of We the People than defending the rights of corporate profit

I can see why conservatives are outraged

Did you know that FDR lied when he swore this 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."


...with his hand on the family bible, too.


Which of Dante's circles do you imagine he occupies?
You didn't understand that reference, did you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers?

If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending.

He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" 'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams




9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court, Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.

The United States Constitution, known correctly, as 'the law of the land.'

Thus, proof of the illegality of the court.....and the rogue President, FDR.



And this warning meant nothing to them:

In his farewell address of our first President, George Washington, in reference to our constitution, warned, "Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."




But, as they treated Madison and Jay, George Washington received the same 'back of the hand' contempt from Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

As one can see in post #13, Obamunists couldn't care less about the Constitution, or about rectitude, at all.

 

[GaryDog]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "The [Roosevelt] Court, having trashed the enumerated powers, then managed to make matters worse. Cardozo acknowledged that defining what constitutes 'general welfare' is a matter of discretion.

" There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. [Where else has this rationalization been used to imagine new laws?]

The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. "



In effect, the Progressive view is that Congress is free to spend any of taxpayers funds on what it deemed 'the general welfare.'

"And so the accepted interpretation of 'general welfare' was overturned in a stroke, without apology, and even with a sort of flippancy about the enormity of the reinterpretation that seven individuals had imposed on the nation's founding document." Charles Murray, "By The People," p.20-21



11. Consider the national debt.....on it's way to $20 trillion dollars (U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time)


How did this happen? The presidential ingénue, Barack Obama, of course....but he is hardly the only one to blame.

A "General Welfare Congress" [session after session] made this happen. With no limits on their taxing and spending power, they became like children in a candy store.

You want to serve your country.

To serve your country you must be in power [in Congress].

To be in power you must be re-elected.

To be re-elected you must out promise your opponent.

To out promise your opponent you must promise to spend for the "General Welfare." The General Welfare Clause




Hence....this result of Progressives in power:

"Feds pay researcher to have bee sting his penis
Taxpayers also fund studies of drunk birds songs, femininity of Democrats in Congress"
Feds pay researcher to have bee sting his penis

 

[GaryDog]

You realize that the constitution wasn't handed to us by Jesus Christ, right?

Please articulate the point you are attempting to make, so that I can rip it to shreds.





Waiting.

Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection. And that any deviation from it is sinful. This is the same constitution that concluded black people should be 3/5ths of a person in terms of representation (and that representation itself would be averse to the interests of the blacks themselves).

The constitution is, and always has been a living document, subject to interpretation, and amendments. Furthermore, during the time of the Framers it was determined that the SCOTUS would be the body that interprets the constitution, taking into account more than just original intent.

"Your point is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is perfection."

Your post is evidence that you are a moron who has never even read the Constitution.


From post #15...
9. So, even though the Framers allowed that change to the Constitution might be necessary, and, in Article five, explained how amendments could and should be managed....the Progressive court,Roosevelt's court, disdained to follow any of the procedures provided.


Judges have no right nor authority to alter the Constitution.

None.

"living Constitution" is a euphemism for killing the Constitution.



Now...let me guess....you're a government school grad?

I see, you're a Scalia disciple who's probably unaware of Scalia's numerous hypocrisies concerning where he believes original intent should be followed as opposed to where invention of meaning (2nd Amendment's Heller) is appropriate.

Article III articulates the judicial branch's jurisdiction to hear cases, and interpret law. There was virtually no disagreement during the constitutional convention that the judicial branch would have the power of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. You seem to think judicial review should be confined only to those interpretations you like. That's dictatorial fascism, and completely anti-constitutional.

Lol @ all your ad hominum garbage. You're an unhappy little shit, aren't you?

 

[rightwinger]

FDR turned us into a modern democracy

One that cares about the plight of its people, on that helps those needing help, one that is more concerned with the welfare of We the People than defending the rights of corporate profit

I can see why conservatives are outraged

Did you know that FDR lied when he swore this 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."


...with his hand on the family bible, too.


Which of Dante's circles do you imagine he occupies?
You didn't understand that reference, did you.

You have had 80 years to show that what FDR did was unconstitutional....what is taking you so long?