The Worst President

[tkr4lf]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

[safariguy5]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

FDR was responsible for creating the welfare state and "big government" which are two things conservatives despise.

[Phatscotty]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

[tkr4lf]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

And, just to be clear, my teacher has a master's in this subject, and is one of those people who is just way too excited about their career/chosen area of expertise, and absolutely loves all this political crap. So, I'm going to put a little bit more faith in what I learned from her than what a guy on CC says. No offense intended.

So, still, I would like to know why FDR is on a list of worst presidents ever, when there are clearly others who deserve the spot way more? I mean, the guy was elected 4 times, clearly he had enough popularity to achieve that, something not many presidents possess. And I know the New Deal spurred into action the welfare state and big-brother government, but don't his accomplishments provide some merit? And how about George W? He signed into law the Patriot Act which allows warrantless wire-tapping of citizens, which is COMPLETELY unconstitutional. Seems like if you're going to include FDR for the reasons you state, then you should also include Bush Jr. I don't know, it just seems a little too biased, ya know?

[Phatscotty]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

[tkr4lf]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

Well, you don't necessarily have to replace it, just threaten to. Then they back off because the other two branches of government want the same thing, and will do what is necessary to get it. It's all politics. Many have done things like it. I don't see what the big deal is.

[patches70]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

Well, you don't necessarily have to replace it, just threaten to. Then they back off because the other two branches of government want the same thing, and will do what is necessary to get it. It's all politics. Many have done things like it. I don't see what the big deal is.

Because it undermines the principle of "checks and balances".

No matter what Congress or the President or even the Supreme Court want, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land that supersedes all other secular law in the US.

A President's only real job is to "defend and uphold the Constitution". This is what he takes an oath to. If a President or Congress, attempts to enact, or enacts legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, then that would be by definition, a "bad President" or "bad Congress" regardless of popularity.

[Phatscotty]

I'll go with Wilson, because of the Federal Reserve and IRS being created during that time.

But I really do not see why FDR is up there. He was the most popular president ever was he not? Why else would he be elected 4 times? And his policies eventually brought us out of the great depression. So, again, why is FDR on this poll?

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

Well, you don't necessarily have to replace it, just threaten to. Then they back off because the other two branches of government want the same thing, and will do what is necessary to get it. It's all politics. Many have done things like it. I don't see what the big deal is.

You are okay with the president threatening the supreme court into going against their oathes to protect the Constitution?

Secondly, if he went through with that threat, wouldnt he have set up a dictatorship and served for the rest of his life?

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

Well, you don't necessarily have to replace it, just threaten to. Then they back off because the other two branches of government want the same thing, and will do what is necessary to get it. It's all politics. Many have done things like it. I don't see what the big deal is.

Because it undermines the principle of "checks and balances".

No matter what Congress or the President or even the Supreme Court want, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land that supersedes all other secular law in the US.

A President's only real job is to "defend and uphold the Constitution". This is what he takes an oath to. If a President or Congress, attempts to enact, or enacts legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, then that would be by definition, a "bad President" or "bad Congress" regardless of popularity.

yah dude, but I get 12 extra dollars in my check if I vote against the constitution. Sorry, I need the cigarette money.

[Phatscotty]

BTW, FDR is second worst to me, hands down.

[patches70]

BTW, FDR is second worst to me, hands down.

Lemme guess, Wilson would be your first choice?

[Phatscotty]

BTW, FDR is second worst to me, hands down.

Lemme guess, Wilson would be your first choice?

Yes. FDR could not be FDR without progressive pal Wilson. I was onto this guy pre Glenn Beck. One of the reasons I used to watch him, I couldn't believe there was a guy on TV blasting Woodrow Wilson.

Me and my buddy even high fived.

[tkr4lf]

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

Well, you don't necessarily have to replace it, just threaten to. Then they back off because the other two branches of government want the same thing, and will do what is necessary to get it. It's all politics. Many have done things like it. I don't see what the big deal is.

Because it undermines the principle of "checks and balances".

No matter what Congress or the President or even the Supreme Court want, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land that supersedes all other secular law in the US.

A President's only real job is to "defend and uphold the Constitution". This is what he takes an oath to. If a President or Congress, attempts to enact, or enacts legislation that is contrary to the Constitution, then that would be by definition, a "bad President" or "bad Congress" regardless of popularity.

See, I see it as being an example of checks and balances. To get something through the government, all 3 branches must be in agreement, yes? The congress must pass the law, the president must sign it into law, and the courts must uphold the law or find it unconstitutional. So, to use a political move like FDR did, when two out of three branches of the government believe in the legislation being passed, and most importantly the congress ( the representatives of the people), is the checks and balances working. All the branches can use certain powers to check or balance the other branches. So when two branches team up against a third branch, to force something through, then how is that wrong? It's using the powers granted by the constitution to achieve something constructive. And you cannot deny that the New Deal pulled us out of the Great Depression, no matter what other unintended consequences occured because of the legislation.

And I think when the President, and the congress, want something done to help the nation, even if it is considered unconstitutional by some, should do what they need to so as to get it passed. I think the fact that it worked speaks well of the whole situation. The Constitution is not an all powerful document, thats why their are amendments to it. It must be changed sometimes to better reflect the world we live in today. That's what I think FDR was trying to accomplish, except he used a politcal move instead of the long process of an amendment to get around something the Constitution did not allow that was ultimately for the greater good.

[tkr4lf]

no, he was not. his policies were so unpopular, he had to change around the supreme court (see above) And he went against the consitution. (see page 1)

Yeah, we just covered this in my Texas Government class(for whatever reason). What we were told is that the Congress and the Legislature actually agreed, and the only thing FDR could do to stop the Supreme Court was to try to get more Justices, who would of course side with him. So the Supreme Court backed off and called off the threat to find the New Deal unconstitutional. Then, and only then, did the New Deal go through. The Supreme Court never had actually found them unconstitutional, only threatened to if the Congress passed the laws comprising the New Deal and FDR signed them into law. It was a political move, one that worked quite well. The only people preventing the passage of them was the Supreme Court.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court kept ruling FDR's policies Unconstitutional, and the only way to get around the Supreme Court is to replace it.

Well, you don't necessarily have to replace it, just threaten to. Then they back off because the other two branches of government want the same thing, and will do what is necessary to get it. It's all politics. Many have done things like it. I don't see what the big deal is.

You are okay with the president threatening the supreme court into going against their oathes to protect the Constitution?

Secondly, if he went through with that threat, wouldnt he have set up a dictatorship and served for the rest of his life?

I don't think that's really what happened. It was politics from what I understand of it. The Supreme Court's main reasons for threatening to declare the New Deal unconstitutional were political, is what I mean.

Secondly, any answer I could give on this hypothetical would be pure speculation. No need to go down that road. I suppose he could have. But then again, I suppose anything could have happened had it not gone the way it did. But it did happen. And besides, would it have been that bad to have FDR as dictator? I mean the guy died before WWII was over, so big deal...

[tkr4lf]

BTW, FDR is second worst to me, hands down.

Lemme guess, Wilson would be your first choice?

Yes. FDR could not be FDR without progressive pal Wilson. I was onto this guy pre Glenn Beck. One of the reasons I used to watch him, I couldn't believe there was a guy on TV blasting Woodrow Wilson.

Me and my buddy even high fived.

Though I completely agree with you on this. Wilson was horrible. I cannot believe he allowed some bankers to take over the power of the government to print its own money. The Federal Reserve is a racket. It seems as if more people knew about the Federal Reserve, and just how "federal" it really is (about as "federal" as federal express), people would be outraged. But, ignorance is bliss, as some say.

[Phatscotty]

BTW, FDR is second worst to me, hands down.

Lemme guess, Wilson would be your first choice?

Yes. FDR could not be FDR without progressive pal Wilson. I was onto this guy pre Glenn Beck. One of the reasons I used to watch him, I couldn't believe there was a guy on TV blasting Woodrow Wilson.

Me and my buddy even high fived.

Though I completely agree with you on this. Wilson was horrible. I cannot believe he allowed some bankers to take over the power of the government to print its own money. The Federal Reserve is a racket. It seems as if more people knew about the Federal Reserve, and just how "federal" it really is (about as "federal" as federal express), people would be outraged. But, ignorance is bliss, as some say.

you need to look to Senator Aldrich for the answer there. You will find a better one than just looking to the president. You could even give Dru Hill, by Mandell House, a read.