Wow.
:eek:
:mad:
Was the Chinese exclusion act also color blind and only considered how chinky your eyes are? Or some other difference from the Western European white norms of beauty that we have in this country?
Uh… you’ve been whooshed.
I really don’t think so, but don’t have time for a proper Pit post right now; perhaps someone else will do the honors, or I’ll revisit it this afternoon.
The massive espionage campaign on American citizens and the Big Brothering of the NSA. Unlike Watergate, this is all considered legal. However, it’s based on laws you can’t read written by a court with no oversight. I consider that highly undemocratic, even though after the story broke it turns out to have been pretty popular with the American people.
Yeah, blame the British for that. Various Company’s Acts in the 19th century had increased the legal nature of a Company and House of Lord’s Judgements in Salmon basically created the modern Company.
As the U.K was the world’s premier military and economic power this was spread all over especially in the U.S where there was heavy British investment.
The last bit is not true, 96 democrat congressman voted against the Civil Rights Act and only one, Albert Watson, became a republican. 21 democrat senators voted against the Act and only one, Strom Thurmond, became a republican. 98% of democrat lawmakers who voted against the Civil Rights Act stayed democrats.
But the base changed. Your every day working class southern white guy switched his party allegiance.
Another nomination- the internment of Japanese-Americans by FDR.
My pick would be every prolonged military action undertaken without a Congressional declaration of war.
Congress authorizes all military spending except for short term emergency actions decided on by the Commander in Chief. They just don’t like to declare “wars”.
I’m not sure if you’re just offended by nobody calling a spade a spade, or because you think there is no Congressional oversight. But it’s not like the President can just start a war all by himself.
It’s Prohibition. The 21st Amendment banned “intoxicating liquors.” It was widely sold as a ban on hard liquors. Instead, the Volstead Act banned everything but communion wine and industrial alcohol.
And the incumbents were just all too stupid to switch parties along with their voters?
The incumbents had no connection with the local machines on the Republican side. But in any event, the post-CRA shift away from Democratic dominance in the South is well-documented, and the Republicans certainly believed in it.
As a lawyer I can tell you there are compelling practical reasons for corporate personhood. However, none of those reasons imply that a corporation should have all the same constitutional or other legal rights as an actual person.
Nice jab at Obama, but no. Health care reform was front and center of Obama’s 2008 campaign platform and the Democratic Party platform. He was elected. Having been elected, he then did what he promised to do. The bill was passed by a democratically elected Congress and duly signed into law by a democratically elected President. Where does the “undemocratic” part come in?
Quite true, there was deception involved in selling Prohibition. But all that stuff was banned (with the exceptions you note, and medicinal exceptions and some others) from sale but not necessarily from private production. Consumers could still make their own cider and wine. In fact this led California wineries to largely become grape producers and led to a big boom in grape shipments across the country. Sadly, many grapes couldn’t survive the months-long journey and warehousing. One of the few varieties that could was a tough, thick-skinned hybrid called Alicante Bouschet, which had the added benefit that it had such a rich dark color that it could be used in multiple pressings. Under the circumstances it was used to produce such absolute God-awful swill that it has a terrible reputation to this day, and even one of its genetic components, Grenache, is sometimes looked at askance. Yet Alicante is actually fairly widely planted in France.
Not only that, but supporters of prohibition blocked the use of the 1920 census when setting Congressional seats for 8 years because to use the 1920 census would shift the power in the House from rural districts (which supported prohibition) to urban districts (opposed to prohibition); so for eight years, the government just ignored the constitutional mandate to use the census to determine congressional district.
Undemocratic or unpopular? They are not the same thing. Politicians are supposed to do what is right instead of what is popular (considering that most of us are into short term benefits and barely understand the issues).
In contemporary times I would say TARP or Clinton’s bailout of Mexico in the 90s.
No tto mention that essentially the same program had already passed, state-level in Massachusetts in 2006 with bipartisan nearly unanimous legislative votes, and signed by their Republcian Governor.
Similarly the 1993 Federal Budget, with tax hikes and credited with ushering in great prosperity and leading to surplus passed Congress without a single Republican vote. (Though in a recent thread someone credited the deficit reduction to Gingrich. :smack: ) The historic revisionism one sees about the ACA and Deficit Reduction votes are outlandish.
Except that suspension of habeas corpus is explicitly allowed in the constitution during times of rebellion.
The entire discussion is just opinion, of course, but I would disqualify the 21st Amendment. It was an amendment, after all, and ratified by all the states.
FDR’s threat to pack the court with pro-New Deal justices is in the discussion. I was originally going to suggest the Alien and Sedition act.
The 21st Amendment was passed democratically, yes. But the point is the Volstead Act went far beyond what the amendment itself was purported to do.