This is one of the ten dumbest statements ever posted on this board.
I don’t see how. For 150 years, the Constitution meant one thing. FDR wanted it to mean another and he was willing to manipulate our system to get his way.
The Constitution doesn’t limit the membership of SCOTUS to nine, nor does it have any provision guaranteeing a blanket “freedom of contract”. At the very worst, what you’re talking about is a reasonable dispute over the law. Calling that “the single greatest shame in our country’s history” is categorically dumb even taken as hyperbole. I will point out (though I presumably don’t need to) that our country constitutionally protected slavery, used black people as human guineau pigs without their knowledge or consent, and more or less invented modern ethnic cleansing.
I agree that there were more egregious actions by presidents but trying to get one’s way by packing the court seems pretty underhanded. I can’t imagine the fallout on the SDMB if GWB tried that. I think of FDR as a near-great president but that was definitely a black mark.
black mark =/= single greatest shame in our country’s history ?
I can’t see how the Trail of Tears “invented modern ethnic cleansing.” Unless you’re just wanting to engage in hyperbole yourself. It’s nothing but a single blip in a long line of historical ethnic cleansing. Literally the only way you can say such a thing is if you’re predisposed to starting the “modern” era in precisely that time and predisposed to picking the Trail of Tears as the starting event. Even then it’s a poor example since it wasn’t nearly as deliberate an ethnic cleansing as many others that have happened in recent history.
I’ve already said that I agree that it is not the single greatest shame. My disagreement is over “At the very worst, what you’re talking about is a reasonable dispute over the law.” It was a underhanded (but technically legal) move by FDR that in retrospect probably wasn’t necessary.
Systematic relocation of people by ethnic group in order to exploit their resources.
That “technically legal” part is pretty much the crux of the issue. It’s not as though he was proposing to do it by fiat; Congress had to pass legislation to allow him to appoint more justices (and ultimately did not.)
The expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia certainly predates the Trail of Tears. But human history (“modern” or not) is full of horrors–and this isn’t the Rate The Atrocity thread. Definitely, Andrew Jackson is not on my list of Greatest Presidents. Or Decent Human Beings.
I’d go with Abraham Lincoln for “The Best” but George Washington is right up there. (I’ve been reading up on that period.)
More recently, FDR gets a vote. And LBJ is my favorite president* from Texas*. The Vietnam thing built slowly–it wasn’t a deliberate crime in cold blood like the invasion of Iraq. And LBJ felt his guilt–he didn’t retire to a gated community & paint silly pictures. The good he did domestically lives on…
I would have to nominate Millard Fillmore
I can not think of a single negative thing that happened during his presidency.
Given that FDR was willing to ignore the Constitution to imprison a race of people, I think it’s fair to say what he thought of that document, and human rights in general. It amazes me what some people are willing to overlook because Social Security.
Nixon prolonged the War in Vietnam after the United States had no chance of winning.
My favorite is Franklin Roosevelt. In the short run he ended the Great Depression, and won the Second World War. His enduring achievements are Social Security, minimum wage legislation, unemployment compensation, minimum wage legislation, and laws to protect labor unions.
Ronald Reagan was a successful president, but he was successful in ways I which he had failed. More than anyone else he convinced most Republicans that it is always a good idea to cut taxes, and never a good idea to raise them.
They didn’t learn that lesson from Reagan. They learned it from Grover Norquist. Reagan had more sense than that.
I have to agree with this sentiment. Without Abraham Lincoln and his silver-tipped railsplitting axe, the country would be knee-deep in the undead right now.
Well, at least, when he went to war against Japan and Germany, he got constitutional declarations of war, something your hero Silent Cal never did when he invaded Nicaragua.
And where in the enumerated powers did Coolidge get to the right to advocate, and sign into law, federal funding of Howard University, which, by the way, was founded as a religious institution? I’m not saying he was wrong there. Coolidge was right. I’m just saying that being a good President, and worrying about whether your every move is constitutional, do not go together.
The US constitution does not equate to human rights. Interning civilians of powers you are at war, while a big violation of human rights, was a standard part of war in civilized countries (as opposed to those countries which would have massacred the Germans and Japanese we interned).
Now, interning your own citizens wasn’t a standard part of war. Still, there is nothing in the constitution that says or implies that the normal rules still apply after we have gone through the constitutional procedure to go to the war. Just because the Supreme Court majority, when it essentially upheld internment, was ruling against human rights, doesn’t mean it was ruling against the constitution.
Every president took actions which are great many reasonable and informed people, at the time, thought to violate the Constitution. So respect for the often-vague US Constitution cannot be used a way to judge who is a great president.
Breaking and entering and then ordering official cover ups and covering up that cover up was regularly done? I think not, but if you have any cites for that assertion, by all means, please proceed. If you mean making recordings in the oval office without the knowledge of the recorded, which is now generally considered a crime, then yes, others did it.
I’m not going to defend Japanese internment, the Supreme Court botched that one. It was wrong and unnecessary. J. Edgar Hoover gets what little redemption he deserves from opposing it.
I will defend FDR against his “court packing” scheme. He proposed passing law to extend the number of Justices, he didn’t just go and nominate them. Proposing a law that is unpopular is not illegal, immoral or unethical. It did manage to light a fire under the USSC. It also had the feeling of dirty pool to the public at large.
The problem with FDR is there’s a pattern of behavior. Although no one was worse than Woodrow Wilson.
And of course, as mentioned before, he installed plumbing. However, if we’re going by your criteria, I can’t think of a single negative thing that happened during William Henry Harrison’s presidency. So I nominate him.
How was the United States post-Lincoln an ‘empire’ by any sane definition? The only ‘empire’ enthusiasts around at the time were the Confederates who wanted to expand south and sieze Cuba.
Yes, the purpose of a government is (in large part) to bring evil men to heel. And more generally, to facilitate the general welfare. What do you think governments are for?
I don’t love any American President, but I think Lincoln was the best.