disqualification

His, FDR, battles with the Supreme Court are never talked about any longer and a lot of people have no clue that a lot of his legislation was found unconstitutional. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

But then Congress revised some laws and the Court upheld them, right?

Let us not forget that true history shows that as soon as FDR lost the oval office, the people made sure there was term limits in the top executive position. If he was that loved, why on earth would they do that? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

If he was that hated why on earth did they elect him to four terms? Two other Presidents tried to be elected to a third term and were not re-elected. Could it be that the electorate might actually have liked FDR a little?

Your slightly biased analysis fails to mention that the call for presidential term limits did not begin with FDR.

The original Articles of Confederation included term limits for delegates and a presidential term limit was a hotly debated topic in the Constitutional Convention. The subject then proved a major sticking point during the ratification debates with Hamilton having to address it on two separate occasions in the Federalist Papers (see nos. 69 and 72).

Washington and Jefferson quelled the debate slightly when they rejected a third term, but Grant re-ignited it by taking a third run at the office. At that point Congress spoke up and the House adopted the Springer Resolution which stated "(t)hat in the opinion of this House the precedent established by Washington and other Presidents of the United States, in retiring from the Presidential office after their second term, has become, by universal concurrence, a part of our republican system of government, and that any departure from this time-honored custom would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions." Grant was not re-elected and the Springer Resolution - although certainly not binding law - was pointed to as a demonstrative interpretation of the Constitution from that day forward.

Even so, the debate didn't end. In the 160 years between the original ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the Twenty-Second Amendment there were nearly 300 proposals submitted in Congress to add a presidential term limit. By the time FDR was elected to his first term the proposals were averaging three per year. The call for a change was hardly the result of FDR.

You also don't bother to mention that the ratification process for Amendment XXII was highly politicized as well. The Republicans took control of both houses in the 1946 elections and pushed through the Amendment on the very first day on the new Congress. The Republican Speaker of the House then limited debate on the act to just two hours over Democratic objections and the proposal was rammed through on a party-line vote. Debate was more extensive in the Senate but it still split on party lines. It then went out to the states where Republican dominated legislatures ratified it quickly while Democratic controlled states held back. It took six years for ratification to finalize in the states with most of the state legislatures voting to approve being in the hands of the Republicans. "The people" didn't adopt this amendment - the Republican party did.

So Amendment XXII didn't start with FDR. It wasn't an overwhelming outpouring of term limit support from "the people". It sure as hell had nothing to do with the populace turning on one of the most popular and beloved Presidents in our history whom they elected by 432 electoral votes to 99 just before the Amendment was proposed.

The Twenty-Second Amendment came about after 160 years of continuous debate and a partisan shove by a political party pissed that it had been locked out of the White House for almost two decades. It's nowhere near the "true history" story you tell about it.

His, FDR, battles with the Supreme Court are never talked about any longer and a lot of people have no clue that a lot of his legislation was found unconstitutional.

Well it's sure talked about at law schools a lot. In fact, I spent a whole damn semester talking about it.

Isn't it interesting, though, that in the eyes of some people the courts are "judicial activists" when they strike down the acts of a conservative president but when they turn away the acts of a liberal one it's a demonstration of a defective presidency? Seems like just more of the usual cherry picking with the facts.

Cheers,
Mazo.

OK Hank, I'm going to take a flier here:

I'm going to take the location from your profile, add in the structure and content of your posts, put two and two together, and deduce that you've spent some time in Hyde Park.

Am I right?

Follow it up with Mango's more recent biography and you'll notice a huge difference. There's a lot in the Kinross that doesn't make sense given what's happened in Turkey since Kinross died. Mango will fill in the gaps. Both are great. though. Enjoy. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

No. I’ve never been to Hyde Park. Thank you for the book recommendation.

Thanks I B! I was refreshing myself on a lot of quotes



I wasn't refering to VN, I was refering to the modern military, which is currently, zero tolerance. Having a stoned pilot may have been a major factor in the life expectancy of a door gunner, @ 6 secs, in a fire fight. Thank you, though, for sharing your opinion. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I understand, but my point is that too many individuals have past indescretions that would prohibit them from owning a weapon all the way up to the top. I do not see this bill making it past first reading.

Let us not forget that true history shows that as soon as FDR lost the oval office, the people made sure there was term limits in the top executive position. If he was that loved, why on earth would they do that? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

It had nothing to do with "the people." The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress (a Republican one as pointed out by Mazo above), and then by the requisite number of states. The only "people" who voted were all elected politicians. I don't think you normally take the side of politicians (unless it favors your pov).

But then Congress revised some laws and the Court upheld them, right? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Does that make it right? Is it your position that the SCOTUS is always correct in their decisions? Or are they only right when it fits? You will admit that there are activist judges. And with that knowledge, the decisions created could have been ideological vs constitutional. Can you point anywhere in the enumerated powers of congress that gives the congress the rights to do half of the shyte they pull on the left or right?

By 1938 FDR had appointed his third SCOTUS nominee. But how about some fact. Even the newspapers of the day were excoriating FDR for "packing" the SCOTUS.

But Mr Roosevelt won the war. Death and resignations opened Supreme Court vacancies and enabled him to put his own men on the bench. These men agreed in general with FDR's theory of a "flexible" constitution, one which would stretch and bend under an aggressive president's emergency pressure.

By 1938 FDR had appointed his third SCOTUS nominee. But how about some fact. Even the newspapers of the day were excoriating FDR for "packing" the SCOTUS. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Actually, it was before my time (fewer and fewer thing are as time goes by), but if I remember my history correctly, he only attempted to "pack" the Court. He failed in the attempt. No different than the Reps trying to repeal healthcare when they have absolutely no chance of succeeding.

The moral: When pols think they can get away with something, they'll give it a shot.

I think there would be a lot of resistance to putting up additional barriers to running for public office.

For instance, would you disqualify every person who drank liquor/beer illegally? You know, at the age of 16? Or smoked cigarettes at 16? There would be precious few who got through that sieve.

Or, are you aiming for just the pot smokers? What about California (where the state says it's legal and the feds say it is not)? Are these people allowed to run for state office, but not federal positions?

And what about appointed positions? Like US District Judge?

I think it's a Pandora's Box. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

+1 I agree with you.

Does that make it right? Is it your position that the SCOTUS is always correct in their decisions? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

No I'm not saying that at all. These days we all (I think) agree that Plessey vs Ferguson was a decision that should not have been made. But when Brown overturned that decision there were a lot of folks disagreeing with that change.

In fact I could ask you the same question, why was the first time that SCOTUS made a decision on FDR more correct then when they revisited it? Was it because it fits your world view?

No I'm not saying that at all. These days we all (I think) agree that Plessey vs Ferguson was a decision that should not have been made. But when Brown overturned that decision there were a lot of folks disagreeing with that change.

In fact I could ask you the same question, why was the first time that SCOTUS made a decision on FDR more correct then when they revisited it? Was it because it fits your world view? Originally Posted by discreetgent

My world view isn't as a Republican. Since you can't look past the paradigm, you can't possibly understand my values or fidelity to the Constitution.

I'll say it again, for your benefit, I took an oath to defend the Constitution. That means as it is written; trail law does not negate the Constitution and that is exactly why there is SUPPOSED to be seperation of powers with regards to the SCOTUS.

I believe in decriminalizing prostitution and the D* word. There isn't a single democrat/liberal/progressive introducing or even talking about either on the national level, but the libertarians are introducing legislation or opening dialog. I believe in INDIVIDUAL freedom, not social engineering, or sheep hearding. I believe in less government intervention. I believe abortion should be left to the woman to choose as long is it's not used as a form of habitual birth control, face it accidents happen, but people need to be held responsible for their actions.

So "my view" is not the extreme right. The last time I read the US Constitution, there was no left or right of the written language on that parchament.

Forget Dem or Republican, the point is the SCOTUS has overturned itself quite a few times.

I'll say it again, for your benefit, I took an oath to defend the Constitution. That means as it is written; trail law does not negate the Constitution and that is exactly why there is SUPPOSED to be seperation of powers with regards to the SCOTUS. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

But the Constitution is not a black and white document, it itself has sections that raise conflict (No state religion, no impediment to religion is just one example). It does not and was not meant to cover everything that might happen. And case law DOES sometimes change things: crimes commited by a juvenille can no longer lead to the death penalty. Why? In part because more and more states legislated against it (as is in their portfolio to do). SO when it gets to the SCOTUS there are now facts on the ground that much of the country believe that to be cruel and inhuman punishment. Speaking of which the Constitution never defined that phrase either.

And there is a separation of powers. The Supreme Court recently knocked out a chunk of McCain-Feingold. The Supreme Court ruled that a line veto by the President was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled against GWB and various acts of Congress re: Guantanamo 3 times. It's not like SCOTUS is a rubber stamp - or ever has been - for an administration or Congress. Look at Justice Souter, nothing like what Papa Bush expected, or Warren nothing like Eisenhower (I think) expected. And so forth.