Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[Camp]

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

FDR said that unconstiutionality was nothing to be concerned about.

Keep ignoring that, you dope.

In that specific case it wasn't something the Congressman needed to be concerned with. He was assuring Hill that the legislation in question would be approved by the court, and it was. The Congressman did not want to push through a bill that would be judged unconstitutional. FDR was telling him not to worry because FDR felt certain the newly written law was constitutional. You are trying to put a meaning behind something that is dishonest at worst and simply inaccurate at best.
Discounting all of that, Presidents and legislatures routinely pass laws with a hit or miss attitude about constitutionality. FDR was no different and the legislatures of that period were no different.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

FDR said that unconstiutionality was nothing to be concerned about.

Keep ignoring that, you dope.

FDR must have been a Communist. Consider what FDR told Rep. Martin Dies in 1940:





I do not regard the Communists as any present or future threat to our country, in fact I look upon Russia as our strongest ally in the years to come. As I told you when you began your investigation, you should confine yourself to Nazis and Fascists. While I do not believe in Communism, Russia is far better off and the world is safer with Russia under Communism than under the Czars. Stalin is a great leader, and although I deplore some of his methods, it is the only way he can safeguard his government.





His protestation of a lack of belief in Communism is completely belied by his words here and in many, many ways by his actions. Dies notes that those pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin views match what he told Cardinal Spellman in 1943:







His aide memoire is completely in accord with the opinions Roosevelt expressed to me over the years. Specifically, the President had said that Russia was our natural ally; that the Russian people were much better off than they had been under the czars; and that he thought that the Russians would get about forty percent of the world, and the capitalist regimes would retain sixty percent.







- See more at: FDR Was a Communist - henrymakow.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

FDR was no different and the legislatures of that period were no different.

no different??? Too stupid!!! FDR was most liberal president in history and many in his administration spied for the communists!

 

[Camp]

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

Chic, your assertions are correct. FDR, before him Wilson, and now Obama are so far left that Bill Clinton would be considered a conservative were it not for Hilly care.

I think FDR was great as a war President, but his economic policies have no basis in fact. All you need do is look and see that everything he put in is going broke, just as economists predicted for the last 60 years.

I think libs have wonderful ideas, I really do; but what they all fail to do by calculation error, or purposely misinform, is tell anyone/everyone, how to pay for it. As an aside, GW wasn't much better, lol. All they have to do is tell us how they intend to pay for it, and if it goes into the red, shut it down. Do that, and they would get a hell of a lot more passed cause if they are wrong, it is done. Of course, they won't agree to that, because once they get people addicted to their KOOLAID, they have to keep them on the plantation.

The truth is some have been warning for more than 60 years. The warning that New Deal policies would make the USA go broke has gone on for over 70 years. We sure better listen soon before the doomsday gets here. It is due any day now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

Chic, your assertions are correct. FDR, before him Wilson, and now Obama are so far left that Bill Clinton would be considered a conservative were it not for Hilly care.

I think FDR was great as a war President, but his economic policies have no basis in fact. All you need do is look and see that everything he put in is going broke, just as economists predicted for the last 60 years.

I think libs have wonderful ideas, I really do; but what they all fail to do by calculation error, or purposely misinform, is tell anyone/everyone, how to pay for it. As an aside, GW wasn't much better, lol. All they have to do is tell us how they intend to pay for it, and if it goes into the red, shut it down. Do that, and they would get a hell of a lot more passed cause if they are wrong, it is done. Of course, they won't agree to that, because once they get people addicted to their KOOLAID, they have to keep them on the plantation.

The truth is some have been warning for more than 60 years. The warning that New Deal policies would make the USA go broke for over 70 years. We sure better listen soon before the doomsday gets here. It is due any day now.

dear, we're $20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and we're experiencing the slowest growth in our history.

 

[Camp]

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

Chic, your assertions are correct. FDR, before him Wilson, and now Obama are so far left that Bill Clinton would be considered a conservative were it not for Hilly care.

I think FDR was great as a war President, but his economic policies have no basis in fact. All you need do is look and see that everything he put in is going broke, just as economists predicted for the last 60 years.

I think libs have wonderful ideas, I really do; but what they all fail to do by calculation error, or purposely misinform, is tell anyone/everyone, how to pay for it. As an aside, GW wasn't much better, lol. All they have to do is tell us how they intend to pay for it, and if it goes into the red, shut it down. Do that, and they would get a hell of a lot more passed cause if they are wrong, it is done. Of course, they won't agree to that, because once they get people addicted to their KOOLAID, they have to keep them on the plantation.

The truth is some have been warning for more than 60 years. The warning that New Deal policies would make the USA go broke for over 70 years. We sure better listen soon before the doomsday gets here. It is due any day now.

dear, we're $20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and we're experiencing the slowest growth in our history.

We need a new New Deal. That will bring us a booming economy and build us an infrastructure for the future. Set things up for our great grandchildren the way things were set up for the last few generations thanks to the original New Deal. Let our great grand kids whine the ageless mantra about how the US is going to go broke.

 

[regent]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution such as Jefferson when he bought Louisiana, and Jackson when he told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

"No president e discarded the Constitution."

For clarity, so that I may address you correctly...are you a liar or a fool?



If you claim to be a fool......your education continues:

1. FDR cowed the Supreme Court, and he and they ended the guidance of the Constitution.


2. The 'Progressive Era' began prior to Saturday, March 4, 1933, the date ofFranklin Roosevelt's inauguration....but make no mistake: this friend of Joseph Stalin was central to the destruction of the Constitution.

Other players included three Progressives already on the Court: Louis Brandeis, who provided the mechanism for Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912, and Harlan Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo.

The fading hopes for Americarested on the shoulders of four Madisonian justices: Pierce Butler,James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter.
In the middle, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


3. Two cases beganthe evisceration: in Article 1, section 10, which stated that no state may pass any " Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."

a. In the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court caseHome Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,the “Four Horsemen” — the Madisonians — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism, the Progressives.

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise:it ruled in express contravention of the constitutional prohibition. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.




4.The court also ruled against in Article 1, section 10 in finding that Congress's retroactive voiding of 'gold clauses' in contracts was constitutional.

Congress was following Roosevelt's plan to take America off the gold standard, and remove the ability of Americans to hold, and use, gold: at the time,"gold clauses" were common,and they give creditors the option of receiving gold in payment of debts.


Four cases came before the Court in 1935, the "Gold Clause Cases," and in each the Court found it constitutional to 'impair loan contracts.'



The above is a perfect example ofProgressive's use of the term 'interpret' the Constitution, when they actual rule counter to it.
(Covered in Charles Murray's "By The People")

Don't hesitate to ask if you require further remediation.

Perhaps the Court was cowed more by the American people and America's economic plight than FDR? Then again, FDR was a strong president and had the American people behind him, and so it goes in politics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We need a new New Deal. That will bring us a booming economy

100% stupid and liberal!! The first New Deal brought us 16 years of Depression and world war!!

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? what other conclusion is possible??.

 

[Camp]

We need a new New Deal. That will bring us a booming economy

100% stupid and liberal!! The first New Deal brought us 16 years of Depression and world war!!

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? what other conclusion is possible??.

The New Deal brought us infrastructure we still us today. Bridges and schools, hospitals and post offices, roads and dams and an endless list of projects that modernized America. Hitler and Tojo brought us WWII. I have asked you before, do you ever use links or factual evidence to back up your ideas. You seem to be like one of those posters that just like to voice opinion dominated talking points from agenda driven commentaries and such. I call them people who talk the talk but can not walk the walk. Do you have the intellectual ability to go beyond talking points and provide documentation and academic research to lend credence to your claims or do you just expect folks to automatically give you status and credibility for no real reason other than your own arrogance and overconfidence. I have yet to see claims about a 16 year long depression or FDR being responsible for the rise of fascism, Hitler and Tojo reach credible debate by anyone. Not sure a credible scholar or historian has ever made those broad accusations. Lots of hacks have made them, but who would you suggest is a credible proponent of those theories?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution such as Jefferson when he bought Louisiana, and Jackson when he told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

"No president e discarded the Constitution."

For clarity, so that I may address you correctly...are you a liar or a fool?



If you claim to be a fool......your education continues:

1. FDR cowed the Supreme Court, and he and they ended the guidance of the Constitution.


2. The 'Progressive Era' began prior to Saturday, March 4, 1933, the date ofFranklin Roosevelt's inauguration....but make no mistake: this friend of Joseph Stalin was central to the destruction of the Constitution.

Other players included three Progressives already on the Court: Louis Brandeis, who provided the mechanism for Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912, and Harlan Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo.

The fading hopes for Americarested on the shoulders of four Madisonian justices: Pierce Butler,James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter.
In the middle, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


3. Two cases beganthe evisceration: in Article 1, section 10, which stated that no state may pass any " Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."

a. In the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court caseHome Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,the “Four Horsemen” — the Madisonians — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism, the Progressives.

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise:it ruled in express contravention of the constitutional prohibition. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.




4.The court also ruled against in Article 1, section 10 in finding that Congress's retroactive voiding of 'gold clauses' in contracts was constitutional.

Congress was following Roosevelt's plan to take America off the gold standard, and remove the ability of Americans to hold, and use, gold: at the time,"gold clauses" were common,and they give creditors the option of receiving gold in payment of debts.


Four cases came before the Court in 1935, the "Gold Clause Cases," and in each the Court found it constitutional to 'impair loan contracts.'



The above is a perfect example ofProgressive's use of the term 'interpret' the Constitution, when they actual rule counter to it.
(Covered in Charles Murray's "By The People")

Don't hesitate to ask if you require further remediation.

Perhaps the Court was cowed more by the American people and America's economic plight than FDR? Then again, FDR was a strong president and had the American people behind him, and so it goes in politics.

The issue at hand was the shredding of the Constitution by Roosevelt and his Court.

You've changed the subject....tried to.

That must mean that you know the truth whereof I speak.

I accept your concession.

The lawless Franklin Roosevelt knew that the only legal way to change the Constitution was the amendment process.

You know it, as well.


So....why do you lie?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The New Deal brought us infrastructure we still us today.

too stupid by 10000% . Humans have been building roads and bridges for 5000 years without the soviet New Deal Great Depression!! but human economic history largely stood still until Republican capitalism was invented

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I have yet to see claims about a 16 year long depression

Dear, Depression began in 1929 and ended when FDR died in 1945. Had it not been for liberal policies Hitler never would have been elected. Had FDR not died we'd still be in a depression thanks to his soviet policies.

 

[Camp]

. I have yet to see claims about a 16 year long depression

Dear, Depression began in 1929 and ended when FDR died in 1945. Had it not been for liberal policies Hitler never would have been elected. Had FDR not died we'd still be in a depression thanks to his soviet policies.

The Great Depression was in full impact when FDR came to the Presidency in 1933. Accepted timelines have the Depression ending as early as 1939 or as late as the end of 1941. The controversy over whether it ended in '39, 40 or 41 is merely a debate over statistical data and how it is interpreted. There is no debatable statistical data to indicate it lasting beyond '42. If you have some link to such data, please supply a link.
Since Roosevelt took over from a Republican and the Depression was already 4 years old in 1933, and since it ended in sometime between '39 and '41, your 16 year claim gets reduced to 6 or 8 years at the most. You have a 10 year exaggeration to account for.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Great Depression was in full impact when FDR came to the Presidency in 1933.

yes dear but thanks to Hoover's liberal policies( eg Hoover Dam stimulus etc ) which were largely continued and expanded under libcommie FDR. Next.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no debatable statistical data to indicate it lasting beyond '42.

dear,

1) a war is worse than a depression economicially despite everyone having a job but rationing
2) The administration agrees it was always a depression:
****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"


"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed

 

[Camp]

There is no debatable statistical data to indicate it lasting beyond '42.

dear,

1) a war is worse than a depression economicially despite everyone having a job but rationing
2) The administration agrees it was always a depression:
****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"


"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed

The above is exactly the nonsense PC posted and I refuted without her responding back. Besides you becoming boring, you are posting some real nonsense like blaming the world wide depression on Hoover because he finally gave in and began using some stimulus to boost the economy after his conservative attempts had failed miserably. You sound like just another PoliticalChic, hopelessly stuck in the world of conspiracy theory inaccurate misinformation. Unemployment wasn't 17.2 percent in 1939, it was 11.3 percent. Your own link explains why it was 11.3 percent. 19 million people were employed by the government, but you are using figures that count those workers as unemployed because they got their checks for work projects and not private industry. You can't walk the walk dude.

Educate yourself:

fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/maremp93.pdf

 

[regent]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution such as Jefferson when he bought Louisiana, and Jackson when he told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

"No president e discarded the Constitution."

For clarity, so that I may address you correctly...are you a liar or a fool?



If you claim to be a fool......your education continues:

1. FDR cowed the Supreme Court, and he and they ended the guidance of the Constitution.


2. The 'Progressive Era' began prior to Saturday, March 4, 1933, the date ofFranklin Roosevelt's inauguration....but make no mistake: this friend of Joseph Stalin was central to the destruction of the Constitution.

Other players included three Progressives already on the Court: Louis Brandeis, who provided the mechanism for Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912, and Harlan Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo.

The fading hopes for Americarested on the shoulders of four Madisonian justices: Pierce Butler,James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter.
In the middle, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


3. Two cases beganthe evisceration: in Article 1, section 10, which stated that no state may pass any " Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."

a. In the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court caseHome Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,the “Four Horsemen” — the Madisonians — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism, the Progressives.

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise:it ruled in express contravention of the constitutional prohibition. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.




4.The court also ruled against in Article 1, section 10 in finding that Congress's retroactive voiding of 'gold clauses' in contracts was constitutional.

Congress was following Roosevelt's plan to take America off the gold standard, and remove the ability of Americans to hold, and use, gold: at the time,"gold clauses" were common,and they give creditors the option of receiving gold in payment of debts.


Four cases came before the Court in 1935, the "Gold Clause Cases," and in each the Court found it constitutional to 'impair loan contracts.'



The above is a perfect example ofProgressive's use of the term 'interpret' the Constitution, when they actual rule counter to it.
(Covered in Charles Murray's "By The People")

Don't hesitate to ask if you require further remediation.

Perhaps the Court was cowed more by the American people and America's economic plight than FDR? Then again, FDR was a strong president and had the American people behind him, and so it goes in politics.

The issue at hand was the shredding of the Constitution by Roosevelt and his Court.

You've changed the subject....tried to.

That must mean that you know the truth whereof I speak.

I accept your concession.

The lawless Franklin Roosevelt knew that the only legal way to change the Constitution was the amendment process.

You know it, as well.


So....why do you lie?

Call it what you will but the Constitution has been altered hundreds of time since it was ratified. Perhaps the biggest change to the Constitution was done with Marbury. The procedure to amend the Constitution is difficult in a political world, and after the Bill of Rights was added it has only been changed 17 times. In the meantime the Alabama Constitution has been amended hundreds of times. Presidents, the Court, the Congress have all altered our Constitution to meet changing conditions with some regularity.

 

[Statistikhengst]

this is so true!!! a liberal must treasonously lie while taking oath of office to hold office in America. Many is the FDR administration spied for Stalin and many openly traveled there and came back to proclaim " they had seen the future and it worked."

"Many is the FDR administration"

Good luck with those English courses, little slugger.

 

[pinqy]

You use the figure of 15% unemployment for 1939. That indicated you are referring to the old Lebergott method of calculating that counted those on relief programs as unemployed.

Because the Lebergott calculations are the official numbers, like it or not.

The later Darby method that counts the employees as people earning paychecks for work no matter where the funds came from is more accurate and accepted today.

It's not more accurate. The data sources are the same. A different definition doesn't make a calculation more accurate. There's nothing wrong with Lebergott's reasoning for including WPA workers as unemployed...that's just viewing the public works projects as unemployment checks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It was Progressive Woodrow Wilson who suggested discarding the Constitution.

It was Progressive Franklin Roosevelt who did just that.

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

This is why her name is PoliticalShit.