[Zimphire]

Doing this would basically do away with presidential term limits.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...H.J.RES.24.IH:

I sure hope no one knee-jerks.

[zizban]

Interesting but why? I think the current system works fine.

[Zimphire]

Oh I do too. This comes up from time to time.

[Millennium]

Clinton batted the idea around too for a while too.

Even Bush isn't stupid enough to fo along with something like this. If it were to pass, he would have to face Bill Clinton in the next election, and whatever your feelings are for Clinton it's tough to deny that Bush would stand no chance against him.

[Zimphire]

Not so sure Clinton has it anymore.

5 years ago? Maybe.

[zizban]

Oh I think if Clinton could run he'd be elected again. Why? he's got that kind of slimy charisma going. A comedian (female) once said of him, "Clinton is like that guy in the bar who you know is telling you nothing but lies but you don't want to go home alone".

[Railroader]

Congress tried the same thing during the Reagan presidency.

[NYCFarmboy]

I'm opposed... 2 terms is enough for any President.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

I'm opposed... 2 terms is enough for any President.

I agree 100%

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by zizban

Oh I think if Clinton could run he'd be elected again. Why? he's got that kind of slimy charisma going. A comedian (female) once said of him, "Clinton is like that guy in the bar who you know is telling you nothing but lies but you don't want to go home alone".

Again, like I said, 5 years ago? Maybe.

After this last operation, he just hasn't been himself.

[Randman]

Hillary would kill him if it were him and not her on the ballot next election.

[macamac]

Clinton couldn't get elected dog catch.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by zizban

Oh I think if Clinton could run he'd be elected again. Why? he's got that kind of slimy charisma going. A comedian (female) once said of him, "Clinton is like that guy in the bar who you know is telling you nothing but lies but you don't want to go home alone".

BS. The only reason Clinton ever won any election was because of Perott.

[CreepingDeth]

Opposed. Last thing we need is more demagoguery ala FDR.

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

BS. The only reason Clinton ever won any election was because of Perott.

The only reason Bush got elected was Nader. It happens, people get elected.

[ghporter]

CreepingDeth, the thing about FDR was twofold. First, he gave the people an ideal of someone who was actually trying to fix the problems surrounding the Depression-and gave the Supreme Court a good thrashing in the court of public opinion for their repeated trashing of his well-thought-out programs. Secondly, having given the citizens this hope, and actual progress out of the Depression, he became the symbol of our resistence to the tirany of the Axis powers. His leadership was crucial to the war being no longer than it was. Maybe a lot of his supporters thought of him as godlike, but he was a very personable person, and the people trusted him personally.

Buckaroo and GSixZero, Clinton was elected in the backlash against the Regan/Bush administrations, not so much because of what he represented, but because of what he didn't represent, which was more of the same. I personally think that Mr. Bush (the senior) didn't want to be elected, and won in spite of Danny boy. But he lost with Dan because Bill offered a different perspective. Oh, and his stance on personal liberty and freedom being less important than the government "taking care" of the citizens was not so well known then. George number two won because Bill's fly was still kind of breezing in most people's minds, George had done some good things in Texas that gave people the promise of something new in Washington, AND because Ralph came in as a spoiler. George (#2) was reelected because (let's face it) John was no great pick. I'd have voted for Dan Quayle to vote against John Kerry. Kerry had so few positive issues that it was not even funny, while George at least had a few (though they slip my mind this far after the election). And attacking Bush's Air Guard service because he did political work-AND lost his flying status, which is a pretty big kick in the butt for ANY pilot-is stsupid for any politician.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by ghporter

CreepingDeth, the thing about FDR was twofold. First, he gave the people an ideal of someone who was actually trying to fix the problems surrounding the Depression-and gave the Supreme Court a good thrashing in the court of public opinion for their repeated trashing of his well-thought-out programs. Secondly, having given the citizens this hope, and actual progress out of the Depression, he became the symbol of our resistence to the tirany of the Axis powers. His leadership was crucial to the war being no longer than it was. Maybe a lot of his supporters thought of him as godlike, but he was a very personable person, and the people trusted him personally.

I'm inclined to disagree. Yes, he tried, but he had absolutely no idea what he was doing. The fact that Keynes wrote letters to the NYT saying FDR should stop his nonsensical reforms during the Depression is often overlooked.

The four you speak of, specifically, are Willis Van Devanter, James McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and George Sutherland. Dubbed the "Four Horsemen Of Reaction," they are often spat upon. However, with the exception of Hughes and Roberts, they were the only strict Constitutionalists on the Court during the Depression era.

A few landmark decisions, good and bad:

Debbia v New York
A local grocer sold milk for less than nine cents, the minimum price ordered by the Milk Control Board. [Note: This, of course, was one of the provisions of FDR's New Deal programs: price fixing. Anti-capitalism at its worst.] The Milk Control Board wished to protect the profit margins of the milk producers. Debbia defended his actions and claimed that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Owen Roberts. Justices Hughes, Brandeis, Cardozo, and Stone joined in and put the interests of milk producers ahead of guaranteed rights.

Panama Refining Co. v Ryan
The Court ruled against FDR’s Executive Order 6199, which banned the interstate shipment of excess petroleum, an blatant assault on economic liberty. Before the Executive Order was ruled unconstitutional, it was possible to be fined for $1,000 and/or receive a six-month sentence for shipping that excess outside a state boundary.

Schetcher Poultry Corporation v United States
Schetcher was convicted of a violation of the unnecessarily long-named Code of Fair Competition for the Live Poultry Industry of the Metropolitan Area in and about the City of New York. The executive order that authorized the code was issued by FDR. However, Schetcher owned and operated entirely in New York state. This meant that he was not engaging in interstate commerce. In a rare unanimous decision, written by Hughes, the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution (Article 1, section 8, clause 3) was cited, which gave Congress the power:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

The NRA, part of the executive branch, was in violation of separation of powers because any executive branch body created by the President has no power outside the President’s will and was doing the actions of Congress. Also, the NRA was not voluntary.
For these reasons, the NIRA was struck down in May of 1935. FDR responded by stating that the Constitution is a living breathing document and should not taken literally. The scrapping of the NIRA actually helped the economy with job expansion during the years between 1935 and 1937.

Just a few there. FDR was overreaching in his authoritarian Socialist economic policy. Of course, after the court-packing fiasco (Executive using Legislative to smack Judicial), the capitalists turned yellow. A few, such as Van Devanter, left, only to be replaced by moderates and outright liberals. FDR, admittedly, no clear idea. He was going to do something, but he didn't know what. For example: the illegal banking holiday ordered in the first days of his tenure. Most of these programs were pie-in-the-sky, "it shoulda worked. It does in theory!" deals. Do you actually believe that building remote trails and paying people a dollar is going to rejuvenate economic growth? Instead of tripling taxes, which was after Hoover doubled them, maybe he should have cut them and relaxed regulations extensively. Most regulations end up restricting the accumulation of capital and growth. Besides, the money used to pay workers and the administrative costs, displaced real private-sector jobs, if not more.

As I've said before, the Court's decisions in 1935 and 1936 helped the moderate recovery around 937. But it was FDR's policies that led to the only back-to-back Depression in American history

[Buckaroo]

Wrong again.

Nader didn't get but a small fraction, and they wouldn't have helped Kerry anyhow.

[macamac]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

The only reason Bush got elected was Nader. It happens, people get elected.

This could only be true if Bush didn't win the popular vote as well. Even then... doubtful.
As it was stated and now reiterated, Nader's votes would not have helped Kerry. Kerry just sucked as a candidate, but not as bad as Howard Dean would have. Nor near as entertaining.

I cannot wait for HIllary in 2008. She's evil, but it will be very entertaining.