- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I think the conversation would be much more productive if people like Haymarket would admit that FDR conjured up such a right contrary to the language of the USC and the BoR and then us supporters of the proper intent would concede that disreputable justices allowed that usurpation to stand and later "conservative justices" (slaves to precedent) refused to overturn what was clearly a violation of the intent of the founders and an abomination to the tenth amendment and the concept of a limited government. The conversation is tangled because worshippers of the FDR administration pretend that FDR's power grab was actually consistent with what the Founders intended, and that sort of dishonest prevents people like me from ever seeing any subsequent comment the expansionists make as having any credibility whatsoever.
So, the expansionists should concede FDR was dishonest and we will then admit that his dishonesty is now the law of the land
FDR - ranked as one of three truly GREAT presidents of all time by the experts - even when the libertarians hand pick the panel. And I suspect they know his history even better than his modern rightist critics.