Interesting Smithsonian article on how FDR tried to dominate the Supreme Court

[MoonDog]

I read this a few days ago, but never got around to posting about it.

It seems that FDR's New Deal strategies were being overturned by a conservative Supreme Court, so he cooked up a way to counteract the conservative members of that court - simply ask Congress to allow him to appoint a new judge for every member over the age of 70. Since his opponents on the court were all 70+, it was a neat step.

This effort to pack the Supreme Court caused quite a ruckus, and probably would have passed, thanks to the political capital that FDR wielded at that time in his Presidency. Fortunately,one member changed his vote on some key cases, and FDR's bill attempting to alter the Court was allowed to fade away.

Anyhow, I found this to be quite interesting, especially with the judge appointing controversy that we are seeing today. Take a gander at the full article at the link below, and comment if you want.


http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smi...premecourt.pdf

[Paq]

I didn't read the article, but most of any class i have taken on FDR in grad school focused, at least in part, on his court packing policies to avoid ..."issues"

FDR would have been considered a HORRIBLE president in today's times. Mistresses, behind th scenes shenanigans, a wife that was considered too forward and too engaged in politics, ....hmm..sounds familiar

Honestly, though, i believe the president was far more effective before the media became so engrossed in personal issues of the president.

If you ever wanna read controversial presidential decisions, try Teddy roosevelt...

[samcol]

Probably because they didn't see his Social Security act as constitutional. I'm glad we can thank FDR for the mess he have with it today.

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by samcol

Probably because they didn't see his Social Security act as constitutional. I'm glad we can thank FDR for the mess he have with it today.

My head asplode.

Yes, let's blame the dead cripple for the fact that gutless politicians have avoided dealing with the baby boom's effect on what was at the time a revolutionary way to help people struggling to get back on their feet after the Great Depression.

My, what a beautiful run-on that was.

[Superbelt]

To add onto what Kadath said,
I doubt you will be able to find anyone in this nation, who will score greater than 5% against the corpse of FDR, with anyone who was alive during his presidency.
The "Greatest Generation" loved that man. Wonder why?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Kadath

My head asplode.

Yes, let's blame the dead cripple for the fact that gutless politicians have avoided dealing with the baby boom's effect on what was at the time a revolutionary way to help people struggling to get back on their feet after the Great Depression.

My, what a beautiful run-on that was.

A mandatory Social Security sytem is un-constitutional and robs people of their wages then redistributes the wealth unfairly. Yes, I guess I'm discriminating against him because he's a dead cripple though, not against his policy. It was designed to fail from the beginning because Congress cannot constitutionally set aside the money as a Social Security only fund to pay back citizens. So, they had to put it into the General Fund, where it could be robbed from whenever they needed more money. BRILLIANT PLAN if you ask me. The next phase of the program is where they had over this public money to private hands. Social Security was one of the worst programs ever implemented for the people, but its a textbook pyramid scheme.

[roachboy]

wow samcol: that reads like one of the more in-a-twist position papers you might get from the hoover institution without the accompanying facts.

you might want to consider the historical fact of the matter: without mechanism for the redistrubtion of wealth, you would in all probability be thinking about capitalism as an object of nostalgia because it would have imploded long ago. you cannot expect a population to submit to the unequal barbarism of the capitalist system when it is left to itself for any amount of time. social security was one of a number of such programs around the industrialized world instituted to stave off the threat from a politically mobilized working class.

i am not sure what kind of capitalism you are cheerleading for behind the screen of pseudo-argument against social security itself--something in the 19th century english mode? that worked just great--read "on the condition of the working class in manchester" or any a thousand other books that outline the degress of dehumanization visited upon millions for the material benefit of holders of capital. what a fine system that was. and obviously it is only the truly informed who would want to opt for a new version of that.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by samcol

Probably because they didn't see his Social Security act as constitutional. I'm glad we can thank FDR for the mess he have with it today.

social security is not a mess because it was founded by FDR. It's a mess because numerous house sessions since then have plundered it and changed it to the point that its a useless and baseless benefit.

[Locobot]

I remember reading in Conditions of the Working Class about how factory owners reserved the feudal right of primae noctis (the right to any newlywed women on their wedding night[see Braveheart]) with regards to all factory workers' wives. Rude comment removed.

[daswig]

FDR unquestionably did a huge amount of damage to the US Constitution. For example, read up on the expansion of the ICC, which only began to be trimmed back in 1992. He virtually broke the Judiciary to his will, because they didn't have the balls to face down the Constitutional Crisis he was precipitating. The only President that I can think of who routinely pissed on the Constitution more frequently and completely than FDR is Lincoln.

[Locobot]

Well if FDR pissed on the constitution then GWBush is tearing a hole in it and getting a gloryhole blowjob from Satan. the ICC? Seriously? That's all you got? I wouldn't exactly call managing rail rates during the depression "pissing on the Constitution" The patriot act however... The ICC is most famous for forcing desegregation in any field related to interstate commerce, effectively ending most Jim Crow laws. Is that what has you in such a tizzy over FDR?

[Lebell]

3 folks have a time out right now because they decided to start turning threads in to pissing matches.

I see the same starting here.

You have been warned.

[raveneye]

Sort of on topic: there have been many published studies showing that the Supreme Court decisions are very significantly influenced by the contemporary political climate. When congress is dominated by conservatives, the SC decisions tend to be conservative, and vice-versa.

The SC justices are not really "unbiased interpreters of the Constitution;" they are very susceptible to the direction the political winds are blowing.

This is why attempts to stack the court, like FDRs and the current Republicans in power, don't really achieve the level of consistent results that are hoped for.

[roachboy]

the fight over frame of reference on this issue is interesting--following what i take to be the lead of the hoover institution in both working out how to package and distribute the delightful ideology we have to argue against now and in shaping its content, the right would prefer to recycle the republican objetions to the entirety of the welfare state from the early to mid 1930s to the exclusion of anything approaching an understanding of the social and political factors that might first have lead to its being instituted in the first place, and to the exclusion of even a pretense to understanding what social and poltical functions that this system, writ large, performs in real time.

you can see why this makes sense for them: the right is advocating a wholesale abandonment of any and all public functions that stabilized the capitalist order they have no choice but to see as an unqualified good. this abandonment is a type of political capitulation to uncertainty, based on a wholesale intellectual capitulation--the assumption seems to be that even trying to redistribute wealth places the state in an unacceptable position--too much change in the overall organization of the economy, all happening too fast, with no way to calibrate the social system to them. so this is risk reduction for the right, risk reduction for the state as they see it. the motivation has nothing to do with the arguments advanced.

even if the two were linked, it is more than unlikely that anyone could rely on conservatives for a nuanced--or even factual--account of history when an ideological conflict is underway--look at the travesty of history they have built around their loopy original intent doctrine for "interpreting" the whole constitutional process. if you link this to thier views on "history" and "education" it is hard not arrive at the conclusion that, knowing they cannot win on the basis of history, on the basis of information, they prefer to try to bring the entire culture down to such a low wattage level that even the shallow narratives floated by the right would have some currency. which is just another form of capitulation.

onwards to the new feudalism.

[host]

Originally Posted by daswig

FDR unquestionably did a huge amount of damage to the US Constitution. For example, read up on the expansion of the ICC, which only began to be trimmed back in 1992. He virtually broke the Judiciary to his will, because they didn't have the balls to face down the Constitutional Crisis he was precipitating. The only President that I can think of who routinely pissed on the Constitution more frequently and completely than FDR is Lincoln.

Those were extraordinary times. Workers in one of America's greatest industries experienced the following, at a time when there was no unemployment insurance, welfare or food stamps as a last resort, or SSI payments for the elederly relatives that these workers formerly supported. What would you have done if you were Roosevelt, to feed and shelter people, while preserving some of their dignity, and discourage violent revolution?

http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/chapter5.htm
But there was another side to the problem. Following the stock market crash of 1929, the Hoover Administration urged and many industries and unions adopted work-sharing. For example, the United States Steel Corporation in 1929 had 224,980 full-time employees. The number shrank to 211,055 in 1930, to 53,619 in 1931, to 18,938 in 1932, and to zero on April 1, 1933. All who remained on the payroll on this last date were part time, and they were only half as numerous as those on full time in 1929.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Locobot

the ICC? Seriously? That's all you got? I wouldn't exactly call managing rail rates during the depression "pissing on the Constitution" The patriot act however... The ICC is most famous for forcing desegregation in any field related to interstate commerce, effectively ending most Jim Crow laws. Is that what has you in such a tizzy over FDR?

I'll respond to your issues politely. Ever hear of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942)? That decision, made after FDR had broken the Judiciary to his will, and in DIRECT contradiction of decades of previous caselaw and the Constitution itself, gave the Federal Government the right to meddle in virtually ANYTHING they wanted by allowing them to draw a highly tenuous connection to the Interstate Commerce Clause. It was an INCREDIBLE expansion of Federal powers, and the Patriot Act, in comparison, is chicken-feed. Wickard COMPLETELY altered the political landscape. It wasn't until 1992, in U.S. v. Lopez, that the damage FDR caused to the Constitution started to be repaired. It's still got a LONG way to go. For the sake of comparison, in order for the Patriot Act to have had as far-reaching effects as Wickard had and still has, it would have had to have done something like repeal the entire Bill of Rights while striking, say, Article I in it's entirety from the Constitution. Wickard was THAT huge.

I'd love to have an intellegent, rational discussion on Constitutional law, et cetera, free from ad-homs and other personal attacks, with you on this if you so desire. If you don't wish to engage in a respectful conversation on this, that's OK too.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by host

What would you have done if you were Roosevelt, to feed and shelter people, while preserving some of their dignity, and discourage violent revolution?

Most of the things Roosevelt did WERE both effective AND Constitutional. If he'd have stuck with just those, I'd have considered him to be a great President. Unfortunately, he went much, much further.

[roachboy]

again, i ask whether constitutional questions IN THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM can be seperated from the political environments within which they occur. i would like to hear an argument that they can before i concede that anything about this matter can be understood in a narrow "constitutional theory" sense--this is not a civil law tradition--unlike civil law, the american system was set up to be responsive to changing political contexts--this remains among its better features. i keep getting the sense that conservatives want to change something fundamental about the entirety of the system itself, make it into something more like civil law--that is something that it is not---in order to reduce types of politics they do not like shaping how law gets produced/interpreted---it seems to me that their legal agenda would entail a real change in how precedent is understood.

[Paq]

Originally Posted by moosenose

Most of the things Roosevelt did WERE both effective AND Constitutional. If he'd have stuck with just those, I'd have considered him to be a great President. Unfortunately, he went much, much further.

I find this kinda funny

anyway, when historians rank presidents in terms of greatness, i find it funny that the top one is generally Lincoln, and within the top five are teddy roosevelt and RD roosevelt. All three of these presidents did things that were grossly unconstitutional, or at the very least, unprecedented. Lincoln with martial law, teddy with his foreign policies, and FDR with what has been stated here, just as brief examples.

By this type of criteria, bush is well on his way....

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by moosenose

I'll respond to your issues politely. Ever hear of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942)? That decision, made after FDR had broken the Judiciary to his will, and in DIRECT contradiction of decades of previous caselaw and the Constitution itself, gave the Federal Government the right to meddle in virtually ANYTHING they wanted by allowing them to draw a highly tenuous connection to the Interstate Commerce Clause. It was an INCREDIBLE expansion of Federal powers, and the Patriot Act, in comparison, is chicken-feed. Wickard COMPLETELY altered the political landscape. It wasn't until 1992, in U.S. v. Lopez, that the damage FDR caused to the Constitution started to be repaired. It's still got a LONG way to go. For the sake of comparison, in order for the Patriot Act to have had as far-reaching effects as Wickard had and still has, it would have had to have done something like repeal the entire Bill of Rights while striking, say, Article I in it's entirety from the Constitution. Wickard was THAT huge.

I'd love to have an intellegent, rational discussion on Constitutional law, et cetera, free from ad-homs and other personal attacks, with you on this if you so desire. If you don't wish to engage in a respectful conversation on this, that's OK too.

Sorry but the constitution reads in Article 1 section 8 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Wickard v. Filburn is simply reasserting the power of the federal government which had, by previous courts, been ruled unapplicable to some forms of intrastate commerce. It's a different interpretation than the court had previously held, sure, but I don't see it as a wholesale abrogation of the constitution.

Are farm subsidies the next target for conservatives? Are Republicans smug enough to believe that rural voters are so blinded by guns and gay issues that they wouldn't notice the complete destruction of the single-family farm? There's a reason a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gasoline, and it isn't production cost. It simply isn't profitable to offer the wide range of products in the sheer quantities available in every supermarket.

Has Roachboy not yet made it clear in this thread that Capitalism is not enshrined in our constitution? There even seems to be room for the neo-feudalism being pushed by the Republicans.

I'm beginning to believe that the only way conservatives will learn the error of their ways is by letting them deal with the subsequent failure of their policies. Go ahead destroy farm subsidy, and then deal with an erratic food supply. Make contemptous John Bolton our representative to the world, then deal with the economic sanctions and war that could result. Scrap social security, and then care personally for your family's elderly. Destroy Medicare and pay your parents' medical bills. Break the backs of the labor unions (one federal ruling I don't expect to hear whining from the Right about) and deal with diminished wages and benefits-or strikes.

Okay Moosenose your turn to tell me how the USA Patriot act is completely within the bounds of our constitution even though parts of it have already been declared unconstitutional.

[Paq]

Locobot, i think you summed up why i have been falling towards the apathetic side of the political realm lately. It seems that I find myself almost sitting back and laughing at the absurdity of some of the things that come out of the right wing these days..almost like watching a bad sitcom.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Locobot

Sorry but the constitution reads in Article 1 section 8 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Wickard v. Filburn is simply reasserting the power of the federal government which had, by previous courts, been ruled unapplicable to some forms of intrastate commerce. It's a different interpretation than the court had previously held, sure, but I don't see it as a wholesale abrogation of the constitution.

Wrong. Prior to Wickard v. Filburn, the Federal Government hadn't been able to touch many areas of our lives. Because of Wickard v. Filburn, practically anything, and I mean ANYTHING (read the facts in Wickard) suddenly became reachable by the Federal government under the ICC clause. Entire areas of the law which had previously been regulatable only by the States suddenly became regulatable by the Federal government. Take, for example, what had happened in U.S. v. Lopez, which started the restriction of the line of thought started in Wickard: The Federal Government decided that firearms could not be brought within a certain distance of any public school. Their reasoning and basis for the ability to regulate this stemmed from fear of guns interrupting and disrupting schools, which trained students, who at some point in the future would somehow be employed in something remotely affecting Interstate Commerce. Under Wickard, this was reachable by the Federal Government.

[Locobot]

Thanks for pointing me to the footnotes--
-boldface formatting is my own-
concerning the reach of the government under this ruling:

[ Footnote 24 ] In Santa Cruz Co. v. Labor Board, 303 U.S. 453, 466 , 467 S., 58 S.Ct. 656, 660, Chief Justice Hughes said: "direct' has been contrasted with 'indirect,' and what is 'remote' or 'distant' with what is 'close and substantial'. Whatever terminology is used, the criterion is necessarily one of degree and must be so defined. This does not satisfy those who seek for mathematical or rigid formulas. But such formulas are not provided by the great concepts of the Constitution such as 'interstate commerce,' 'due process,' 'equal protection"

I realize that you're getting your info from pro-gun biased source, and honestly the application of this ruling to disallow students from carrying guns on public school property is legally convoluted and really doesn't work. If you seek to make this a legal practice on any state level, go ahead and try. It won't be popular given the problems our schools have had with students not only carrying guns to school but killing a good number of their fellow students.

As I pointed out several posts above, that the ICC was used to strike down nearly every Jim Crow law on the books. That's an aspect of this ruling that I do think works quite well and advanced our society (dare I say civilization) substancially.

Moosenose, you must realize that you're following the exact same line of argument used to defend every segregationalist law ever enforced and subsequentially dismantled by the Supreme Court. You're placing yourself in Birmingham 1963, not with Martin King or the SCLC but with the folks holding firehoses and german shepards.

If you're comfortable with this I accept it, but will refuse further discourse with you. If your desire truly is to weaken the power of the Federal government to the point of allowing the return of Jim Crow then I am telling you it will require secession. I personally refuse to live in such a country.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Locobot

As I pointed out several posts above, that the ICC was used to strike down nearly every Jim Crow law on the books. That's an aspect of this ruling that I do think works quite well and advanced our society (dare I say civilization) substancially.

Moosenose, you must realize that you're following the exact same line of argument used to defend every segregationalist law ever enforced and subsequentially dismantled by the Supreme Court. You're placing yourself in Birmingham 1963, not with Martin King or the SCLC but with the folks holding firehoses and german shepards.

If you're comfortable with this I accept it, but will refuse further discourse with you. If your desire truly is to weaken the power of the Federal government to the point of allowing the return of Jim Crow then I am telling you it will require secession. I personally refuse to live in such a country.

There was already constitutional authority on the books to eradicate segregation and the Jim Crow laws WITHOUT the use of the ICC. I suggest you read the 14th Amendment. The fact that the ICC was used to strike down Jim Crow shows just how expanded Wickard made the ICC.

BTW, you are not SERIOUSLY suggesting that if it weren't for Wickard, we'd still have Jim Crow, are you?

[Free Speech]

Originally Posted by moosenose

Most of the things Roosevelt did WERE both effective AND Constitutional. If he'd have stuck with just those, I'd have considered him to be a great President. Unfortunately, he went much, much further.

Didn't he oversee the Japanese internments?

[Free Speech]

Originally Posted by raveneye

Sort of on topic: there have been many published studies showing that the Supreme Court decisions are very significantly influenced by the contemporary political climate. When congress is dominated by conservatives, the SC decisions tend to be conservative, and vice-versa.

The SC justices are not really "unbiased interpreters of the Constitution;" they are very susceptible to the direction the political winds are blowing.

This is why attempts to stack the court, like FDRs and the current Republicans in power, don't really achieve the level of consistent results that are hoped for.

And why appointing justices for life was probably the single worst mistake made by the founding fathers.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by moosenose

There was already constitutional authority on the books to eradicate segregation and the Jim Crow laws WITHOUT the use of the ICC. I suggest you read the 14th Amendment. The fact that the ICC was used to strike down Jim Crow shows just how expanded Wickard made the ICC.

I suggest you research some basic U.S. history to discover that the 14th amendment was passed in 1868 and was actually the reactionary impetus behind Jim Crow legislation.

BTW, you are not SERIOUSLY suggesting that if it weren't for Wickard, we'd still have Jim Crow, are you?

Dude, I seriously am. Segregation still exists in every aspect of American society untouched by interstate commerce: churches, country clubs, private schools, etc.

[Seaver]

Dude, I seriously am. Segregation still exists in every aspect of American society untouched by interstate commerce: churches, country clubs, private schools, etc.

Personal clubs can not be touched. It falls under the right of assembly. While they can not use that for job placement, who's a member is completely up to them.

Inorant? Yes
Asshole'ish? Absolutely

But it works both ways. Just as minorities create funds and scholarships for their own minorities, the majority have the exact same rights.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Locobot

I suggest you research some basic U.S. history to discover that the 14th amendment was passed in 1868 and was actually the reactionary impetus behind Jim Crow legislation.

Dude, I seriously am. Segregation still exists in every aspect of American society untouched by interstate commerce: churches, country clubs, private schools, etc.

I'd suggest that I probably know more about the origins and early implementation of the 14th Amendment than you do. At first, it worked. Later, it was effectively neutered in an effort to appease Southern Whites. A choice had to be made....return minorities to serf-like status, or fight a long-term guerrilla war between the Freedman's Bureau et al and the Klan.

Jim Crow would have ended at the approximately the same time regardless of which part of the Constitution it was done under. Why? Because the will to change it was there. And if you truly understood the impact of Wickard, you'd understand that churches, country clubs, and private schools ALL would have fallen under the ICC in a pre-Lopez environment.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Free Speech

Didn't he oversee the Japanese internments?

He did more than oversee the camps, he ordered their creation and the internment of the Nissei. It's odd that we don't hear more about the fatality rates at the camps...but then again, we won the war.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Locobot

It won't be popular given the problems our schools have had with students not only carrying guns to school but killing a good number of their fellow students.

I really don't have a horse in this race, nor do I have anything near the knowledge about this topic being exhibited here, but I'll just point out that all the laws that are on the books did not prevent one school killing. Kliebold and Harris broke several laws before killing 13 people and wounding several others..

[Manx]

Originally Posted by Lebell

I really don't have a horse in this race, nor do I have anything near the knowledge about this topic being exhibited here, but I'll just point out that all the laws that are on the books did not prevent one school killing. Kliebold and Harris broke several laws before killing 13 people and wounding several others..

I'm not in this race either - but you can't say that all the laws on the books did not prevent one school killing. Such a thing is impossible to know. But it is not difficult to imagine that if it were legal for school kids to carry guns to school, there would have been school kids killed by those guns. Whether Kliebold and Harris broke laws to obtain their weapons is irrelevent to the point that Locobot was making.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Manx

I'm not in this race either - but you can't say that all the laws on the books did not prevent one school killing. Such a thing is impossible to know. But it is not difficult to imagine that if it were legal for school kids to carry guns to school, there would have been school kids killed by those guns. Whether Kliebold and Harris broke laws to obtain their weapons is irrelevent to the point that Locobot was making.

I don't believe anyone has advocated making it legal for school aged children to possess guns at school (with the possible exception of a rifle club).

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Manx

I'm not in this race either - but you can't say that all the laws on the books did not prevent one school killing. Such a thing is impossible to know. But it is not difficult to imagine that if it were legal for school kids to carry guns to school, there would have been school kids killed by those guns. Whether Kliebold and Harris broke laws to obtain their weapons is irrelevent to the point that Locobot was making.

Well, let's see. Prior to the GCA of 1968, when every kid on the block could order literally any gun he or she wanted and could afford via mail order and it was perfectly normal, how many schools got shot up? Now, after all of these gun control laws have passed, and guns have been thoroughly demonized, how frequent are school shootings?

[Manx]

Originally Posted by moosenose

Well, let's see. Prior to the GCA of 1968, when every kid on the block could order literally any gun he or she wanted and could afford via mail order and it was perfectly normal, how many schools got shot up? Now, after all of these gun control laws have passed, and guns have been thoroughly demonized, how frequent are school shootings?

Yes. Because society is exactly as it was prior to 1968, with the only difference being the addition of gun control laws preventing children from carry guns in school.

Lebell, you replied to this:

Originally Posted by Locobot

I realize that you're getting your info from pro-gun biased source, and honestly the application of this ruling to disallow students from carrying guns on public school property is legally convoluted and really doesn't work. If you seek to make this a legal practice on any state level, go ahead and try. It won't be popular given the problems our schools have had with students not only carrying guns to school but killing a good number of their fellow students.

And I replied to you.

[moosenose]

Originally Posted by Manx

Yes. Because society is exactly as it was prior to 1968, with the only difference being the addition of gun control laws preventing children from carry guns in school.

It's just like smoking. If you tell kinds smoking is bad for them, and only bad kids smoke, the kids who want to be bad will smoke. If you demonize guns, and continually publicize shootings at schools, disaffected kids who want to be famous will realize that the quickest way to get on a T-shirt and the news is to shoot up a school.

[Manx]

Glorification of violence is one thing. Gun control laws are another. You can merge them in an attempt to claim gun control laws promote violence, if you like. Convenient, simplistic, but hardly compelling.

Regardless, you seem to agree that society today is not society pre-1968; children with legal guns in school will very likely lead to children shooting children in school.


This is a rather grand tanget, I apologize.

[Seaver]

I'd support gun control laws if the facts prov in any degree that they do any good. I haven't seen anything.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

social security is not a mess because it was founded by FDR. It's a mess because numerous house sessions since then have plundered it and changed it to the point that its a useless and baseless benefit.

Will someone just please explain to me the difference between social security and any other tax? Because that's just what it is. Otherwise, there would be a seperate fund that couldn't be plundered. And we all know that every new temporary tax is really permanent. Just look at your phone bill....I understand that there's still a tax buried in there to pay for the Spanish-American war.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by moosenose

I'd suggest that I probably know more about the origins and early implementation of the 14th Amendment than you do. At first, it worked. Later, it was effectively neutered in an effort to appease Southern Whites. A choice had to be made....return minorities to serf-like status, or fight a long-term guerrilla war between the Freedman's Bureau et al and the Klan.

Well you certainly haven't exhibited your vastly superior legal knowledge here, so I'm left to suggest that your condescension is woefully misplaced. There was no "choice" made by any minority to live under Jim Crow for two generations waiting for FDR to appoint a supreme court willing to end it. I'm not sure if I'd call it guerilla, but certainly legal and extralegal warfare against minorities does exist in America.

Jim Crow would have ended at the approximately the same time regardless of which part of the Constitution it was done under. Why? Because the will to change it was there. And if you truly understood the impact of Wickard, you'd understand that churches, country clubs, and private schools ALL would have fallen under the ICC in a pre-Lopez environment.

No, you're wrong. Wickard was never applicable to the above. You talk about the civil rights movement as if America just woke up one morning completely colorblind and free of bigotry. As if it wasn't a continuous struggle fought through a series of legal and violent confrontations. Today the targets are more likely to be Mexican or Middle Eastern, but it's the same struggle. Jim Crow would exist to this day in some states if not for the rulings of the court appointed by FDR. I am sure of that.

But I really have no interest in further debating a Jim Crow apologist whose only sources seem to be NRA pamphlets. If a black truck driver from Baltimore needs to spend the night in a Alabama motel while he's on a delivery run it does fall under the specter of interstate commerce and should be regulated by the government. You don't agree with that, so we have a basic difference in values. Good day.