Debate over the dime pits Reagan against FDR

[MrFun]

But I have other reasons why I detest Raegan so much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

now that is FLAT OUT unconstitutional

Actually no, because the SCOTUS has said it is not. Even though today people consider it a bad thing, Korematsu has never been overruled. Remember, the Constitution does allow for the suspension of haebus corpus during wartime.

[Mr. Harley]

I'll have to check the case law, and I only have my links on my home computer. I know that the cases resulting from the Civil War under the Lincoln adminstration specifically found, after the fact, that suspension of habeus corpus in non-war zones with functioning civil government, like Ohio in one of the specific cases, was unconstitutional. You could argue interning the civilians in Hawaii was constitutional. Not Japanese Americans born in, and living in, the continental US. It may have been constitutional in the sense that the constitution is whatever the Surpreme Court says it is, look at the cases coming out of the Southern leaning Court just prior to the Civil War. I will argue that what was done to the Japanese Americans was not constitutional, but that the government got away with.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm just wondering what Mr. Fun will do if Reagan gets on the twenty...

[Felch]

Anybody trying to cop a dime?

[mrmitchell]

Roosevelt
(Known for defeating the forces of hell itself)

Oh yeah, that's right too. I never saw Reagan defeating any forces of hell.

[Asmodean]

Who cares...money (that is paper and coins) will be dead in half a century anyway. If they really want to make a lasting impression, they should issue a bill puting his ugly face on all visa cards instead.

Asmodean

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I'm just wondering what Mr. Fun will do if Reagan gets on the twenty...

I'm angry -- not crazy.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually Andrew Jackson should be best known for adovocating universal white male sufferage (taking away property requirements) and being known as the man of the common people (I'm sure you've hear the stories of dirty commoners staining the White House during Jackson's inaugeration), and, of course, his amazing victory in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

His abuses of human rights by far eclipse those of any president before or after him.

The Trail of Tears was worse than slavery?

I believe there were slaves during his presidency as well, so I don't know why you brought that up. There was no president who made slavery national policy, so there's nobody more guilty or less guilty than Jackson among the first 15 presidents in that regard.

His victory in the Battle of New Orleans was after peace had been signed.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MrFun
Or worse than propping up anti-communist dictatorships in third world countries during the Cold War??

The people in the third world countries had the choice between communist dictatorships and anti-communist dictatorships. They were screwed over no matter what we did. The Cherokee didn't have to be screwed over.

[MrFun]

Um -- God forbid if third world country people could have a choice for an anti-communist democracy!!


horrors of all horrors!!

[The diplomat]

It is a no brainer, folks. Reagan should be on the dime!

[Kuciwalker]

I believe there were slaves during his presidency as well, so I don't know why you brought that up. There was no president who made slavery national policy, so there's nobody more guilty or less guilty than Jackson among the first 15 presidents in that regard.

I'm 99% sure there was no slavery during his presidency (unless he stopped it). The amendment banning slavery (in all of the states) was either made during his presidency or Lincoln's.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by skywalker

I believe there were slaves during his presidency as well, so I don't know why you brought that up. There was no president who made slavery national policy, so there's nobody more guilty or less guilty than Jackson among the first 15 presidents in that regard.

I'm 99% sure there was no slavery during his presidency

His presidency was 1829-1837. Would you like to revise that statement?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
It is a no brainer, folks. Reagan should be on the dime!

Ok, now that the comic relief is over...

Jackson is a crucial figure in US history, and so are Franklyn and Hamilton, the only two non-presidents on money. Everyone on money deserves to be there, with the exception of Kennedy..he had a pretty wife and got himself killed (fine, he idd more bu no more than say Eisenhower or Truman): not enough to get on money. You can question Grant's precidency, but then there is his role as Union commander...

There is no reason for any pres. after FDR getting on money, cause none have done much to compare. I wonder when republicans decided to create a cult of personality? How Stalinist of them....

Next up: Reagans unfinished Opera..the greatest piece of fiction EVER!!!!! You must submitt!