Fdr

[Kidlicious]

It's not a scheme because it's the government. They can tax you whenever they want. They don't need to scheme you.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

I don't compare the War on Terror with the Great Depression. So I think it would be justified to call Dubya's action a gross abuse and FDRs the president taking charge of a crisis. Of course, you may still think that the government caused the Great Depression in the first place and all that needed to be done was let the market correct itself, so I can see why you think FDRs actions were a gross abuse of power.

That's exactly the response I expected - it's classic Kidicious, and it can be summed up thusly: "The situations aren't comparable because I agree with one and not the other." Come on. The specifics are rather irrelevant. We are governed by rule of law, and part of that is the separation of powers. FDR's court packing scheme was more than likely an impeachable offense (especially compared to Clinton's "offense" for which he was actually impeached). The Great Depression no more justifies packing the Supreme Court, than the War on Terror justifies it. The only way you can disagree is if you think that, like the Romans, we can have a dictator in a time of crisis, a notion that is TOTALLY unsupportable by the US Constitution.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and to preempt someone from bringing up the other obvious example - I also believe that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was both unjustified and unconstitutional. It's called consistency in belief, Kid - try it out.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's exactly the response I expected - it's classic Kidicious, and it can be summed up thusly: "The situations aren't comparable because I agree with one and not the other." Come on. The specifics are rather irrelevant. We are governed by rule of law, and part of that is the separation of powers. FDR's court packing scheme was more than likely an impeachable offense (especially compared to Clinton's "offense" for which he was actually impeached). The Great Depression no more justifies packing the Supreme Court, than the War on Terror justifies it. The only way you can disagree is if you think that, like the Romans, we can have a dictator in a time of crisis, a notion that is TOTALLY unsupportable by the US Constitution.

In reality we are ruled by the people, not the law. It's called a democracy.

[David Floyd]

No, that's your conception of what you wish we had as a system of government. In reality, we are ruled by the people through their elected representatives, who are constrained by the law - both legislative law and the Constitution.

Also, equating a President doing essentially whatever he wants during a "time of crisis" with democracy is confusing, to say the least.

Finally, equating absolute rule of the people with democracy, in the context of freedom, is disengenuous at best. Just ask the people executed during the French Revolution, as an example, or perhaps the slaves in ancient Athens.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, that's your conception of what you wish we had as a system of government. In reality, we are ruled by the people through their elected representatives, who are constrained by the law - both legislative law and the Constitution.

You're the one making wishes. FDR is a case in point. You are arguing against historical fact.

[David Floyd]

That makes no sense. Of course FDR's court packing scheme is historical fact. That was my point - by making that threat to SCOTUS, FDR abused his executive power.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That makes no sense. Of course FDR's court packing scheme is historical fact. That was my point - by making that threat to SCOTUS, FDR abused his executive power.

I'm not arguing that he didn't abuse his power. We have a system where power can be abused if it's in the best interest of the people.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm not arguing that he didn't abuse his power. We have a system where power can be abused if it's in the best interest of the people.

So you're not opposed to abuse of power per se so long as you approve of the ends? What about setting precedent that will allow the same abuse to be used towards ends you disagree with?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


So you're not opposed to abuse of power per se so long as you approve of the ends? What about setting precedent that will allow the same abuse to be used towards ends you disagree with?

If I was living in a Hooverville I would certainly approve.

[Kidlicious]

I think we are getting off track with the issue of whether I approve or not. That doesn't really matter. All that matters is the reality of the situation during the historical period. The reality is that government help for the poor was inevitable. You can complain all you want about abuse of power, but it's irrelavent.

[David Floyd]

Of course it's irrelevant, in the sense that any historical judgement is irrelevant. History happened, period. No doubt about it.

But that's PRECISELY the point here. FDR abused his power, as per your own admission:

I'm not arguing that he didn't abuse his power. We have a system where power can be abused if it's in the best interest of the people.

And your statement simply shows that you have a profound misunderstanding of the American system of government. Certainly, FDR had the ABILITY to misuse his power, but he didn't have the RIGHT to misuse his power.

I'm also not sure whether or not you are just trolling. The last subject we debated (Berkeley military recruiters), was a subject on which you were SOUNDLY spanked, and not just by, or even mainly by, me. This subject is even more obvious than that. By threatening to "pack the Court", FDR was simply abusing his power as the Chief Executive, in the same sense that Dubya would be abusing his power (by your own implicit admission) if he did the same thing to support the War on Terror.

You may not equate the Depression to the War on Terror, but the fact remains that we are not talking about the specific situation as we are talking about the abuse of power of the chief executive during the situation. I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

Kid, I really don't think you're as dumb as your posts make you look. Why do you refuse to make simple, SIMPLE connections? If you're trolling, fine. It's funny. We get it. But please tell me you don't seriously think you make logical arguments.

[Kuciwalker]

Kid, I really don't think you're as dumb as your posts make you look.

He really, really is. Give up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And your statement simply shows that you have a profound misunderstanding of the American system of government. Certainly, FDR had the ABILITY to misuse his power, but he didn't have the RIGHT to misuse his power.

I don't care if he didn't have the right, and neither did anyone else. That's why he had the power to do what he did. That's how the system works.

Sorry you disagree. This is my last post on the matter.

[David Floyd]

This is funny. I start posting by saying that FDR abused his power. Kid's first response was that it was only an abuse in my eyes.

After a couple of days of posting, Kid gives up the debate, after admitted that FDR both abused his power, and didn't have the right to abuse his power, and only got away with it because "no one cared", claiming that's how our system of government works.

I still say if Dubya did the same thing, you'd call for his impeachment, and if I made the same argument in defense of him, you'd call me an enemy of the people