And I never said it wasn’t. But the Constitution allows for what FDR tried.

If you want to argue the FDR should have followed “the spirit” of the Constitution, great. I’ll remember that the next time you bitch about Roe v Wade and the right to privacy.

That’s approval of the man not his performance.

Did I forget to provide a link? Silly me.

You are correct in your literal understanding of the Constitution and I will forever hold you to that strict constructionist standard. Strangely you forgot to quote this part of my post where I acknowledge that you are indeed correct.

“Perhaps it would have been more precise to term it an assault upon the independance of the Judicial branch.”

To not understand that FDR’s attempt to pack the court was an assault upon the integrity of the court is naive at best. While you are correct about the ability of Congress to change the size of the court, to do it in a naked grab for power for the sake of a short term political agenda is hardly what the founders intended. I don’t think it entirely unfair to charactorize FDR’s legal attempt to thwart the separation of powers an assault upon the Constitution. But rest easy Fafaroo, FDR got his wish and was forever enshrined although not specifically named in the 22nd Amendment.

AO, you seem to have a strange interpretation of what it means to “disregard” the Constitution.

There’s nothing unconstitutional about trying to pass legislation that would change the make up of the Supreme Court through legislation.

The Constitution specifically grants the power to set the number of Supreme Court judges to Congress. Congress has increased the size of the court three times since the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Yes, FDR was trying to change to make up of the court for short term political gain. That isn’t in dispute.

But he tried to do so through entirely Constitutional means.

So, again, to assert FDR had no regard for the Constitution, as you did, is complete hogwash.

Maybe you should actually know something about the Constitution before you start deciding who is and who isn’t “regarding” it.

Right. The National Industrial Recovery Act was passed by Congress and challenged in court.

FDR didn’t like the court’s decision so crafted another piece of legislation that would, in effect, allow him to pack the courts.

That bill failed to pass in Congress and FDR moved on, having spent a considerable amount of political capital and good will in the fight.

So what you have here is a president trying to advance his agenda through legislative means and being shot down, first by the courts and then by Congress.

I don’t think we’ve ever seen such a blatant disregard for the Constitution. The horror.

In other words, AO, whatever you may think about the legislation FDR sought to make law, he did it entirely through the means of the Constitutional process. To suggest, that suggest that what he tried was anything but Constitutional is just hogwash.

That’s approval of the man not his performance.

Overall job approval rating: 61%

“It isn’t 1983 any more. It is 2003 any more.”

Go ahead and use the big words you know, I’ll try to keep up. LOL

Actually, as of 2009, my views on Iraq, the economy, the GOP, and Obama are solidly mainstream as in — held by the majority of Americans.

This has kind of been a pet peeve of mine since 2005 or so when the occupation of Iraq started to turn into a disaster. The media (so-called liberal media) kept putting up this dichotomy between “Red State” pro-occupation folks and unwashed, hippie protesters, when in fact you had lots of “Red State” types and lots of moderates, people who formerly supported the occupation when it was supposed to last less than a year, who were now solidly against the occupation.

But silly me, trying to have a factual discussion with AO. I’ll put it into two and three-syllable words that you might understand: It isn’t 1983 any more. It is 2003 any more. The majority of Americans are solidly pro-Obama (not always pro-Democrat, I’ll admit), opposed to a long-term occupation of Iraq, and generally happy with Obama’s handling of the economy. This could all change, of course, but to operate as if people don’t like Obama is silly and delusional. Of course, AO is the definition of silly and delusional.

In any case, the Soviets lost 20 million people in WWII, had been invaded by the Germans, the French and the Americans all in relatively recent history, and were not going to let those satellite states go without a fight. Our human cost was peanuts next to theirs; if you think Stalin was going to just go on home without a seat at the table, you must not be that familiar with him.

And I don’t want to run the thread off the rails, but I’d love to know why it was ‘foolish’ to invite the Soviets into the war with Japan.

FDR believed Stalin, Churchill did not. Churchill wanted to push east as far as they could trying to save Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. He then foolishly invited Stalin to participate in the final push on Japan. We lacked sufficient will to do it but Patton had the right instincts.

I know he gets ragged on a lot, but a lot of what he did in his last year – probably reluctantly, as he was a dogmatic ‘get the government out of the way’ guy for much of his career – paved the way for FDR’s New Deal package.

In fact, though, Hoover as commerce secretary did try to sound the alarms on stock speculation during the Coolidge Administration, but Coolidge blew him off. So he ain’t all bad.

AO, this is utterly false. FDR did no such thing. Eastern Europe wasn’t FDR’s to give; the Red Army already held it.

Can you honestly tell me that in FDR’s shoes, with your ally Stalin (who you are asking to join the fight against Japan) holding that territory and promising you elections will take place, you’d have said no, we’re fighting you for it?

I bet you can’t.

No, it isn’t.

its mathmatically flawed and unable to sustain itself

No, that’s wrong also.

It can not continue in the fashion that it has been.

Yes, it can. Steerrrrike three! Yer out!

FDR saved capitalism from itself. Obama is doing much the same thing. Where’s your gratitude?