The 28th Amendment to "reform" the SCOTUS

I spent my voting life as a very loyal Democrat to the 1980 Election when for my very first time voted for Reagan as president. It felt strange for me to actually vote for a Republican. I was just like the rest of the Democrats constantly bad mouthing all Republicans. Until I finally voted for one that is.

 

Oh. Gotcha. When was Biden convicted of sexual assault with children?

 

Sure, why look at what someone who taught history for decades writes when they have you? [/QUOTE]

Regarding the AAA...

"On January 6, 1936, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Butler that the act was unconstitutional for levying this tax on the processors only to have it paid back to the farmers. Regulation of agriculture was deemed a state power. As such, the federal government could not force states to adopt the Agricultural Adjustment Act due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 remedied these technical issues and the farm program continued."​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act

I invite anyone who thinks you know what you're talking about to read about the NRA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration

Ruling the NRA unconstitutional was the one significant blow delivered by SCOTUS to Roosevelt's program. I submit that the Court carefully picked its ground and put a check on excessive government control of the economy.

 

Regarding the AAA...

"On January 6, 1936, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Butler that the act was unconstitutional for levying this tax on the processors only to have it paid back to the farmers. Regulation of agriculture was deemed a state power. As such, the federal government could not force states to adopt the Agricultural Adjustment Act due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 remedied these technical issues and the farm program continued."​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act

I invite anyone who thinks you know what you're talking about to read about the NRA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration

Ruling the NRA unconstitutional was the one significant blow delivered by SCOTUS to Roosevelt's program. I submit that the Court carefully picked its ground and put a check on excessive government control of the economy.[/QUOTE]

The problem in America is not that we lack history teachers, it is that the teachers themselves learned flawed history and present themselves to posters as our unproven authority figures.

We also have a former history teacher posting named Dayton3. If you agree with him, state your case why you agree with poster Dayton3?

My history did not come to me from teachers, since they taught little, I got my history from a wide variety of sites that check out.

I actually was not presenting my personal opinions as I presented history from sites such as the Smithsonian.

Amity Shlaes is a fine historian and she wrote a book that included the FDR years and she clarifies a lot of things told us by Democrats as truth when the truth eludes Democrats.

 

I do not believe I am the person you are talking about given I did not claim Biden was convicted of sexual assault with any other person, child or adult.

 

When did you plan to teach the history of Marijuana where you would have told the students posting here that it was FDR in 1937 that ended up banning Marijuana?

And why do you keep saying Liberal? Was FDR one when he passed the anti Marijuana law? Name even one Democrat that is actually a
LIBERAL. Can you prove even one Democrat is a LIBERAL?

Also have you taught enough history to admit that since 1933 the Democrats have owned the Senate for 62 years leaving the Republicans to own it for a mere 25 years? Until Mitch McConnell took over, it was 62 (D) years vs 20 (R) years.

POT was legal for the bulk of American history until FDR killed it. And as to Booze, chalk that up to Democrats who owned the house and Senate to get the amendment to kill Booze into law. FDR craved huge taxes and that for me is why he agreed to kill the anti Booze law. Democrats today smell enormous taxes from making pot legal again. California is in a panic to collect more taxes so expect more pro tax laws to show up in the name of promoting other drugs.

 

Your problem with that is that the SCOTUS is not supposed to be a "representative democracy", it interprets the law and Constitution without regard to public opinion.

Nope the Constitution is the remedy to stop the radical Democrats and their plane to PACK the court which is the issue not STACKING.

It's bein introduced.

 

Nope "constitution", but they did try everything they could even prevented Astrada from getting a vote.

 

If we go by the Democrats in such cases yes guilty until he proves himself innocent.

 

YES I KNOW and thus a Constitutional Amendment to set the size of the court. Do you agree or not and this has nothing to do with the ACA.

 

Roosevelt's VP his first two terms (the Texas guy) was adamantly opposed to FDR being elected to a third term.

At the end of his third term, Roosevelt much preferred his VP Wallace to continue as veep. But major figures in the Democratic Party were staunchly opposed to Wallace (justifiably it turned out) because of his ties and believed sympathies to communists.

 

First, the ACA was an example of how an existing law can restrict the actions of Congress. Was certain you could understand the similarities to this discussion but, my mistake. As for the remainder...

Amendment unneeded.
And in the current climate, impossible to pass.
BUT when McConnell pulled his SCOTUS double deal
The type of broad based bi-partisan cooperation required to pass an amendment disappeared.
So, expect the same type of double deal from the Democrats then hope and pray
That the screwing Republicans get is as good as the screwing McConnell gave.

 

I was thinking about 1940, but I agree about telling Truman more. I'm surprised he wasn't told about the Manhattan Project.

 

When I hear the caterwauling that Trump does not listen, (not at all true either) I laugh thinking if they think Trump does not listen, FDR did not listen to anybody at all. When he said something, he expected them to jump higher than he expected.

 

The ACA did not restrict a future Congress. And amendment needed so that a Congress and a President cannot change the makeup of the court willy-nilly and for partisan purposes only as the Dems are planning to do and start a war over the SCOTUS and turn it into a political body or at least more so than they already have. And McConnell followed the Constitution.

 

It was sarcasm. You told me you know Biden is a sexual predator, but Trump isn't because he wasn't convicted.

You have two sets of standards. One for republicans and one for democrats.

 

I haven't run across many history teachers in forums, but most I've run across have a pretty good idea of what's going on. The economy is the one exception.

Don't know what he's saying.

The trouble with historians evaluating Roosevelt's first two terms is their poor understanding of economics. Give you an example of the problem...

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm​

It wasn't until the 1960s when Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" that economists more or less ended the debate amongst themselves about the cause of the Great Depression.

Some historians are still arguing other causes.

If you want the short version of what caused the Great Depression, Bernanke's Fed speech is an explanation everyone can understand.

The make-work nature of Roosevelt's programs might have been justified as a short-term measure, they were arguably a poor solution in the longer term.

 

Apparently you still have not read Milton Friedman's legendary A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 that won them the nobel prize.
In fact I wonder if you read much of Friedman or watched some of the videos where he explains things?

Dayton3 posts on this very forum and is also a historian teacher that retired. It would be interesting watching him and you discussing events.

Friedmans masterpiece is for sale at Amazon if you don't mind the price tag of more than 60 dollars.

Amity Schales also tackled this very issue and her book is selling at a lower price. It is worth reading I believe.

 

My point was that SCOTUS didn't stop Roosevelt from initiating a number of changes to combat the Depression.

 

You probably wonder about a lot of things you don't understand.

 

Evidence?

 

Indeed it does.

 

Not sure what point you're making.

 

States run by Republicans are resisting legal pot. Trump is resisting, too.

 

This is a case of Democrats made those laws. We spend much time resisting Democrats laws. And I think you want the Democrats laws to also be revoked. As we do. The majority of republicans who want to keep pot laws have been led to believe the myths about pot. Myths spread to us all from Democrats.

One of my major fights is to keep revoking Democrats laws. I suggest all who want to also revoke Democrats laws join me and perhaps you as well to revoke those Democrats laws.