Most harmful political figures in America

[Patrick Degan]

Here's another two figures of disrepute:

Howard Jarvis —the whole tax-cut mania that still has large parts of the country and an entire political party in its grip got it's start with this man and his campaign for Proposition 13 in the late 1970s in California, which succeeded and started off the nationwide "tax revolt" which appealed only to short-sighted interest at the expense of long-term viability. Jarvis got enshrined as a Republican hero, Reagan adopted his rhetoric as part of his campaign, and from that point onward, there was no stopping it.

Grover Norquist —the poisonous little man who founded Americans For Tax Reform, one of the authors of the Gingrich Contract On America, and a prime economic adviser to both Reagan and Chimpus Caesar, brought to the political landscape his quest for "government small enough to drown in a bathtub". What we got, of course, was government small enough to drown a city, and then ultimately to drown a country —in an ocean of red ink.

[xammer99]

Two points of clarification amidst this hate fest.

First, The US Senate’s refusal to pass the League treaty cannot be blamed on Wilson, it was simply Unconstitutional. So even if it had passed, the US Supreme Court would have had no choice but to immediately strike it down.

The problem was that the League Character mandated that its members go to war against aggressor powers. This violates Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

So if you must damn President Wilson for the failure of the League of Nations, then damn him properly as a faulty architect who failed to consult a Constitutional Lawyer.

Another point of clarification, Wilson can’t shoulder all the blame for the Versailles Treaty either, though he certainly gets his share. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau bears a very heavy responsibility too. He forced through on the staggering reparations against Germany and seceding of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French lost during the Franco-Prussian War and Wilson included in his 14 Points because Clemenceau demanded it in return for his support.

To quote British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, in regards to how the Versailles talks went, “I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon.”

[Lonestar]

Two points of clarification amidst this hate fest.

First, The US Senate’s refusal to pass the League treaty cannot be blamed on Wilson, it was simply Unconstitutional. So even if it had passed, the US Supreme Court would have had no choice but to immediately strike it down.

The problem was that the League Character mandated that its members go to war against aggressor powers. This violates Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

So if you must damn President Wilson for the failure of the League of Nations, then damn him properly as a faulty architect who failed to consult a Constitutional Lawyer.

Another point of clarification, Wilson can’t shoulder all the blame for the Versailles Treaty either, though he certainly gets his share. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau bears a very heavy responsibility too. He forced through on the staggering reparations against Germany and seceding of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French lost during the Franco-Prussian War and Wilson included in his 14 Points because Clemenceau demanded it in return for his support.

To quote British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, in regards to how the Versailles talks went, “I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon.”

I believe there is a clause in the Constitution to the effect that treaties with other countries have the effect of law, in fact that's how the Louisiana Purchase occurred.

This would largely throwout the "It isn't Constitutional" argument. Well, that and NATO.

[xammer99]

Sorry but...

1. Nothing in the Constitution bars the Federal Government from the purchase of territory, which was Jefferson's argument. The opposition said that because it wasn't in there, you couldn't do it.

2. The word "War" is never used in the NATO treaty, "conflict" iand "dispute" are however used numerous times.

The folks at NATO consulted a Constitutional Lawyer.

[Lonestar]

Sorry but...

1. Nothing in the Constitution bars the Federal Government from the purchase of territory, which was Jefferson's argument. The opposition said that because it wasn't in there, you couldn't do it.

2. The word "War" is never used in the NATO treaty, "conflict" iand "dispute" are however used numerous times.

The folks at NATO consulted a Constitutional Lawyer.

Wrong, go take a look at Article Six. Treaties made by the Federal Government become the law of the land.

Edit: Also, no Supreme Court Justice worth his salt would be stopped by the NATO treaty if it violated the spirit of the Constitution but not the letter.

[xammer99]

1. Article Six does indeed give treaties the weight of law, but does not allow them to violate or override the Constitution. That requires the passage and ratification of an Amendment. Otherwise that means that the Senate gets to Amend the constitution by itself through the passage of a treaty.

2. Your edit is an entirely subjective opinion, and one that would, I dare say, vehemently disagree with numerous past Supreme Court decisions.

However, as a point of law, there is nothing Unconstitutional about the NATO treaty and they were very careful in the language used in it's crafting. They learned why the League failed and applied those lessons to both NATO and the United Nations Treaty. Further, those are both text book examples of why the Executive no longer asks for declarations of war.

[Samuel]

First, The US Senate’s refusal to pass the League treaty cannot be blamed on Wilson, it was simply Unconstitutional. So even if it had passed, the US Supreme Court would have had no choice but to immediately strike it down.

This is a court that essentially ignored the first amendment in the name of expediency. I don't think they would let the law get in the way of the treaty.

The problem was that the League Character mandated that its members go to war against aggressor powers. This violates Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

So the United States can't form an alliance or mutual protection pact with other nations?

He forced through on the staggering reparations against Germany

Actually, the majority of Germanies debt was from their spending during the war, not reperations.

Article Six does indeed give treaties the weight of law, but does not allow them to violate or override the Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

It seems that treaties have equal weight.

Otherwise that means that the Senate gets to Amend the constitution by itself through the passage of a treaty.

No, they get to amend the laws of the land. THe constitution is a seperate document.

Your edit is an entirely subjective opinion, and one that would, I dare say, vehemently disagree with numerous past Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court disagrees with numerous past Supreme Court decisions. We have to work off of the most recent decisions.

[xammer99]

This is a court that essentially ignored the first amendment in the name of expediency. I don't think they would let the law get in the way of the treaty.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It wasn’t tested and given Wilson’s relationship with the Court later in his presidency, there isn’t a definitive way to prove it. However, that does not change the UnConstitutionality of the Charter Treaty.

So the United States can't form an alliance or mutual protection pact with other nations?

Wow… okay.
Only the Congress has the ability to declare war, therefore alliances and mutual protection pacts may make assistance in a conflict a certainty, but they have not, do not, will not, and cannot obligate American entry into any war. To do otherwise would be a Constitutional violation since only the Congress is afforded the power to make war.

Now there is some legal hair splitting in that the Executive can deploy armed forces to a conflict on its own without a declaration of war, but the duration of those deployments is limited and subject to Congressional approval.

Thus with NATO, while assistance will be a foregone conclusion, a declaration of war will not be a certainty in the case of aggression against a NATO member. However, the form that assistance can take is quite varied and ranges from economic assistance to outright military assistance and everything inbetween.
The reason for this very very important distinction is World War 1. The entire globe got burned because of a cascade of mutual defense pacts that mandated war be declared and left 0 wiggle room. So a regional dispute between two powers (Russia & Austria-Hungary) turned global as these alliances kicked in. Germany declared war on Russia which ment France had to declare war on Germany & Austria-Hungary. Germany & Austria-Hungary then declared war on France which meant the UK had to declare war on Germany & Austria-Hungary. It was all a gigantic clusterfuck started by mutual defense treaties and is exactly what that clause of the Constitution was written to avoid.

Actually, the majority of Germanies debt was from their spending during the war, not reperations.

Governmental debt was very frequently overlooked, delayed, or simply abrogated in the wake of WW1. What was not however was the reparations payments for fear of attack, particularly by the French, and the failure to make several payments at the end of the 20’s was one of the big contributors to the start of the Depression.

It seems that treaties have equal weight.

No, it doesn’t. “Supreme Law of the Land” is the term for Federal legislation & regulations which are lesser in stature to the Constitution.

The order of precedent is: Constitution > Federal Law/Supreme Law of the Land > State Law > Local Law

This is a very basic distinction covered in any civics/polisci 101 class, and if what you are espousing were the case, then it would give laws passed by Congress and signed by the Executive equal weight with the Constitution and therefore they would not be subject to review by the Supreme Court. Further, the whole process would be unConstitutional since the Constitution sets down the process for amendments.

No, they get to amend the laws of the land. The Constitution is a seperate document.

See above, and please go pick up a basic civics or poli-sci book.

The Supreme Court disagrees with numerous past Supreme Court decisions. We have to work off of the most recent decisions.

Absolutely correct, particularly in the case of narrow, 5-4 or 6-3, decisions.

I would also suggest reading up on Marbury v. Madison (1803) and pondering the implications of a Supreme Court without Judicial Review of Legislation. Were it not for Chief Justice Marshall, all of this discussion of Constitutionality would have been moot as Congress would have essentially the power of writing Amendments to the Constitution because there would have been no body which could have examined the Constitutionality of a law, much less overturned such laws, other than Congress itself and the Executive by refusal to sign said laws.

Finally, I really really do encourage you to pick up a good poli-sci or history book, or even the Constitution itself and give it a good read through. Some really fascinating stuff in there that has been interpreted in some absolutely amazing ways over our 2+ centuries. Little one liners that have just awe inspiring consequences (the right to keep and bare arms), or ideas that we take as fundamental and basic that have to be found in the penumbra (the right to privacy or abortion) because they appear nowhere in the document.

[Black Admiral]

Germany & Austria-Hungary then declared war on France which meant the UK had to declare war on Germany & Austria-Hungary.

This isn't true. Britain had no obligation whatsoever, much to the annoyance of the French, to assist France in the event of war, and quite possibly wouldn't have gotten involved in 1914 if the Germans hadn't invaded Belgium; Belgian neutrality and the maintenance thereof was the one thing that could largely unify public and political opinion in Britain behind getting involved in a continental war.

[Lonestar]

Wow… okay.
Only the Congress has the ability to declare war, therefore alliances and mutual protection pacts may make assistance in a conflict a certainty, but they have not, do not, will not, and cannot obligate American entry into any war. To do otherwise would be a Constitutional violation since only the Congress is afforded the power to make war.

Now there is some legal hair splitting in that the Executive can deploy armed forces to a conflict on its own without a declaration of war, but the duration of those deployments is limited and subject to Congressional approval.

Thus with NATO, while assistance will be a foregone conclusion, a declaration of war will not be a certainty in the case of aggression against a NATO member. However, the form that assistance can take is quite varied and ranges from economic assistance to outright military assistance and everything inbetween.

Yeah, and the League of Nations was mandating wars against people left and right, huh? I guess under this brilliant bit of Constitutional Lawyering the Kellog-Briand Pact was unconstitutional because itrestricted the Congressional Right to declare war?

The reason for this very very important distinction is World War 1. The entire globe got burned because of a cascade of mutual defense pacts that mandated war be declared and left 0 wiggle room. So a regional dispute between two powers (Russia & Austria-Hungary) turned global as these alliances kicked in. Germany declared war on Russia which ment France had to declare war on Germany & Austria-Hungary. Germany & Austria-Hungary then declared war on France which meant the UK had to declare war on Germany & Austria-Hungary. It was all a gigantic clusterfuck started by mutual defense treaties and is exactly what that clause of the Constitution was written to avoid.

And you don't even know your history. Britain was under no legal obligation to get involved in WW1, although it would have been dirty pool to hang the French(and the Belgians) out to dry. The British Cabinet was still debating it up to the very last minute, and even then their demand to Germany was to withdraw from Belgium, not stop fighting.