Skip to comments.The most corrupt Administration in US history??
Posted on 12/24/2005 8:25:27 PM PST by GodfearingTexan
Please forgive me, but I need some assistance. I had lunch recently with a close family member who insisted that President Bush is leading the most corrupt admin in history. I countered that it wasn't, that in fact Clinton had easily a more corrupt admin and had more people indicted than any other. He replied, no, that was Nixon. I honestly just don't have time to research all of this, and I know that there are people on here that either know the answer off the top of their heads or can tell me exactly where I can look it up.
My comments were off-the-cuff and not quite right but the source was a History Book Club review of "The Failure of the Founding Fathers"
"...Jefferson and Burr tied, and havoc resulted. Ackerman tells this story with full attention to the multiple legal dimensions. One of the insanities of the 1787 Constitution is that electoral college deadlocks were to be broken on a one-state/one vote basis by the lame-duck Congress, which in this instance meant a Congress dominated by electorally-repudiated Federalists. Jefferson, who as Vice-President was also President of the Senate, had the task of counting the electoral votes, and Ackerman demonstrates that he played fast and loose with regard to Georgia's votes, which failed to meet the formal requirements set out by the Constitution. Had they not been counted, the House - meaning the lame-duck Federalists - would have been able to choose among the top five candidates instead of only Jefferson and Burr, who because of the Georgia votes, had gained a majority of the electoral votes. Moreover, at least some Federalists were tempted to pass a new succession-in-office act that would have resulted in John Marshall's becoming president if the House proved unable to break the tie. (In the event it took 26 votes before Federalist Rep. Bayard of Delaware in effect threw in the towel). One factor discouraging any such scheme was the threat of mobilization of state militias by Jeffersonian governors, who were fully prepared to march on the new capital in Washington should the Federalists try to steal the election."
The facts of the 1824 election are well-known
Here's an article on His Fraudulency.
And here's an article on His Fraudulency II, as his knowledgeable detractors refer to our current President.
Correction. 26 votes was a typo. It took 36 votes.
I don't believe this is entirely correct. The Constitution calls for the President of the Senate to open the ballots, which are then counted, presumably by the entire Senate, not just by its President.
Do you know what the problem with Georgia's vote was? I've read quite a bit about this period and don't recall anything about this.
I would assume there would have been a huge outcry had the President of the Senate arbitrarily rejected the vote of a state because in his sole opinion it failed to meet the Constitution's requirements.
Interestingly, of the 16 states in the Union at the time, 11 chose their electors either partly or entirely by vote of the state legislature.
Harding was going to be my answer as well. The Teapot Dome scandal was huge at the time. Though I think Harding had less to do with it than Wilson did. Harding had the misfortune of being in office when Fall leased the land to Mammoth.
Post of the week...well done!
amazing how ignorant some here are.
[ I honestly just don't have time to research all of this, and I know that there are people on here that either know the answer off the top of their heads or can tell me exactly where I can look it up. ]
http://www.alamo-girl.com/ <- click HERE...
For starters, if this friend of yours is truly a liberal deep down to their toes, no matter what FACTS you throw at them, they will move the goalposts at the end of each conversation, neigh, at the end of each of your sentences, to continue to live in denial. No matter what you show or tell them, they will not believe you. You will not be able to reason with them, no matter what. They are incapable of rational thought. In other words, you're totally wasting your time, LOL!
But, if you want impeachment facts about Johnson, Nixon & Clinton, to use that as a measuring tool for corruption, click below. (And I agree; Nixon was a schmuck!)
Your friend also won't believe this, but President Bush will go down in history as one of our best leaders, ever. There's so much mud slung when someone's in office, you really do need the leveling of historical perspective to know what's true in the long run. ;)
Here's the Wikipedia take. Ackerman appararently thinks Jefferson was a little more devious but I haven't read the book.
In any case, "corrupt" is probably the wrong word to describe the situation.
It looks more to me like Jeff refused to allow a technicality to disrupt the country and thwart the will of the people.
I certainly wouldn't call that corrupt.
Simply smoking work. Cheers to DougSC.
Simply smoking work. Cheers to DougSC.
Nor would I.
But what you dismiss as a technicality others would call the fundamental law of the land. And...is the "will of the people" expressed by counting the popular or the electoral college vote? By the popular vote or by the Congress acting in accord with Consitutional mandate?
post #3 nails it. There's no point.
Since 11 of the 16 states in 1800 chose their electors by vote of the state legislature rather than of the people, there wasn't really a "popular vote" of the people in that year.
I cannot imagine that the Founders meant the clear intent of a state's vote to be voided because of a minor paperwork error. It wasn't like there were two sets of electoral votes that needed to be chosen between as in some later elections.
Certainly not the most corrupt.
However, there are 3 more years to go...............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.