Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Anne Diggs Taylor rules against FDR
Stop the New York Times ^ | August 21, 2006 | editors

Posted on 08/20/2006 9:26:23 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim

In his first Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said:

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.

‘Fear itself’ was Judge Anne Diggs Taylor’s lone justification for granting standing to the plaintiffs in A.C.L.U. v N.S.A. In her decision, the judge wrote:

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect… All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted. They also allege injury based on the increased financial burden they incur in having to travel substantial distances to meet personally with their clients and others relevant to their cases.

The NSA seeks to intercept the enemy’s communications and not one plaintiff could show they “have suffered an injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” She decided for the plaintiffs based only upon the plaintiffs’ “well founded belief.” Within her decision, the judge points out the September 14, 2001, Joint Resolution of Congress (Senate Resolution 23):

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Perhaps Judge Anne Diggs Taylor just does not know what the meaning of ‘all’ is. After all, she left out altogether that the Constitution confers all authority to Congress to declare and fund war and to the president to conduct war and no authority at all to the judicial branch in such matters. In order to insert herself, as a federal judge, into matters of war, she had to first confer, by proxy, standing upon the only party actually injured by the Terrorist Surveillance Program: the enemy.

It seems as if Congress authorizing President George W. Bush to injure the enemy has angered the judge. What else explains her, by proxy, granting the injured enemy standing, disregarding FDR’s words about ‘fear itself,’ and granting uninjured plaintiffs standing based solely upon fear? Barring that, the only other possible explanation would be that she made a political decision and we all know a federal judge would never do that.

Judge Diggs Taylor’s decision would saddle the defense of our nation by this and all future Presidents with an impossible burden. For example, the communications of a person abroad to a terrorist abroad to confirm a hotel reservation could be intercepted yet the communications of a person in the United States to that same terrorist, to confirm that same reservation, could not be intercepted without a warrant. If the NSA were tracking that one lone terrorist, perhaps taking the time before or after the fact to get a warrant would be reasonable. Yet our intelligence agencies are attempting to gather information about the activities and whereabouts of thousands of terrorists, a myriad or organizations, and a worldwide network that must communicate from afar or risk giving away their associations and deadly missions by physically meeting instead.

What explains the joy expressed about this decision by the editors of the New York Times? Their words betray them:

She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping — Mr. Bush’s attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution… “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union… The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration’s arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Mr. Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.

Yet in the Times’ final paragraph are all of the words you need to read to discover why the plaintiffs filed in her court and the judge decided as she did:

“…one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration.”

The American people have successfully directed those empowered by the Constitution to defend our nation since 1789. Yet the New York Times, the ACLU, and activists judges seek to fix what is not broke.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: americanchavez; annadiggstaylor; annediggstaylor; bush; gwot; ponzilover; ponzischeme; supremecourtstacker; tsp; tyrantinblack; wot

1 posted on 08/20/2006 9:26:24 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

is it ok to be a Republican and love and admire FDR ? i do.


2 posted on 08/20/2006 9:29:30 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (God makes us strong for alittle while so that we can protect the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

I do also.


3 posted on 08/20/2006 9:30:16 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim (In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

He got us through a war that threatened our way of life. Bush is doing that now, but the opposition would rather have our nation harmed than Bush get credit for success. Our domestic enemies are almost as sick as our Islamofascist enemies.


4 posted on 08/20/2006 9:33:23 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

I think he was a great leader and had a lot of guts. he looked out for our troops and he would never have put up with the anti military liberalism of today. he would be furious with the modern democratic party.

he was a good man.


5 posted on 08/20/2006 9:34:53 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (God makes us strong for alittle while so that we can protect the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim
The ruling will be reversed by the first sane judge that reads it, Anna Diggs can go back to picking lint out of her navel.
6 posted on 08/20/2006 9:36:20 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Ronald Reagan didn't turn me into a Republican....Jimmy Carter did that!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

That's a great analysis! Thanks for posting it.


7 posted on 08/20/2006 9:38:26 PM PDT by Tarantulas ( Illegal immigration - the trojan horse that's treated like a sacred cow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

Thanks for the ping...


8 posted on 08/20/2006 9:43:45 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

I love your tagline!


9 posted on 08/20/2006 9:46:09 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim (In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative
fdr....

I seem to recall an fdr somewhere...

Oh yea. Wasn't he the guy who tried to spend us out of the Great Depression (prolonging it several years in the process)? The one who allowed thousands of American servicemen to die so that he could allow Pearl Harbor to occur? The guy who singlehandedly gave us the largest heapin' helping of Socialism in America via his social programs (which dwarf the misguided Prescription Benefit debacle that we got with GW)? The guy who allowed Communists to operate in his cabinet? The same guy who attempted to stack the Supreme court in order to get his way?

Yea, I heard about fdr.

Never thought very much of him....
10 posted on 08/20/2006 9:47:43 PM PDT by rockrr (Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

you sound like a liberal talking about Bush.


11 posted on 08/20/2006 9:50:40 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (God makes us strong for alittle while so that we can protect the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative
you sound like a liberal talking about Bush.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
12 posted on 08/20/2006 9:52:42 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim (In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative; rockrr

Perhaps a better comparison than Bush to FDR would be Liebermann to FDR, despite his running left today suggesting that Rumsfeld resign.


13 posted on 08/20/2006 9:55:48 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim (In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
"Never thought very much of him....

My sentiments exactly! As I recall his wife didn't think much of him as well - after she caught him in bed with her secretary. Never slept with him again.

14 posted on 08/20/2006 9:56:06 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rabble

I seem to recall what Eleanor looked like... of course, that and all that time she spent traipsing all over the world on this cause and that would be irrelavent. Actually, FDR and William J. sound a lot alike.


15 posted on 08/20/2006 10:00:13 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim (In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
"Never thought very much of him...."

It appears that some folks on this thread don't like the facts you have presented! They want to stray off topic and attempt to divert the focus on fdr.

16 posted on 08/20/2006 10:01:43 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim
"I seem to recall what Eleanor looked like... "

Her looks had nothing to do with it - he married her. If his wife couldn't trust him - Who could?

17 posted on 08/20/2006 10:04:55 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Ah Yes, FDR -- thought so much of Charles Ponzi's scheme he set up an entire social program emulating it! Social Security is pure socialism!
18 posted on 08/20/2006 10:08:57 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

FDR vastly expanded the power of the Federal government and almost destroyed the nation. We are still recovering from new deal programs and legislations to this day. I think he was one of hte worst presidents ever....


19 posted on 08/20/2006 10:09:55 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Amnesty_From_Government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

Judge Rules Wiretaps of Terrorists Unconstitutional

At the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union, Detroit Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ordered the Bush Administration to shut down the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. “Listening in on someone else’s phone calls is impolite,” said Taylor. “It is an intolerable invasion of privacy.”

The judge brushed aside what she snidely referred to as "King George’s" argument that the taps were necessary to keep tabs on the adversaries of the United States. “There is no proof that all of the people being spied on are our adversaries,” Taylor observed. “Even if they are, it would be unfair to spy on them. This would be the equivalent of eavesdropping on the other team’s huddle. It’s not fair. Our Constitution requires fairness. It’s in one of the Amendments somewhere, I think. Therefore, these wiretaps are Unconstitutional.”

read more...

http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm


20 posted on 08/20/2006 10:10:13 PM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

lol, someone wrote 'SUPREMECOURTSTACKER' in the keywords...


21 posted on 08/20/2006 10:10:38 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Amnesty_From_Government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim
FDR was scum. He grovelled before Uncle Joe Stalin at Tehran and Yalta (against Churchill's advice), imposed the modern welfare state upon America and needlessly embroiled the United States in the European Theater of WWII (and, arguably, the Pacific Theater as well).

That modern Republicans would openly admit to admiring this worthless man is a testament to how far from conservatism the party has strayed.
22 posted on 08/20/2006 10:10:52 PM PDT by UncleDick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabble

And to that end I beg pardon, as I had no intent to hijack the thread. I think that the article presents an intriguing POV and a valid perspective...


23 posted on 08/20/2006 10:11:03 PM PDT by rockrr (Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
No Pardon Necessary - My comments DID NOT apply to you. Sorry if that's the picture you got.
24 posted on 08/20/2006 10:15:55 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Far worse. The Islamic fascists are hell bent on killing all of us. The domestic enemies would have us all killed for their delusions and power lust.


25 posted on 08/20/2006 10:16:52 PM PDT by farlander (Strategery - sure beats liberalism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

President Bush should simply pull an 'Andrew Jackson' and completely ignore her ruling.


26 posted on 08/20/2006 10:17:16 PM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabble
"They want to stray off topic and attempt to divert the focus from fdr by comparing him to others.

A Correction was Necessary!

27 posted on 08/20/2006 10:22:57 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim
"Perhaps a better comparison than Bush to FDR would be Liebermann to FDR,"

Or, Carl Marx to FDR?

But back on topic, Anna Diggs Taylor is going to have a rough time dealing with the next few months.

First her stupid ruling will be overturned, then to really pee in her cornflakes, in November the ballot proposal to ban affirmative action in Michigan will pass.

She did play a roll in court cases on that, which in turn caused it to be put on the ballot so it cant be vetoed or overturned by the court.
28 posted on 08/20/2006 10:22:59 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Ronald Reagan didn't turn me into a Republican....Jimmy Carter did that!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Please read post# 27.....


29 posted on 08/20/2006 10:26:18 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

I also like the fact that FDR had kidnappers, bank robbers and Nazi saboteurs fried.


30 posted on 08/20/2006 10:26:57 PM PDT by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: UncleDick

I admire FDR for only one thing: he successfully led this nation against the killing machines of Japan and Germany during World War II. Regardless of his other political beliefs, he deserves credit for that. Yet none of that is relative to this post. 'Fear itself' and the use of it by those politically opposed to Goerge W. Bush is the point of this thread.


31 posted on 08/20/2006 10:27:24 PM PDT by Sergeant Tim (In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

FDR literally gave eastern europe to Stalin like he personally owned it.. His wife was a commie, and Alger Hiss(and Chambers) was a trusted employee of his... FDR was pretty much like our John Conyers.. and his wife resembled Henry Waxman in drag..


32 posted on 08/20/2006 10:29:56 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
"President Bush should simply pull an 'Andrew Jackson' and completely ignore her ruling."

Last thing GW should do, IMO. That would legitimize the Dhimmicrats suggestion of GW's "hereditary powers" and "prove" that the Bush administration believes itself above the law.

This ruling is gonna get beat like a rented car and Diggs is going to look plenty foolish (as well she should!) for rendering such a simple-minded, self-serving steamy pile.

I suppose the Dhimmmicratscold have chosen a larger caliber with which to shoot themselves in the foot, but, given their general ineptness, they did pretty good! ;'}
33 posted on 08/20/2006 10:31:35 PM PDT by rockrr (Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim
If I understood the judges free speech line of argument then there is a HUGE hole it it's logic. The ACLU is given standing, even though no one has come forward to claim they've been personally affected, based upon the assumption that people are afraid to call the ACLU for fear of being under surveillance. The flaw is, the program does NOT monitor US to US communications but only international calls when one part is suspected of Al Qaeda ties. Now the judge is either suggesting that the ACLU is an Al Qaeda tied organization OR those whose are afraid to call the ACLU are people tied to Al Qaeda that are external to the US. So which is it that she believes is accurate? If the latter, than what right under US law do terrorist tied individuals outside of the US gain a right to protection from surveillance?
34 posted on 08/20/2006 10:32:16 PM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim
Dear yer honor: 'Knock knock! Anyone home? Playing fields are only supposed to be level in sports. Battlefields must be tipped in our favor. We're talking survival here, not 'game, set, match,' time-outs or extra innings.
35 posted on 08/20/2006 10:54:05 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
The one who allowed thousands of American servicemen to die so that he could allow Pearl Harbor to occur?

Uh Oh. Not another one of them "LIHOP" people .... Ug.

36 posted on 08/21/2006 12:15:34 AM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland; farlander

"Our domestic enemies are almost as sick as our Islamofascist enemies."

Agree with Farlander ... the NYT editorial board and their ilk are FAR WORSE. They're a native-born sleeper cell, who should know better.

Do you recall the NYT making the same kind of ruckus when the previous administration took the FBI files of some 900 Americans? Did the ACLU sue over it? I just don't remember.


37 posted on 08/21/2006 12:27:05 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sergeant Tim

This old Bit@h is a Carter appointee, for Heaven's sake, what should we expect? An incompetent appoints an incompetent. This was an absolutely absurd ruling. I agree with the author, the only possible injured party she could find is the "enemy".


38 posted on 08/21/2006 2:47:24 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

No, actually I agree with him on all but the allegation about Pearl Harbor. He's right, BUT FDR did guide us through the Second World War and, as such he receives my respect.


39 posted on 08/21/2006 2:53:54 AM PDT by singfreedom ("Victory at all costs,.......for without victory there is no survival."--Churchill--that's "Winston")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

DUmocrats are on the same team as the islamonazis...both seek our defeat. If today's politicians, judges, etc. can't understand the WOT then they shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power.


40 posted on 08/21/2006 4:55:07 AM PDT by RasterMaster (Winning Islamic hearts and minds.........one bullet at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

Heheh! Bookmark.


41 posted on 08/21/2006 5:01:05 AM PDT by Big Giant Head (I should change my tagline to "Big Giant Pancake on my Head")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Last thing GW should do, IMO

Of course you are correct. It would be simply another exercise at exposing dem hypocrisy. They put Jackson on a pedestal for being such a powerful president, yet would condemn Bush for it.

Examples of dem hypocrisy are far too common, so there no need to do it here. However, I disagree with the administration's approach. They should drop their Patriot Act argument and instead focus on established legal precedent (i.e. the Truong and Keith decisions). Keith was first argued in the same Circuit, so it should be quite easy to illustrate that Judge Taylor's decision overturns the legal precedent established by her very own Circuit Court of Appeals.

42 posted on 08/21/2006 7:01:51 AM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Last thing GW should do, IMO

Of course you are correct. It would be simply another exercise at exposing dem hypocrisy. They put Jackson on a pedestal for being such a powerful president, yet would condemn Bush for it.

Examples of dem hypocrisy are far too common, so there no need to do it here. However, I disagree with the administration's approach. They should drop their Patriot Act argument and instead focus on established legal precedent (i.e. the Truong and Keith decisions). Keith was first argued in the same Circuit, so it should be quite easy to illustrate that Judge Taylor's decision overturns the legal precedent established by her very own Circuit Court of Appeals.

43 posted on 08/21/2006 7:06:16 AM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Oops. That last one was from the Department of Redundancy Department.


44 posted on 08/21/2006 7:10:14 AM PDT by Hoodat ( ETERNITY - Smoking, or Non-smoking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Exactly correct. Beyond the fact tha thte Congress and President amended FISA in 2004 to make sure that the NSA wiretapping program was totally legal beyond a shadow of a doubt:

Lone wolf amendment

In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. §1801(b)(1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.[15]

And beyond the fact that both Carter and Clinton used the old unamended version of FISA for this exact same kind of wire tapping, but in peace time and not against terrorists:

E.O. 12139 - Jimmy Carter's Executive order to provide as set forth in FISA for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes

E.O. 12949 - Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes

Beyond these important points, there is precedent set by FIVE other Judges in FIVE seperate court cases, in which ALL five of those Judges found the NSA wire tapping program was totally legal and constitution, and threw the cases out. That is QUITE compelling, and it's highly doubtful that the appeals court will uphold this pathetic partisan liberal agenda driven rulling by a sub-standard Judge who's sat on the same low court for 27 years. This ruling will only serve to anger many Americans like us and become a conservative talking point to drive more conservatives to the polls to stop these kinds of radical Judges from taking to ANY court, because with a GOP controlled Congress, NO liberal activist Judicial nominee will EVER get out of committee for a floor vote. And THAT is of critical importance, especially has unlikely as it is that Stevens or Ginsburg will make it to the end of Bush's term.

This is so important because the Judiciary effect ALL other major issues. The war (which liberal Judges have inserted themselves into the war), border control, immigration, gay marraige, Abortion, and states rights. All the major issues are effected by the courts and a GOP Congress is CRITICAL to stopping old liberal Judges from being replaced with new liberal Judges.

45 posted on 08/21/2006 10:19:17 AM PDT by TexasPatriot8 (Irrational is the person who is offended by the mention of a God that he doesn't believe exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasPatriot8
"All the major issues are effected by the courts and a GOP Congress is CRITICAL to stopping old liberal Judges from being replaced with new liberal Judges"

I know. Thats why we can only afford to vote out RINO's when we are assured it is safe to vote in a conservative in that seat.

We just did that in Michigan's 7th district, Schwartz is gone, but there is zero chance that Walberg could lose the seat.
46 posted on 08/21/2006 10:54:45 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Ronald Reagan didn't turn me into a Republican....Jimmy Carter did that!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

You have seemed to embraced some dubious theories propogated by crackpot academics. FDR's trying to spend America out of the depression certainly did not prolong it. In fact, it was precisely the right thing to do. If anything, he didn't spend enough. It was only until 1942 that the US fully emerged from the depression. Why? Government spending in the form of military outlays acted as a huge prime pump for the economy. When a depression hits, the solution is to either boost government spending, cut taxes, or expand the money supply, or have both. (Reagan certainly did this in response to the grim recession of the early 1980s.) The Fed cut the money supply in 1929 and Hoover tried to balance the federal budget (the economic theory of the time told him it was the correct thing to do) and the combination of these two measures made the depression significantly worse. In the 1930s, we really didn't have a good handle on how the economy works; hence Roosevelt's experimentation and occasional blunder. It is not to far fetched to argue that Roosevelt essentially saved capitalism and the Constitution in this country.

There is no evidence that Roosevelt wanted Pearl Harbor to occur.


47 posted on 08/21/2006 6:25:59 PM PDT by kiwiexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson