US Constitution

The Ten Most Important Presidential Elections In American History

Ronald 6 Comments

With Presidents Day coming on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on the 56 Presidential elections that this country has had, and to judge which ten are the most significant, path breaking elections.

Of course, there can be debate and disputes as to the judgment of this author and blogger, but here goes, in chronological order.

Presidential Election of 1789–the selection by the Electoral College of our first President, George Washington, the absolutely right choice for the beginning of our nation under the Constitution, as Washington set important precedents for the future, and had no ambition to grab power long term.

Presidential Election Of 1800–the first time we had an opposition party come to power with grace, and without violence, setting a standard for the future, as Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and the dispute between him and Vice President Aaron Burr, who claimed a tie in the Electoral College, was settled peacefully as well, and caused a modifying of the Electoral College process.

The Presidential Election of 1828–the first one decided by popular vote synchronizing with the electoral vote, and giving the country a so called “Common Man” in the Presidency, Andrew Jackson, representing city workers and frontiersmen alike.

Presidential Election of 1860–leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who set out to preserve the Union at all costs, and wielded power in a controversial, but thoughtfully considered way, through four years of the Civil War.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the triumph of progressivism, the recognition that government’s role had been changed irrevocably in a country that had been transformed from an agricultural to an industrial nation, had tripled in population since the Civil War, had become a multi ethnic nation, and had recognized the need for the regulation of capitalism in the public good, as well as political reforms and social justice. And it was the most exciting election, as three Presidents, past (Teddy Roosevelt), present (William Howard Taft), and future (Woodrow Wilson) competed against each other.

Presidential Election Of 1932–the triumph of Franklin D. Roosevelt at the worst moments of the Great Depression, offering hope and action (the New Deal) to revive the spirits of the nation, and have the American people believe in the future. Without his victory, there might have been social revolution and bloodshed on a large scale.

Presidential Election of 1960–witnessing the first Catholic President elected (John F. Kennedy) and the promotion of idealism and a new beginning in the advancement of social justice and political reform.

Presidential Election Of 1964–the victory of liberalism with the election of Lyndon B. Johnson, and the defeat of Barry Goldwater and conservatism, therefore insuring the continuation of the New Deal, and the evolution of the Great Society.

Presidential Election Of 1980–seeing the triumph of conservatism under Ronald Reagan, with some modifications of the New Deal and Great Society, and great speeches, but not the conservative “heaven” that many imagine it was, but making Reagan a national icon like Washington, Lincoln and FDR.

Presidential Election Of 2008–witnessing the first African American President (Barack Obama), and his work to provide health care reform, preserve the New Deal and Great Society, and overcome the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The author welcomes discussion and debate on this post!

The Advancement Of Gay Marriage Rights In California And Washington State

Ronald Leave a comment

Events of this week are very promising regarding the expansion of gay marriage rights.

California’s Ninth Circuit Court has declared Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in 2008 as unconstitutional, upholding a district court ruling, and this makes it likely that gay marriage will be on the Supreme Court docket very soon, possibly even this year, already full of turning point cases on the Obama Health Care plan, voting rights, and illegal immigration restrictions in Arizona and Alabama.

Additionally, the state of Washington is about to become the seventh state to allow gay marriage, after passage by the state legislature and a soon to be signing by the governor of the state.

So Washington joins Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa as states that allow gay marriage, along with Washington DC, and hopefully, it will return to California where it was legal for a period of time before being overturned.

Twenty to thirty years from now, when gay marriage is a normal thing, many will wonder what was the fuss back in the early part of the century, much like when one looks back to before 1967, one wonders why the big deal over racial intermarriage, which was not legal until a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

Marriage cannot be forced on any religious group, but there is no legal reason why gay marriage cannot be done outside of religious institutions that reject change. It is a question of basic human rights, and equal treatment under the Constitution!

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, And “Their” Concept Of The DREAM Act: Discriminatory Citizenship

Ronald 1 Comment

The DREAM Act has been promoted for a few years now in Congress, allowing the children of undocumented immigrants, or illegal aliens, who came here with their parents, grew up, personally obeyed the laws of the nation, and now as adults want the ability to become citizens, to be allowed that status if they attend and graduate college OR serve in the American military.

The Republican Party has prevented such an opportunity for young adults with illegal immigrant parents up to now, with Mitt Romney coming out totally against any such arrangement until last night.

Newt Gingrich last night gave a qualified approval of a proposed DREAM Act, but with modifications, quickly agreed to by Romney, showing again his constant inconsistency on just about every issue imaginable.

Gingrich said ONLY military service should be used to give such young adults, children of illegal immigrants, the ability to become citizens, and that attending and graduating college should NOT be accepted as a reason for citizenship. Romney modified his hard line views to agree with Gingrich, aware of the large number of illegal immigrants and their children in Florida and many other states with large Hispanic populations.

While it is certainly better to modify DREAM ACT opposition to allow military service as a qualifier for citizenship, it still is wrong, in that it sets up a discriminatory basis of citizenship.

So if someone is born in America, they do NOT need to serve in the military, the last time required being 1973. Why should someone having no control over where he or she was born be informed that he or she must, effectively, serve as a mercenary, “prove” his or her loyalty by taking the risks of military service, and then that person would be entitled to what everyone else is entitled to at birth?

Why is not education that can benefit not only the individual, but the nation as well in the long run, be acceptable without military service being a mandate? This is setting up a discriminatory citizenship, not stated in the Constitution!

Holy War In Play: Social Conservatives Against Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, And Separation Of Church And State!

Ronald Leave a comment

Social conservatives have always been a problem for the Republican Party since the rise of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition and their associated groups, including large numbers of Tea Party Movement activists.

Insisting that separation of church and state are not the beliefs of the Founding Fathers who created our Constitution, the evangelical Right has been exasperated over the performance in office of Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and discontented with the candidacies of Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008.

So now, a large group of these social conservatives, including many religious leaders and wealthy businessmen, have met in Texas, and decided to coalesce around former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum as the best hope to stop former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.

More than two thirds of those gathered in Texas decided that Texas Governor Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had too many weaknesses and shortcomings, and that Santorum, who has emphasized his opposition to gay rights and abortion rights, was their “man”!

These religious right wingers are desperate to defeat Barack Obama, but see Romney as a “Massachusetts liberal”, and many are uncomfortable with a Mormon running for the Presidency, as many of them see the Church of Latter Day Saints as a cult.

It will be interesting to see whether the Evangelical Right will be able to stop Romney from being the nominee, and stop Barack Obama from having a second term of office in the White House.

The whole idea of a Mormon candidate against a mixed race President, who is black in appearance, drives these religious fanatics crazy. The whole concept of separation of church and state, and the idea of personal freedom of individuals to control their own lives, drive these extremists to fury and anger.

Hate is the key word here, and it seems likely that the evangelical Right will lose on both counts, and America will be the better for their repudiation!

Proper And Smart Move For Obama To Make Recess Appointments For Consumer Financial Protection Bureau And National Labor Relations Board

Ronald Leave a comment

President Obama has been stymied constantly on appointments to various government agencies by Republican filibusters in the US Senate.

The Republicans are not contending that Obama’s appointments are not qualified, but simply playing politics and refusing to approve appointments to necessary positions on important government agencies.

So the President, in another example of aggressiveness, has made a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General, to be the heed of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency formulated by Elizabeth Warren, who knew she would never be approved to head the bureau, so is running for the US Senate.

Recess appointments are allowed in the Constitution to prevent Congress from paralyzing government by refusal to fill positions in government agencies. Barack Obama has not been the first President to do this, with George W. Bush using the power extensively, most notable with John Bolton as a recess appointment to be United Nations Ambassador.

Cordray’s appointment will be effective for two years, to the end of 2013.
And Obama also made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, another government agency that Republicans wish to paralyze, but Obama took action and should be commended for it.

This is the fighting Obama that should have been there from day one, fighting the GOP, but after nearly three years of trying to get along and work with Republicans, Obama is following the aggressive tactics of Democratic Presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton! Kudos to him!

Presidential Power Growing: Inevitable Trend Unless Ron Paul Somehow Were To Win White House!

Ronald 2 Comments

One of the key criticisms of American government has always been the growing power of the Presidential office.

But what it really comes down to is NOT the issue of Presidential authority per se, but rather the ideology and goals of the particular President.

Many have been condemnatory of Barack Obama for using his powers to employ drones against enemy combatants; allowing the killing of an American citizen (Anwar Al Awlaki) by missile strike for terrorist activities; increasing the number of Presidential aides in the White House; changing social policy by executive order; using signing statements to express reservations on bills passed by Congress; extending the Patriot Act and expanding the authority of the US government to monitor its citizens and arrest them; and employing US troops overseas without Congressional authority with his authority as Commander in Chief.

But except for Ron Paul, all of the Republicans competing for the Presidential nomination would use the same strategies and tactics, but maybe in a way that many who support Barack Obama would not approve.

The office of the Presidency has been growing in power by leaps and bounds for a century now, starting with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and expanding greatly starting with the Great Depression and World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Cold War under Harry Truman and all of his successors, and then the War on Terror from Bill Clinton on to Barack Obama.

Nothing in reality is going to stop this trend, and the Supreme Court itself has rarely stepped in to limit executive authority, and this perfectly demonstrates that the Constitution has been widened in its meaning, even by so called “conservative” Supreme Court Justices who have no problem with the expansion of federal executive authority.

So instead of limited government, all of the GOP candidates except Ron Paul, believe in expansive government when it comes to executive authority.

The idea of limiting Presidential authority is just that, an idea. The key issue is not that, but who to TRUST with that authority, so as not to undermine our American system of government!

Newt Gingrich’s Attack On Activist Judges: Hypocrisy, Since Only Against Progressive “Activists” But NOT Conservative “Activists”!

Ronald 1 Comment

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is already showing signs of decline from his “surge” two weeks ago!

Not soon enough, as Gingrich is declaring “war” on “activist” judges, but is totally hypocritical in that he is only attacking “progressive” activists, and not “conservative” activists!

He would wish for a court system which was one sided, only promoting conservative advocacy, and setting America back to the 19th century Gilded Age!

He claims to know history, since he has a History Ph.D. from Tulane University in European History, but he boasts too much of his knowledge about American History and the American Constitution!

If it was up to Gingrich, he would wipe out Warren and Burger Court decisions that have transformed this country politically and socially, and really would wish to wipe out the “judicial review” established by the Supreme Court under John Marshall in the early 19th century!

To claim that only “progressives” are activists is totally ridiculous, as ALL Justices are “activist” in different ways, as they are INTERPRETING the Constitution, which is meant to be a “living” document, adaptable to changing times!

Just one example of conservative “activism” on the Supreme Court is Bush V Gore, where the conservative majority Court in 2000 decided to intervene, stop the ballot recount in Florida, and decided the Presidential Election Of 2000. What gave them the right to do that? And look at what it led to, eight years of foreign and domestic disasters that will reverberate for many generations on our nation!

So Gingrich, as usual, is acting as a demagogue, also demonstrated by his demand that lower federal court judges be required to explain their decisions to the Congress in committees, or be arrested! What a revolutionary, radical grab of power such a requirement would be!

The Republican Attack On The Constitution: A Threat To American Democracy!

Ronald 5 Comments

The Republican Party loves to assert that the Democrats, and progressives in particular, are attacking the Constitution, and that they are the experts on the Constitution.

So therefore, in this Presidential primary season, and in the party membership in Congress, there are statements constantly attacking the court system, anytime that a federal judge or court issues a decision against the conservative view of the Constitution. There are condemnations and calls to change the court system on a regular basis.

One would think that the Democrats and their progressive friends have dominated the courts in recent decades, which, of course, is the exact opposite of the truth!

One forgets that from 1969-2011, there have been only 15 years of Democratic control of the Presidency, as compared to 28 years of Republican control.

The vast majority of federal judges have been Republican appointments, as a result, and Republican Presidents have made a total of 13 Supreme Court appointments over those years, and Democrats have made only 4, two by Bill Clinton and two by Barack Obama!

But now,. Newt Gingrich calls for judges to be required to testify before partisan Congressional committees, a violation of the separation of powers, and a danger to an independent judiciary!

What it comes down to is that Newt Gingrich and all of the Republican opponents, with maybe the exception of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, wish to create a court system that would move away from the path breaking changes that the Supreme Court brought about during the years of the Warren Court, Burger Court, and Rehnquist Court including:

Brown V. Board Of Education
Miranda V Arizona
Roe V Wade
University Of California V. Bakke
Lawrence V Texas

As it is, there are threats presented by the Republican growth of dominance on the federal courts to all of these issues–racial integration, rights of criminal suspects, abortion rights, affirmative action, and gay rights.

The Republicans will not be contented until there are reversals on all of these issues, and a return to the “good old days”, when minorities “knew their place”; police had unlimited rights over those they questioned or arrested; women had no control over their reproductive rights; minorities and women had disadvantages, as compared to white males, on educational and job opportunities; and gays were forced to remain “in the closet” and face open discrimination and hate without recourse!

So when the Republicans claim to understand what the Founding Fathers meant at the Constitutional Convention, they are forgetting that those esteemed leaders put into the Constitution the “Elastic Clause” to allow for expansion of the Constitution beyond the original document, in order to make the Constitution a “living document” adaptable to changing times.

The real threat is not what the federal courts have done in the past sixty years! It is the attempt of conservatives and the Republican Party to negate the great progress brought about the Supreme Court and lower courts in the past sixty years, and revert back to the years after World War II, when all of these great changes started slowly to evolve through courageous judges and Supreme Court Justices, including Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

“None Of The Above” Best Choice In Iowa Republican Caucuses!

Ronald 1 Comment

After a Fox News Channel debate last night, preceded by the ABC News debate earlier this week, and both debates conducted in Iowa, it is clear that the best choice for Republican Caucus voters is to vote “None Of The Above”, as it is obvious that none of the candidates are truly worthy of their support!

The only candidate worth considering is Jon Huntsman, who did not participate in the ABC News debate, although he did in the Fox News debate. But he is not making a major effort in Iowa, anyway, focusing his attention in New Hampshire, where he has experienced a surge to third place, as disillusionment with Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is mounting.

Mitt Romney did better in last night’s debate than the one earlier this week, while Newt Gingrich showed his weaknesses and shortcomings yesterday, particularly his patronizing attitude toward Michele Bachmann, who actually has had some good points to make in these past two debates, against both Romney and Gingrich, who she has labeled as “Newt Romney”!

Rick Perry has only managed to propose a “part time Congress”, similar to what Texas has, which explains why Texas is so poorly governed! The fact is that Congress needs to spend MORE TIME, not less, in dealing with the problems of the country! Gingrich wanted to change our Constitution also, like Perry, by calling for federal judges to be subjected to congressional challenge face to face, a whacky and dangerous idea for the “separation of powers” doctrine.

Ron Paul may be the one to benefit from all this, as it seems more likely that the vote in Iowa caucuses may be very evenly divided, with a narrow win by Paul being possible!

So it might be that “None Of The Above” is the best answer, ultimately, in the Iowa Caucuses!

Right Wing Talk About Impeachment Or Resignation: A Dangerous And Preposterous Idea!

Ronald Leave a comment

The right wing will stop at nothing to get President Barack Obama out of office!

Talk of impeachment comes from a Texas Republican Congressman Michael Burgess of the Dallas area, the same district that used to be represented by Dick Armey, the head of Freedom Works and promoter of the Tea Party Movement. Burgess’s reasoning is that Obama is totally ineffective and should be removed for that reason, rather than any specific violation of the Constitution.

The concept of impeachment has already been abused, as with the proceeding against former President Bill Clinton in 1998-1999. It is preposterous to say that even if a President is ineffective, which is highly debatable, in the case of Obama, that it should be considered an impeachable offense. In any case, even were an impeachment proceeding to develop, there is no possibility of a two thirds vote in the US Senate to convict and remove the President, and all it would do, therefore, is cause more economic tumult and political disarray, which is precisely what this country does NOT need!

If one wants to place blame for the chaos and tumult going on right now, it must be shared not only by the President and his party, but also, and to a greater extent, the refusal of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, and their extremist Tea Party allies, to negotiate and compromise on any agreement that would raise taxes to help balance out the budget crisis!

But now, we also have right wing critics who are suggesting that the President resign because of lack of public support, and that he first replace Joe Biden as Vice President with someone more unifying. This assumes that Joe Biden would resign, and one wonders who would the right wing prefer to become Vice President temporarily before becoming President. Would the extremists accept Hillary Clinton? Highly doubtful, and in any case, why should the right wing tell us who our President is, when Obama was elected for a four year term and should finish that term, and leave it to the American people as to whether they prefer him or the Republican opponent as their next President!

It would be unprecedented for Obama to resign, even if one thinks of him as a failure, which he is clearly NOT!

Only Richard Nixon has resigned, just 37 years ago on August 9 because of the Watergate Crisis, and that was for criminal activity!

Only Woodrow Wilson secretly planned to resign in 1916 if he lost reelection, with World War I on, and America in danger of getting involved. His secret idea was to hand over the Presidency to his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, ahead of time, if Hughes had won.

Many Presidents have been seen as failures in different ways, but NEVER has a President resigned because of that belief, and it would destroy the whole American system of government if every time there was discontent, the President should be forced out by resignation.

Think of the many cases that would exist:

1, James Madison, when Washington, DC was attacked by the British, and Congress and the President had to flee, during the War Of 1812.
2. Martin Van Buren, when the country suffered from the Panic of 1837.
3. John Tyler, upon succeeding the dead William Henry Harrison in 1841, being told he was illegitimate even though he had been Vice President.
4. James Buchanan, when we went through the Panic of 1857, and later when the South was seceding from the Union.
5. Abraham Lincoln, when he waged war against the South, and violated civil liberties in wartime for purposes of saving the Union.
6. Andrew Johnson, who was actually impeached but found not guilty, who many wanted to resign as well, because of his opposition to the goals of the Radical Republicans on Reconstruction policy.
7. Ulysses S. Grant, who presided over the worst political corruption up to that point of time, and under whom we suffered from the Panic of 1873.
8.Warren G. Harding, who had the most corrupt administration after Grant, but died just as we learned about the extent of the corruption.
9. Herbert Hoover, who was cautious and ineffective as the Great Depression became the worst economic crisis in American history.
10. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for his controversial domestic and foreign policy actions and strong executive leadership in the time of the Great Depression and World War II.
11. Harry Truman, who many thought should resign after the Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1947-48, and for his Korean War policies.
12. Jimmy Carter, for his ineffective policies on the economy and the Iran hostage crisis.
13. Ronald Reagan, for the Iran Contra scandal which erupted in his second term of office.
14. Bill Clinton, for various accusations of scandals, and for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which led to impeachment, but not conviction by the Senate.
15. George W. Bush, for taking us into war In Iraq on false pretenses, and reckless spending, creating the debt problems of today.

The answer is NOT to have a President resign, but rather to overcome partisanship in a crisis as we have now, and unite around the President, help him, not attack him, and put COUNTRY FIRST!

The Presidency will be destroyed if we let the naysayers rule the roost, and tell the occupant of the Oval Office to resign, as that will not restore confidence!

We have survived good and bad Presidents, and the answer is to follow the US Constitution and stop this irresponsible attack by the right wing on the Constitution they claim to revere, but in practice violate and abuse on a regular basis!