America's Greatest Presidents

The American Thinker ^ | February 20th, 2006 | Steven M. Warshawsky

[RightCanuck]

Today is “President’s Day.” A holiday originally intended to honor George Washington (and in some states Abraham Lincoln), President’s Day has degenerated into just another day off for government employees and an excuse for large retailers to hold sales.

More destructive to our national consciousness, it has become a day that purports to “celebrate” all presidents equally, the dismal failures along with the towering giants. Perhaps this is why hardly any celebration occurs at all. This is a shame, because the truly great men who have led this nation throughout our history deserve the American people’s most heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

There have been several presidents who have earned the appellation “great” for the leadership and vision they demonstrated during their service in the White House, including Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and George W. Bush (still a work in progress). Today, however, we must honor three presidents above all others: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Each of these men led the United States through a period of deep national crisis, and each time the nation emerged stronger, freer, and more committed to its founding ideals.

[Non-Sequitur]

Since South Carolina was a then a member of the Confederate States, it was not bound by the US Constitution, but by the Confederate Constitution. The clause you suggest had no applicability to property residing in another nation.

But the U.S. Constitution does bind the U.S. government. And regardless of where the federal property may lie only Congress can dispose of it, regardless of who is demanding it be turned over.

[brainstem223]

The Congress has no power beyond its borders to dispose or retain military structures in a foreign nation, should that nation chose to order the garrison to vacate. That is exactly what happened to provoke the War for Southern Independence. The Confederate States of America was its own nation; and had jurisdiction to remove hostile forces.

[brainstem223]

He belongs on a list alright... but not that list.

[Dawgreg]

AMEN! Like FDR, Lincoln has bee way over rated, imho. It's Reagan and Washington all the way.

[PeaRidge]

When you quote out of context, it is easy to make your assertion. However, there is more to the issue than you reveal:

"The immediate source of information pertaining to the Constitution's powers of suspension for habeas corpus appears in the document itself. The clause pertaining to habeas corpus appears in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 and reads simply:

'The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'

Lincoln asserted this authority permitted him to act unilaterally, claiming on July 4 that 'the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power' of suspending the writ.

"Even the simplest reading of the Constitution reveals immediately that this is simply not so and that the power to exercise this suspension is given to Congress, not the executive.

"The clause of suspension appears in Section 9 of the first Article, which clearly identifies itself as pertinent to the legislature.

"This article's opening sentence goes so far as to assert that the powers contained within it, of which the second clause of Section 9 is one, are specifically legislative:
'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States'.

"This assertion provides direct textual proof that Lincoln was in error, as in fact the Constitution was anything but silent as to who possessed the suspension authority.

"Further textual evidence is found throughout Section 9, which lists several limitations on the power of Congress, such as with habeas corpus (which the clause says may only be suspended under rebellion, invasion, or need for public safety).

"Every other clause of the eight in the section directly identifies itself as a clause applying to the power of Congress. Clauses 1 and 8 mention Congress by name. Clauses 3 and 7 specifically mention the making of 'law.'

"Clauses 4 and 5 specifically state restraints on the laying of taxes and duties, which is a power granted to Congress.

"Clause 6 asserts restrictions upon the regulation of commerce between states, a self evident matter of the national legislature in application.

"In short, the seven other clauses in Section 9 of Article I indisputably pertain to the powers of Congress. It is therefore absurd to believe that the founding fathers would have inserted a power intended for any branch other than Congress in the middle of Section 9."

(Thank you GOPCapitalist).

I know that you like to argue this point ad infinitum. Go ahead. Nothing changes the fact that he and his henchmen imprisoned 10,000 American citizens in the North due to this lawless action of his.

[reelfoot]

Jefferson Davis, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson.

[Cinnamon Girl]

1. Lincoln

2. Washington

3. Reagan

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"The worst of the 19th century is Linclon, the worst of the 20th is fdr, carter, clinton... fdr did the most harm to the body politic, carter was the most incompetant and clinton the most evil..."

Yes. If the history folks would have realized that Lincoln was not a budding angel, the other baloney may not have come along.

[RightCanuck]

those are great quotes, thanks.

[PeaRidge]

"Slavery is in itself a causus belli, at least in North America".

That is a slogan worthy of abolitionist radicals like John Brown. It is more a description of the dis proportionality of the emotionalism versus the reality of the situation, both now and then.

Slavery was a social and labor system, introduced into the Colonies by the Dutch, legalized first in Massachusetts, expanded by New England and New York businessmen, protected by the US Constitution, actively advocated by government representatives from all regions, and practiced by whites as well as blacks.

Due to a number of factors that enhanced life expectancy, the 5% of the slave trade entering the United States before 1808, eventually produced the largest population of blacks in the Western hemisphere by 1850.

Your arguments are supported by the assumed premise that all slave owners were evil and abusive, which of course was not true.

"It meant that slavery would be abolished by constitutional amendment probably within 10-20 years. Thats why the South seceded."

Again, your contention is unsupported. Had the southern states stayed in the Union, and supported the 13th Amendment passed at the time Lincoln took office, then slavery would have permanently been the law of the land. Why leave if it is about to be protected by the Constitution?

[rustbucket]

I saw the last part of a C-Spam show yesterday morning about the presidents. The author being interviewed was a history professor from a Vermont college. I didn't catch his name.

He was quite emphatic that Lincoln "shredded the Constitution," and one of the examples he gave was habeas corpus.

[PeaRidge]

non-sequitur knows for a fact that the underwater shoal on which Ft. Sumter was built, was ceded, not deeded, to the Federal government. To cede means to turn over control, not ownership.

If the site had been purchased, then the Constitution authorized Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation...[and] Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings".

It did not authorize Congress to exercise similar authority over forts that are ceded or lent to the federal government.

The founding fathers recognized this key distinction and, accordingly, passed a 1794 enabling act that would allow the states to conditionally cede forts for the purpose of garrisoning them with federal troops. South Carolina did this in 1805 with three existing forts in Charleston. In 1827 they used the same process, and not the federal purchasing process, to cede the land for Fort Sumter.

The Union had been given control of the site by the state of South Carolina for “purposes of navigation and protection of the city and the harbor”.

When Union troops occupied the fort and trained their weapons on Charleston, their presence was no longer for navigation and protection of the city.

South Carolina had every right to attempt to buy out any interest of the people of the Union.

[PeaRidge]

You said: The South legally seceded from the Washington government by acts of their respective legislatures.

Non-sequitur said: Their actions were illegal, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.

Remembering that the Constitution prohibits legislation after the occurrence of an act that alters the legal consequences of that act. (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed."), he is thus making a false statement.

He knows it, too.

And by relying on that false statement to support a claim that the South's actions were "illegal" is primary evidence that he has no factual claim to support his contention.

He knows that too.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Congress has no power beyond its borders to dispose or retain military structures in a foreign nation, should that nation chose to order the garrison to vacate.

The why are we still in Guantanamo Bay? The Castro government has demanded for 40 years that we leave there. They've cut off water and power and all contact with the rest of the island all in an attempt to get us to pull out. So by your definition then we should have ordered the troops home back in the 1960's and turned the whole thing over to the commies. Right? We have to be in the wrong on this because the foreign nation has ordered us to leave. Failing that should Castro decide to bombard the base into surrender then you would believe he was in the right?

[Non-Sequitur]

"The clause of suspension appears in Section 9 of the first Article, which clearly identifies itself as pertinent to the legislature.

Section 10 clearly applies to states since it outlines a whole host of actions that states are forbidden to do. So your claim that Article I applies only to the legislature is clearly ridiculous. The Constitution says that habeas corpus may not be suspended except under certain circumstances. It does not say that legislation suspending habeas corpus, so obviously legislation is not required.

[Non-Sequitur]

Remembering that the Constitution prohibits legislation after the occurrence of an act that alters the legal consequences of that act. (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that "No...ex post facto Law shall be passed."), he is thus making a false statement.

By your definition then any Supreme Court decision is a ex post facto law since every decision is issued after the fact. Also, the Supreme Court does not make law, that power is reserved to Congress. The Supreme Court merely rules on laws as they pertain to the Constitution. Something I had assumed that you knew. Apparently I was wrong.

[RichInOC]

You signed up today and revived a six-month-old thread to post this?

You sad bastard.

[CWOJackson]

My only problem with this article is it makes a very common mistake for today. It almost totally forgets that this nation is in fact at war and that the current President is doing an extraordinary job leading us in this war (so much so that most people don't even remember it).

[hinckley buzzard]

John Kennedy does not fare well in review of history

Nor should he. From the standpoint of a "legacy," being assassinated was the best thing that could have happened to this loser. Khrushchev had him pegged and pinned to the wall. Had he lived he would have done something really stupid, even more stupid than crossing the Rubicon in VietNam with no more than a few thousand "advisors."