Presidential Assassinations Have Always Aided the Democrats

Frontpagemagazine ^ | July 19, 2024 | Robert Spencer

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica to Pelham: "Much of what progressive TR did to ruin the Constitution wasn't limited to his creation of the original deep state that we are still saddled with to this day.
Your post quoting FEE didn't say it, so I wanted to make sure it was said.
Theodore Roosevelt instituted price controls with that Hepburn Act, that's what it was.
Price Controls."

First of all, the Hepburn Act passed Congress in 1906 with only three dissenting votes -- it was nearly unanimous, it was bipartisan and veto-proof, even if TR had wanted to veto it, which of course he didn't.

The fact is that by 1906 Americans hated railroad robber barons for their monopolistic and highly discriminatory practices, which made robber barons wealthy, at the expense of average people, notably farmers shipping their produce to markets, or people commuting to work.

And by 1906 many countries were already nationalizing their railroads, including:

1. Germany -- 1879
2. Belgium -- ~1880
3. Netherlands -- ~1890
4. Switzerland -- ~1890
5. Austria-Hungary -- ~1890
6. Russia -- ~1900
7. Sweden -- ~1900
8. Denmark -- ~1900
9. Italy -- 1905
10. Japan -- ~1905
11. Mexico -- ~1905

Point is -- government forcing monopolistic robber barons to justify their pricing was a relatively minor step compared to other counties' responses to the inherent problems with unregulated private railroad ownership.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica quoting: "......in 1908 President Roosevelt created the Bureau of Investigation by executive order and directed Attorney General Charles Bonaparte to develop the agency within the Department of Justice."

In this quote and others, you've selected out "facts" which suit your propaganda purposes, while ignoring any which don't.
Here is a summary of facts which matter:

1. Prior to 1908 the Justice Department used dozens of investigators, many on loan from the Secret Service, others hired off a Secret Service waiting list.

2. In 1908 Congress (i.e., Tawney, Smith & Fitzgerald) forbade DOJ from using Secret Service investigators but allowed hiring investigators from the Secret Service's waiting list of qualified investigators.
   Congress set July 1, 1908, as the deadline for discontinuing Secret Service investigators in the Justice Department.

3. After July 1, AG Bonaparte (not Pres. T. Roosevelt) directed all the remaining investigators to one office under his Chief Examiner Finch.

4. On July 26, AG Bonaparte (not Pres. T. Roosevelt) directed "DOJ attorneys to refer most investigative matters to the Chief Examiner Finch, who would determine if there were special agents under his direction available to investigate the case."

5. So: there was no "executive order" from Teddy Roosevelt.
   There was no "Bureau of Investigation" under Teddy Roosevelt.

   There was only a minor shuffling of existing offices and a directive from Bonaparte to his DOJ attorney's to request investigators through Chief Examiner Finch.

6. Everything else came later, beginning in 1909 under Pres. Taft.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "By an order of the Attorney General they were to be under the Chief Examiner in the Department of Justice."

Right: It was not from Roosevelt, it was because Congress forbade continued use of Secret Service investigators, and it did not have the name "Bureau of Investigation".
It was simply a minor reshuffling of existing DOJ investigators.

Everything else came later, beginning in 1909 under Pres. Taft.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I don't agree that Republican TR is to be blamed for every bad thing Progressive Democrats did in the 116 years since TR left office in 1908."

TR is responsible for his actions and their direct repercussions.

He is the one who harangued and harangued and harangued for an income tax. The idea that he bears no responsibility at all for his direct initiatives does not pass muster.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I suspect that you have a soft, tender spot of love in your heart for......."

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Point is -- government forcing...."

Yeah. Forcing. Government "forcing", that's quite alright with you.

Because you, like Theodore Roosevelt, are a statist progressive republican. You're ok with government being in control and centrally planning all our lives.

In your arguments with Pelham, you've even gone so far as to admit that TR was about the direct election of senators - something I was working my way toward. You've also brought up the income tax. Even going so far as quoting/citing the Progressive Party Platform.

At no time have you expressed any aggravation at these policies at all. In other words, you support these policies because most of them are still with us to this day. You don't express any outrage at all over it, you try to shove it under the rug:

"....was a relatively minor step compared to...."

That's just terrible. This attempt for justification for price controls is just shameful.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You are dishonestly ignoring research for whatever cherry pick feeds the cult of personality that you are laboring under.

I gave you several citations that it was an executive order, and it was from Theodore Roosevelt.

Are you suggesting that an appointee has the presidential power to issue an executive order? And even if that were true, what steps exactly did Pres. Roosevelt take in order to reign in his out of control Attorney General for creating an unconstitutional bureaucracy? Besides, the FBI's own website explicitly states that AG Bonaparte was directed months in advance to go violate the constitution. So all of it is academic, all roads lead back to Theodore Roosevelt.

They were both progressives. They were both in agreement that the Constitution sucks. Again and again, you don't deny any of the progressivism. All you're doing is ducking, weaving, hiding, shading, dissembling, and marginalizing.

You're not denying the progressivism.

[DiogenesLamp]

I find it amusing that you point this out but absolutely deny the corporate rail road lawyer who gave them the greatest Federal giveway in history, had anything to do with it.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are dishonestly ignoring research for whatever cherry pick feeds the cult of personality that you are laboring under.

Ah, I see you've met Brother Joe K! :)

[ProgressingAmerica]

It’s really sad. There are a lot of people involved with this TR cult of personality.

Reality MUST be denied.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "TR is responsible for his actions and their direct repercussions.
He is the one who harangued and harangued and harangued for an income tax.
The idea that he bears no responsibility at all for his direct initiatives does not pass muster."

TR is certainly responsible for his own words and actions, but you conveniently forget the 1912 presidential election included four major candidates, of whom TR was only one.
How did the others view the proposed new 16th Amendment for income taxes?

1. Democrat Woodrow Wilson supported the 16th Amendment, got 6 million votes.

2. Bull Moose Progressive Teddy Roosevelt supported the 16th Amendment, got 4 million votes.

3. Republican Howard Taft supported the 16th Amendment, got 3 million votes.

4. Socialist Eugene Debs supported the 16th Amendment, got 1 million votes.

So, to summarize its long history, Income Taxes were:

1. First proposed in 1814 under Founding Father and Jeffersonian Democrat Pres. Madison, to increase revenues for the War of 1812.
   The war ended before it passed.

2. First used in 1862 under Republican Pres. Lincoln, to increase revenues for the Civil War -- repealed in 1872.

3. Proposed by the Greenback Party (National Independent Party) in 1880.

4. Proposed by the Populist Party Omaha Platform in 1892.

5. Reestablished in 1894 under the Democrat Congress & Pres. Cleveland to allow for lowered tariffs -- SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co).

   

6. First proposed by Republican Pres. Roosevelt in his 1906 Sixth Annual Message to Congress.
   No action was taken.

7. Proposed in the Democrat Party Platform in 1908.

8. 16th Amendment proposed by Republican Pres. Taft and passed by Congress in 1909.

9. 16th Amendment ratified first by Southern Democrat states like Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia & Texas.

10. 16th Amendment supported by all four parties and presidential candidates in the 1912 election.

11. 16th Amendment ratified under Republican Pres. Taft, first enacted into law in the 1913 Revenue Act (Underwood Tariff) under Democrat Pres. Wilson.

So, in all that long and complicated bipartisan history, you wish to single out Teddy Roosevelt as solely responsible for everything bad that Democrats did after TR was long gone?

Why is that?

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "Yeah. Forcing. Government "forcing", that's quite alright with you."

The legitimate use of force is the reason we have governments, there is no other.
Government's just powers are all about the legitimate use of force to protect inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The US Constitution enumerates a just power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8).
The first Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887 under Democrat Pres. Cleveland, to regulate and set maximum prices for the railroad industry.

ProgressingAmerica: "Because you, like Theodore Roosevelt, are a statist progressive republican.
You're ok with government being in control and centrally planning all our lives."

Now you're just babbling fact-free word-salad.
The truth is the Constitution enumerates Federal just powers and regulating interstate commerce is one of them.

ProgressingAmerica: "In your arguments with Pelham, you've even gone so far as to admit that TR was about the direct election of senators - something I was working my way toward.
You've also brought up the income tax.
Even going so far as quoting/citing the Progressive Party Platform."

First, I'm glad to see where you actually read something I posted, but of course I'm not surprised to learn that, naturally, you misunderstood it...

So, I'll try again:
The name of Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 "Bull Moose" party was the Progressive Party and they were "progressive" for the reasons listed in their 1912 Party Platform, which I spelled out in great detail in post #52 above.
What about that post confused you?
Do you know literally nothing about actual history?

One of the key take-aways from my post #52 should have been that most of the "progressive" items supported by Teddy's Bull Moosers were also supported by Wilson's Democrats, Taft's Republicans and Debs' Socialists.
There were no genuinely conservative parties on the ballot in 1912.

But you want to pick out and condemn only Teddy Roosevelt?
How does that work in your mind?

ProgressingAmerica: "At no time have you expressed any aggravation at these policies at all.
In other words, you support these policies because most of them are still with us to this day.
You don't express any outrage at all over it, you try to shove it under the rug:"

Naw... I've merely pointed out several seemingly obvious facts:

1. Nearly all the items which have you so outraged were supported by all four parties in the 1912 election.

2. Although Teddy Roosevelt called himself "progressive", his party platform was not as progressive as the Democrats in 1912, who for example, also wanted a Federal Reserve Banking system.
   Wilson's 1913 Federal Reserve Act was supported almost unanimously by Democrats, opposed by a majority of Republicans.

3. All of the Progressive Party Platform "planks" were eventually passed, in some form, and while often modified, none were ever repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

4. To my knowledge, no Donald Trump MAGA Republican today advocates for the repeal of any of Teddy Roosevelt's "progressive" agenda.

The "Gilded Age",
as seen by virtually all Americans at that time:

ProgressingAmerica quoting BJK: "....was a relatively minor step compared to...."

ProgressingAmerica: "That's just terrible.
This attempt for justification for price controls is just shameful."

And yet again you're just babbling nonsense.
The truth is that regulating interstate commerce is a constitutionally enumerated "just power" of Federal government, and it began under Democrat Pres. Grover Cleveland's 1887 Interstate Commerce Act.
This was strengthened under the bipartisan veto-proof 1906 Hepburn Act and the 1910 Mann-Elkins Act under Republican Pres. Taft.

Congress's constitutional authority to let Federal administrators set maximum railroad rates was challenged in the 1914 Shreveport Rate case, and SCOTUS ruled it constitutional.

Bottom line: regardless of how much you want to weep and gnash your teeth (i.e., Matt 8:12) over constitutional spilt-milk, that ship has already sailed, that train has left the station and nobody today seriously proposes that we turn back the political clock to the 1880s era of Robber Baron monopolists.

Certainly not Donald Trump or his MAGA Republican agenda, that I've ever seen.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"TR is certainly responsible for his own words and actions"

Then you are going to have to address how after the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. destroyed income taxes for all time in the U.S., it was Theodore Roosevelt who revived it and popularized it.

"First proposed by Republican Pres. Roosevelt in his 1906 Sixth Annual Message to Congress.

No action was taken."

Another lie. That's the lie right there. Action was taken. Action was definitely taken. Now that you have completely abandoned your futile FBI initiative, you charge up yet another hill in futility. This is not San Juan Hill here. You aren't holding a winning hand of cards here. You aren't even holding any cards! What are you doing at this table?

Let's start with Theodore Roosevelt's 1907 Seventh Annual Message - also known as the State Of The Union Address. This is a big deal that it was included in not just one, but two SOTU addresses. (They weren't always speeches at that time) With the income tax, Roosevelt kept on it and kept on it and kept on it. And we can tie that together with what you have already admitted to, the Progressive Party Platform.

The popularity of Theodore Roosevelt made income taxes popular as well. His never ending zeal for income taxes, and add to that he went out and sent his personal henchman, Taft, to go out and get the thing started, means that indeed yes, action was taken. Action was taken over and over and over again.

"16th Amendment proposed by Republican Pres. Taft and passed by Congress in 1909."

What you meant to say was Roosevelt's hand-picked-successor, Taft, proposed the 16th Amendment. We have been through this one aspect before. Taft and Roosevelt didn't have their "falling out" until 1911 when Taft started to no longer find Roosevelt's huge government schemes to be impressive anymore.

"you wish to single out Teddy Roosevelt as solely responsible for everything bad that Democrats did after TR was long gone?"

I wish to find Teddy Roosevelt responsible for the things that Teddy Roosevelt did. Like,

For example,

how after the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. destroyed income taxes for all time in the U.S., it was Theodore Roosevelt who revived it and popularized it.

We would not have the 16th Amendment if not but for Theodore Roosevelt. Same with the 17th Amendment. That's Teddy too.

And don't forget, the Trump-harassing FBI. You want to forget that, but I'm not forgetting that. The FBI is Theodore Roosevelt's fault.

You do best to defend the sanctity of Theodore Roosevelt when you keep your blinders on to the politics. Theodore Roosevelt is fine if you want to talk about all of the phony baloney plastic banana good time rock n roller human interest stuff. He got shot and kept speaking. He hunted a lion. He overcame asthma.

All of that stuff is great. That's fine. Whatever. But on the politics? Theodore Roosevelt was hard-core anti-Constitution, anti-Federalism, he hated HATED the states, and he used his executive powers whenever he could to get around Congress. King Teddy the First was an out of control TYRANT, the exact kind of president that the U.S. constitution was designed to protect us against. The exact kind.

You even admitted as much about the flagrant abuse of the executive actions powers in your FBI shenanigans. Congress said no, so Teddy waved his kingly scepter and did it anyways. You already admitted this.

The FBI

The FBI

Don't think I'm letting it go.

The FBI

That's Teddy Roosevelt's fault. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the blatantly unconstitutional FBI. Check it.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"The legitimate use of force is the reason we have governments"

Centralized planning and picking winners and losers is not the legitimate use of government.

Grow up.

[ProgressingAmerica]

ProgressingAmerica quoting BJK: "....was a relatively minor step compared to...."

ProgressingAmerica: "That's just terrible. This attempt for justification for price controls is just shameful."

BJK reply: "is a constitutionally enumerated "just power" of Federal government"

No. Price controls are not constitutionally enumerated. I don't know what the heck Constitution you have been reading, but it certainly is not the U.S. Constitution. It was not constitutional for Theodore Roosevelt to engage in price controls, it was not constitutional when Nixon tried it, and it will not be constitutional for Biden to engage in price controls either.

I cannot, cannnnnnnot believe, cannot buhlieve, WOW, I'm arguing with a price controls supporter here on Free Republic.

And you even believe it's constitutional!!!!!!!! Crazy!

[jmacusa]

I don’t know who the hell you are but I don’t support ‘’price controls’’ and I don’t support a ‘’strong centralized government’’ so shut up and don’t post to me.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "Then you are going to have to address how after the Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. destroyed income taxes for all time in the U.S., it was Theodore Roosevelt who revived it and popularized it."

I'd say your claims that the Income Tax was DOA after the SCOTUS 1895 Pollock ruling are a bit... exaggerated.
Sleeping, perhaps dormant, but dead? Naw.

ProgressingAmerica quoting BJK: "First proposed by Republican Pres. Roosevelt in his 1906 Sixth Annual Message to Congress.
No action was taken."

ProgressingAmerica: "Another lie.
That's the lie right there.
Action was taken.
Action was definitely taken.
Now that you have completely abandoned your futile FBI initiative, you charge up yet another hill in futility.
This is not San Juan Hill here.
You aren't holding a winning hand of cards here.
You aren't even holding any cards!
What are you doing at this table?"

So many words.
So much unbridled emotion.
And all of it is 100% pure nonsense -- how does that happen?

The truth is just what I said, and you quoted me directly -- Congress took no action on Pres. Roosevelt's 1906 Address recommending an income tax.

1. 59th Congress, 1905-1907 -- no action on Income Tax under Pres. Roosevelt

2. 60th Congress, 1907-1909 -- no action on Income Tax under Pres. Roosevelt

3. 61st Congress, 1909-1911 -- passed the 16th Amendment when proposed by Pres. Taft -- not Roosevelt.

4. 62nd Congress, 1911-1913 -- 16th Amendment ratified by (especially Southern Democrat) states under Pres. Taft.

5. 63rd Congress, 1913-1915 -- the Democrat Congress imposed the 1913 Revenue Act (Underwood Act), signed by Democrat Pres. Wilson.

ProgressingAmerica: "Let's start with Theodore Roosevelt's 1907 Seventh Annual Message - also known as the State Of The Union Address.
This is a big deal that it was included in not just one, but two SOTU addresses. (They weren't always speeches at that time)
With the income tax, Roosevelt kept on it and kept on it and kept on it.
And we can tie that together with what you have already admitted to, the Progressive Party Platform."

But Congress took no action while Teddy Roosevelt was president.
Then, in 1908, the Democrat party platform called for income taxes, and with Southern Democrat support, Pres. Taft (not Roosevelt) got the 16th Amendment passed through Congress in 1909.
Democrat Pres. Wilson then signed the first Income Tax law, the 1913 Underwood Revenue Act.

ProgressingAmerica: "The popularity of Theodore Roosevelt made income taxes popular as well.
His never ending zeal for income taxes, and add to that he went out and sent his personal henchman, Taft, to go out and get the thing started, means that indeed yes, action was taken.
Action was taken over and over and over again."

All your words here notwithstanding, Congress took no action on Income Taxes while Teddy Roosevelt was president.
Nor did Republicans in the 1908 election make income taxes a platform item.
But Democrats did in 1908, and with Southern Democrat support, Pres. Taft (not Roosevelt) got the 16th Amendment passed through Congress in 1909.

Those remain the facts, regardless of how you deny or try to spin them.

ProgressingAmerica: "What you meant to say was Roosevelt's hand-picked-successor, Taft, proposed the 16th Amendment.
We have been through this one aspect before.
Taft and Roosevelt didn't have their "falling out" until 1911 when Taft started to no longer find Roosevelt's huge government schemes to be impressive anymore."

Taft and Roosevelt were both Progressives, though neither was as progressive as Democrats under Woodrow Wilson.
Taft and Roosevelt saw eye-to-eye on many subjects, and so their first major falling-out came in February 1910, while Roosevelt was still on African safari, and Taft fired TR's close personal friend, conservationist and Chief Forester, Gifford Pinchot, over Alaska coal-mining permits.
The rift widened in 1911 when Taft sued US Steel over anti-trust actions which Roosevelt had previously approved.

None of this had anything to do with your fanciful "huge government schemes".

ProgressingAmerica: "We would not have the 16th Amendment if not but for Theodore Roosevelt.
Same with the 17th Amendment.
That's Teddy too."

Both the 16th and 17th Amendments were supported by all four major parties in the 1912 election -- Socialists, Democrats, Bull Moose Progressives, and Republicans.
TR's Bull Moosers received about 1/4 of the total vote and 16% of the electoral vote, so, in all fairness, that's how much of the blame or credit he deserves.

ProgressingAmerica: "And don't forget, the Trump-harassing FBI.
You want to forget that, but I'm not forgetting that.
The FBI is Theodore Roosevelt's fault."

And yet the facts remain that there was no Bureau of Investigation under Pres. Roosevelt and no executive order from TR to form one.
Instead, there was a minor reshuffling of office furniture as required by Congress (not Roosevelt) and directed by AG Bonaparte in 1908.
Everything else came later, beginning under Pres. Taft in 1909.

ProgressingAmerica: "All of that stuff is great.
That's fine.
Whatever.
But on the politics?
Theodore Roosevelt was hard-core anti-Constitution, anti-Federalism, he hated HATED the states, and he used his executive powers whenever he could to get around Congress.
King Teddy the First was an out of control TYRANT, the exact kind of president that the U.S. constitution was designed to protect us against.
The exact kind."

Sadly, all of that, every word, is pure Democrat anti-Republican meaningless garbage-talk.
It's what Democrats have always said about their political opponents, from Day One:

1. In the 1790s, Jeffersonian Democrats called their Federalist opponents "monarchists" -- it was ridiculous, but it worked to get Jefferson elected in 1800.

2. After 1860, Southern Democrats accused Republican Presidents Lincoln and Grant of exceeding constitutional limits on their offices -- such accusations were successful in returning Democrats to power in Congress in 1876 and thus forcing the end of Reconstruction in the South.

3. In 1904, the Democrats' platform accused Teddy Roosevelt of "usurpation" and "tyranny".
   It didn't help them in 1904, but they kept at it.

4. In 1908, the Democrats' platform accused Roosevelt Republicans of seeking "absolute domination" and to "establish a dynasty".

5. In 1912, Democrats accused Taft Republicans of fostering "criminal conspiracies" with high protective tariffs and demanded a return to "simplicity and economy", plus the "extirpation of corruption, fraud, and machine rule in American politics".
   This time it worked and got Woodrow Wilson elected.

6. By 1970 Democrats were howling with angst over Republican Pres. Nixon's abuses of power, both real and imagined.
   They were successful in forcing Nixon to resign.

7. In the 1980s Democrats were just as critical of Republican Pres. Reagan, notably regarding Iran-Contra, Grenada and various money related scandals.
   These helped return Democrats to full control of the 100th Congress (1987-1989).

8. Since 2016, Democrats have gone 100% berserker with derangement syndrome over Republican Pres. Trump's fantasized "threats to democracy", Nazism, Hitler-dictator and any other hyperbole they can imagine to throw at him.
   And it worked well for them in 2020, but possibly not so much in 2024?

In summary, all of that is pure nonsense, simply Democrats projecting their own behavior and motives onto political opponents, in hopes it will get more Democrats elected the next time.
And very often it works, which is why they keep doing it, regardless of real facts.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica quoting BJK: "The legitimate use of force is the reason we have governments"

ProgressingAmerica "Centralized planning and picking winners and losers is not the legitimate use of government.
Grow up."

Obviously, that depends on your definitions of those terms -- "centralized planning" or "legitimate use of government".
The US Constitution defines what is legitimate and what is not, as detailed in Congressional laws and SCOTUS rulings.
Anything beyond those limits is not legitimate and should be abolished or even prosecuted as illegal.

All of this is a matter of definitions, not your age, or mine.

[BroJoeK]

ProgressingAmerica: "No.
Price controls are not constitutionally enumerated.
I don't know what the heck Constitution you have been reading, but it certainly is not the U.S. Constitution.
It was not constitutional for Theodore Roosevelt to engage in price controls, it was not constitutional when Nixon tried it, and it will not be constitutional for Biden to engage in price controls either.
I cannot, cannnnnnnot believe, cannot buhlieve, WOW, I'm arguing with a price controls supporter here on Free Republic.
And you even believe it's constitutional!!!!!!!!
Crazy!"

And yet again, your emotions have far outstripped the facts.
So, let's review:

1. SCOTUS has ruled the Federal government has legitimate authority to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8), and that has included price controls in the past.
   SCOTUS has never ruled that Federal price controls, per se, are unconstitutional.

2. During both World Wars, Federal government controlled many prices and some of those price controls were extended for years afterwards, notably rent and farm produce prices.
   SCOTUS did strike down some of FDR's 1930s New Deal price controls but allowed Pres. Nixon's 90-day price controls in 1971.

   

3. In contrast, recent decades have seen Federal price controls pretty much ended, including over traditionally regulated industries such as railroads and electric utilities.
   One obvious reason is that price controls can be highly counter-productive and end up destroying the services they are intended to improve.

4. However, Federal price controls per se have still not been declared unconstitutional and we still find them in two notable areas:
   • The Biden Administration 2022 "Inflation Reduction Act" includes price controls over certain prescription drugs.

   • Minimum Wage Laws are a form of price control on labor.

5. And even Donald Trump, whose whole raison d'etre is "The Art of the Deal" is not above negotiating maximum drug prices for Americans as being no higher than the lowest prices drug companies charge in other countries.

So bottom line: yes, price controls are generally not a good thing, can be highly counterproductive, but are sometimes seen as absolutely necessary and have never been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I'd say your claims that the Income Tax was DOA after the SCOTUS 1895 Pollock ruling are a bit... exaggerated."

Of course you would say that. And then you would move around the goal posts to protect yourself.

"And all of it is 100% pure nonsense -- how does that happen? The truth is just what I said, and you quoted me directly -- Congress took no action on Pres. Roosevelt's 1906 Address recommending an income tax."

Oh, we've been having a discussion about how progressive that the CONGRESS is? Wow. LOL

Truly some heavy goal posts you just re-located there. TR was a pen-and-phone president, just like Obama. This "Congress" gambit you have introduced is a non-starter. I wish I would have been included in the discussion about how progressive that Congress was in the first decade there 190x.

"And yet the facts remain that there was no Bureau of Investigation under Pres. Roosevelt and no executive order from TR to form one."

The FBI's own web site does not even say this, much less the many citations I gave you that you could not possibly afford to address. Why are you wasting my time at this point? Why are you wasting your own time on this? It's not cute to watch someone deny reality. It's pathetic.

"Both the 16th and 17th Amendments were supported by all four major parties in the 1912 election"

How exactly did you convince yourself that "he did it too!!" somehow is a get out of jail free card for Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism?

"Sadly, all of that, every word, is pure Democrat anti-Republican meaningless garbage-talk."

You're terrified of Theodore Roosevelt's own words. That's what makes me a unique threat to you, because you've allowed yourself to be pushed into a world where the last thing on the planet that you want to hear coming into your own ears is audio of the deep state social justice mantra that Roosevelt constantly promoted.

It's a very strange paradox. Here's a man you clearly love. His words are radioactive to you - You refuse to go near them. So everything has to be Taft's fault, it has to be Congress's fault(this latest goal-post shift) or in a classic "ha ha" just blame some Democrats. This is a conservative forum, so blaming Democrats, that's a safe move, right? That'll get some people riled up, right? That doesn't work. It's gotta be someone else's fault right? That will get some people talking about Democrats and get them to stop talking about Theodore Roosevelt right? It can't be TR's fault right? He was the most active and energetic guy in the world yet he didn't do a thing at all! How do you convince yourself of this contradiction?

Anyways. Roosevelt addressed this. He openly stated it himself, in his own words. It's in his autobiography, in Chapter 10, on page 357:

My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.

Here is a visual graph of TR's obscene use of executive orders. (my apologies for the width - click for larger)

"The US Constitution defines what is legitimate and what is not, as detailed in Congressional laws and SCOTUS rulings."

SCOTUS rulings huh. That's what you're going with? (This is my incredulous look) That's where you're going to hang your hat? SCOTUS rulings? Roe got overturned. Chevron got overturned. How many overturnings have there been lately, I've lost count? Look man nothing these progressives do is constitutional. Nothing they desire to do is constitutional. Nothing they believe is constitutional. It doesn't matter if they pass it into law either. Obamacare? So what. Next you're going to defend Biden's student loan vote buying scheme.

The thing about this is that Roosevelt is basically admitting to all of it. As President, he sat around and looked for ways to undermine the Constitution. His "under this interpretation" comment could not be more clear. He just made it up in order so that he could grow government bigger. Theodore Roosevelt was government. That's what all progressives are. They are living and breathing government. That's what they do. They grow government. That's what they do. that's what they are.

"And even Donald Trump, whose whole raison d'etre is "The Art of the Deal" is not above negotiating maximum drug prices for......"

Wow. Now I think you're just picking a fight. Full stop. Price controls does not equal negotiating prices. This is exactly what I expect from a progressive like you. Manipulate and confuse the English language to the point where we cannot even define what a woman is. "What is price controls? Oh, well, you know its two people, negotiating over a lawn mower and coming up with the best price"

Sigh. Unbelievable. Well, at least you have proven one thing here that does have value. The Trump popularity is NOT a cult of personality. You chose the dead guy over the living one, without realizing that what you said is insulting to Trump. We can prove this one. Go ahead and create a new discussion here on Free Republic and call Trump's price negotiations "Price Controls" over and over and over again. And over again! And let's see how quickly you get run out of town with that one, eh? (This is me smiling bigly)

You won't create the discussion. You know you're wrong. I'll even be nice and give you an article that you can use, here. Don't want that article, pick one of your own! This will be fun! You won't create the discussion. You know you're wrong. Remember, you have to repeatedly over and over and over again call it price controls. And over and over again! You. Won't. Create. The discussion. LOL

You would never clown yourself this way. I guarantee it. I do think you are blinded by the Theodore Roosevelt cult of personality, but I do not think you are a fool. You will not do it.

Deep down, you know you're lying.

"So much unbridled emotion."

Yeah, well, I hate progressives, what do you want? So much so that I'm willing to record audio books about it to highlight the evils of progressivism. At least you are squarely admitting that Roosevelt was a progressive. I can take half a bone, it's more than you've ever done in any previous discussion over the past months.

I know you are never going to get there, it terrifies you that I'm resurrecting the words of progressives - just this one - TR - and those words that TR spoke and wrote are the last thing you ever want to come into contact with. You can say you do not like how I sound, that is great. You won't be the first, you will not be the last. But more humans are willing to go to Chernobyl than compared to your willingness to look directly at TR's own words and actions. TR's words are your kryptonite. That is why it has been a constant dissemble about how the democrats did it worse all the while even ignoring your own contradictions to the point now you've positively affirmed that TR was a progressive after all. You should just start with Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive, and move forward from there.

Do you have anything else? because this is actually getting kind of boring. Between the word manipulations and fear of TR's own words and deferring to Congress and the Democrats and moving goal posts, it's just boring at this point.