What American president objectively had the most disrespect for the constitution?

FDR, but Lincoln eroded its integrity.

>user repeats himself for dramatic effect.

>11 posters.
>11 replies.

Lincoln and FDR were definitely up there.

truman, created fbi and passed a ton of shit that has destroyed ammenments

CSA fags revisioning history...when will they ever learn?

>Lincoln disregards the constitution for his entire presidency
>anybody who points this out is a confederate traitor
And then user was a revisionist.

Obama

Lincoln and both Roosevelt's.

FDR and Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy really pushed the limits of what Senate would let him do.

The ones from Illinois. Adams gets an honorable mention due to Alien and Sedition acts.

Clearly there is a gap in my knowledge since FDR is being mentioned frequently. What specifically do you posters have in mind, the internments/programz n shiet/other?

The un-ironic answer is Lincoln. This isn't Southern propaganda, but historical fact. Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union and brought the South back into the fold, but he violated the constitution to do so. A hell of a lot. Some would say this would later be expected of a wartime President, but that's deliberately not looking at the facts.

During his time as President from 1861-1865, Lincoln violated the Constitution in the following ways:
>Propagation of the unconstitutional "wartime powers" concept
>Raised a standing army (something not within his constitutional power to do)
>Declared a blockade of Southern ports (an act of war should have required Congressional approval)
>Arrest and military trial of an elected Ohio Congressman who criticized the war effort
>Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus (something not within his constitutional power to do)
>Confiscated civilian owned firearms in Maryland (a Union state)
>Arrested thousands of Maryland citizens, elected officials of the Maryland Legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, and numerous other for "suspected Southern sympathies" (once again, Maryland was a Union state)
>Ignored a federal court order that ruled his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional (Ex parte Merryman)
>Issued an arrest warrant for US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had ruled in the above case
>Emancipation Proclamation (unconstitutional action and in violation of the Supreme Court's decisions on slavery)
>Violation of the 5th Amendment in federal confiscation of Northern and Southern citizens' property, without compensation or due process
>Violation of the 8th Amendment in use of torture on Union prisoners

While not a specifically unconstitutional act, Lincoln's legacy is also haunted by the fact that he presided over a war that cost over 700,000 American lives, including 50,000 civilian deaths and roughly 80,000 slave deaths.

Runners Up:
Jefferson:
>Louisiana Purchase was shaky at best
Wilson
>Federal Reserve
FDR
>Almost anything he did in office
Nixon
>Established the EPA (removing private citizens' power over their own property), targeting of political opponents through extra-governmental operatives
Obama
>Executive orders, refusing to enforce the Constitutional protections of religious minorities, governmental targeting of political opponents through IRS

Honorable Mentions:
Pretty much every single US President since Eisenhower who has committed US military personnel to offensive combat operations without Congressional approval

>Propagation of the unconstitutional "wartime powers" concept
this is ok
>Raised a standing army (something not within his constitutional power to do)
this is ok
>Declared a blockade of Southern ports (an act of war should have required Congressional approval)
this is ok
>Arrest and military trial of an elected Ohio Congressman who criticized the war effort
this is kinda not ok
>Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus (something not within his constitutional power to do)
this is ok
>Confiscated civilian owned firearms in Maryland (a Union state)
this is very ok
>Arrested thousands of Maryland citizens, elected officials of the Maryland Legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, and numerous other for "suspected Southern sympathies" (once again, Maryland was a Union state)
this is very ok
>Ignored a federal court order that ruled his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional (Ex parte Merryman)
this is ok
>Issued an arrest warrant for US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had ruled in the above case
this is kinda not ok
>Emancipation Proclamation (unconstitutional action and in violation of the Supreme Court's decisions on slavery)
this is ok
>Violation of the 5th Amendment in federal confiscation of Northern and Southern citizens' property, without compensation or due process
this is kinda ok
>Violation of the 8th Amendment in use of torture on Union prisoners
this is not ok

fuck the constitution, the union was at stake

The point isn't whether he was "right" or not (something silly in and of itself), but whether he violated the constitution.

Your moral judgement means nothing

Lincoln or FDR.

Here's a fun fact. Absolutely none of Abe's acts were ruled unconstitutional except for the trial of civilians in military tribunals rather than civilian courts when civilian courts were available. Stay mad, libtards.

When is violating the Constitution necessary?

Lincoln or FDR.

When you're ready for the United States to die

>m-muh consequentialism

I will never have respect for "pragmatists" who will violate principle whenever it creates a desirable outcome.

Nixon

stop spamming this meme

Nixon is best answer

>fuck the constitution, the union was at stake

If the "fuck the constitution", then is the Union really worth saving? Is it really a "union" if the only thing binding it together is military force and and arguably despotic rule?

His suspension of Habeas Corpus WAS ruled unconstitutional. Abe ignored the federal order and instead issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger Taney. You're wrong friendo.

>If the "fuck the constitution", then is the Union really worth saving?
Yes, saving a nation and the people within is worth more than any individual set of rules. The trick is putting the rules back into place when crises is over. I'd take this current US rather than a Balkanised North America.
>Is it really a "union" if the only thing binding it together is military force and and arguably despotic rule?
But it isn't though?

dumbass. that's what I said. aside from that court judgement, nothing else was ruled unconstitutional. also that 'arrest warrant' is nothing but rumor and hearsay. you sound like a butthurt dixiecrat who secretly wanted hillary for president, so you could get even more federal welfare.

He once tried to pack the Supreme Court with new judges that agreed with him just to get his policies passed: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

>The trick is putting the rules back into place when crises is over.
Except this never happens. Case in point, the executive branch has grown in leaps and bounds since the Civil War, all thanks to precedents set by Lincoln.

I'd take this current US rather than a Balkanised North America.
This is a strawman and you should be ashamed for suggesting it.

Obama

>I'd take this current US rather than a Balkanised North America.
>This is a strawman and you should be ashamed for suggesting it.

That's not a strawman. Do you understand what a strawman is? It's when you change the original argument to make it easier to attack. Saying that he would rather not have a balkanized North America doesn't change the argument he addressed, "If the "fuck the constitution", then is the Union really worth saving?"

learn 2 logic.

Centralization that hasn't violated the bounds of the checks and balances is fine, though. The battle of federal vs state power stems back to the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, and doesn't have basis in the Constitution. The liberties of the people (namely life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion) are being well enforced today, and we live in a democratically run country where positions that really shouldn't be voted on (like judges) are voted on, and the people have a say in most aspects of their society.

>This is a strawman and you should be ashamed for suggesting it.
I feel no shame for suggesting such a thing might happen. If the precedent of a Confederacy victory was set and it was established that secession was a valid mean, then it is entirely possible for a situation like this to happen. Lincoln was in the right.

Don't feel any shame, because it is not a strawman

state proof that Abe issued an arrest warrant that isn't based on hearsay from some bodyguard trying to sell his book please.

>will violate principle whenever it creates a desirable outcome.
A consequentialist is just someone whose number one principle is to create the most desirable outcome.

A casual glance at history will show you that people who are good at breaking systems and installing tyrannies overwhelmingly outnumber the ones who just want to do it so they can put everything right after

The fact that millions of Americans wanted to fight a war to continue using human beings as chattel was hardly Lincoln's fault, and does not "haunt" his presidency in any way. The blame rests squarely on the South. By fighting that war, Lincoln ensured that America was poised to play the crucial role it did during the 20th century. The deaths are a tragedy, but sometimes tragedy becomes necessary.

>The fact that millions of Americans wanted to fight a war to continue using human beings as chattel
That's not the reason they fought, they fought because they believed that it was a states right to decide whether that was legal or not.
I don't believe so, myself, but I still don't want millions of men who died for their homeland's right to be degraded as just wanting slavery.

That's like saying WWI was exclusively over some Austrian prince, and not over the international conflicts that had been brewing for some time.

Slavery was the match dropped to the floor. States rights and cultural difference between the North and the South were the oil and charcoal thrown all over the house representing the USA.

>That's not the reason they fought; they fought because they believed that it was a state's right to decide whether that was legal or not.
>I don't believe so, myself, but I still don't want millions of men, who died for their homeland's rights, to be degraded as just wanting slavery.
>That's like saying WWI was exclusively over some Austrian prince, and not over the international conflicts that had been brewing for some time.
>Slavery was the match dropped to the floor. States' rights and cultural difference between the North and the South were the oil and charcoal thrown all over the house representing the USA.
Fixing my mistakes.

its actually the other way around. slavery was the one issue that caused increasing polarization because no compromise could be found on the issue. the issue of states rights and cultural alienation due to the election of lincoln was the spark. Also, slavery had been an issue since at least 1820 so its not at all equivalent to the death of the Austrian archduke.

>I still don't want millions of men who died for their homeland's right to be degraded as just wanting slavery.
It was a matter of homeland, but also pernicious beliefs that if they lost and the slaves were freed, the racial hierarchy would be inverted and blacks would steal white women and promote race-mixing.

I'd say slavery was a very large consequence of the cultural differences between north and south. If it weren't for slavery I do not believe there would have been a civil war, even the Great Compromiser could only delay it. The sheer amount of butthurt the south pulled over this was unreceding.

obongo

Lincoln, but I support him and he did nothing wrong. Maybe he was too soft on the South even.

Completely Constitutional. Constitution doesn't establish the number of judges on the supreme court.

>Emancipation Proclamation
>5th amendment applying to Southerners

They were in literal rebellion and had seceded from the Union. You don't get to have the same privileges as a citizen of the US when you discard your citizenship.

It wasn't the act itself it was the reasoning behind it. FDR literally created so much unconstitutional legislation half of almost everything he got passed was being struck down by the court as illegal. Rather than go back to the drawing board and create plans within his actual power he decided to make the court a political entity and flood it with people who would give him a free pass. The bill was narrowly defeated, but soon on the Court began approving many more of FDR's policies, policies which before would most likely have been struck down. He browbeat the Court like a fucking New York Huckster. Fucking disgusting.

Barrack Obongo

Does this image make anybody else feel?

>mfw all the presidents violating the constitution are the best presidents and also residing over fucked up times
Really activated my almonds

>He browbeat the Court like a fucking New York Huckster. Fucking disgusting.

>It's okay when we do it, but it's not okay when you do it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era

>I don't believe so, myself, but I still don't want millions of men who died for their homeland's right to be degraded as just wanting slavery.

But that's exactly what it was.

Forget to add that barely anyone mentions Nixon or Jackson

I literally can't even understand what you are arguing.

>It's okay when we do it, but it's not okay when you do it.

Who's we, user? Were you part of FDR's cabinet?

Not him but he is probably saying that dissing the executive branch for browbeating the supreme court is null when there was a time that the supreme court did the same

desu FDR doing what he did just makes him a great politician to me.

This is not me

No I meant the other oneis not me I am that one

Every subsequent one.

The Supreme Court didn't browbeat a fucking thing. It made rulings and decisions like it was supposed to and did its job.

Mate just whenever you have the chance go give the confederate state's declarations of independence from the union and tell me where it doesn't specifically say "we're doing this for slavery"

Roosevelt

so let me get this straight. LINCOLN DINDU NUFFIN HE WAZ A GOOD BOY AND SHIT

Obongonator

All these people arguing over who was right or not missing the point of the thread

The CSA constitution made the South more centralized, not less. You're retarded.

Lincoln or FDR

ITT: yanks and SJW's butthurt at the tiniest shadow of a hint of Lincoln being an unconstitutional tyrant

>gets elected
>South immediately chimps out because of raging autism

LBJ and every other president after JFK

>Obama
The IRS actually went after more liberal political organizations during that same period. (Really seemed to be an internal policy to start cracking down on political organizations in general.)

Bush executed more and wider sweeping executive orders than Obama did, and ignored SCOTUS when they said at least one was unconstitutional.

Bush directly funded Christian charities in Africa with tax dollars, in direct violation of separation, which in turn used financial pressure to prevent condoms from being distributed.

On the other hand, Obama continued Bush's practice of extraordinary transition, military tribunals, and the existence of GITMO, in direct violation of SCOTUS, and assassinated at least one American citizen, without trial, as an enemy combatant.

So you could put him on the list, but at least get it straight as to the reasons why.

Lincoln or FDR

Well clearly everybody forgot those details of his presidency when he was shot.

Not that I wouldn't expect some rather extreme constitutional violations in any civil war situation.

The guys that do it during peace time irk me quite a bit more.

Wtf I hate Lincoln now!

Sure looks like a lot of necessary and proper to me.

Fuck Lincoln, the South wasn't worth the extra manpower anyways. If America didn't have the South, we'd be colonizing motherfucking Mars right about now.

this

Of all time? Dubya and Obama

For their time? Lincoln

Getting shot is pretty much a guarantee of having all your political sins forgotten.

Nobody remembers that Kennedy started the Vietnam war when in office or that he was seduced by a qt Nazi spy in the 1940s.

No one likes to point out the post-civil war amendments is what lead to the modern morally rudderless corporate structure where individuals can collectively break the law and have no personal responsibility. Lincoln's fuckery has been pointed out, but his sloppy amendments sewed the seeds for the international guiltless corporation.

This. No one remembers that Martin Luther King was a serial adulterer and a Unitarian heretic as well.

>unironically calling Obama a libtard
Sometimes I wonder if the creation of the alt-right was soley a reaction to how cringey mainstream conservatism is

* FDR
* Teddy Roosevelt
* Obama

The one I dislike the most

Andrew Jackson.

FDR or Lincoln, probably FDR

ITT: retards

>powerful people got together to draft something that will protect everyone, powerful or not, and guarantee their liberty
feels so good man

>and assassinated at least one American citizen, without trial, as an enemy combatant.
You have any more on this? I don't give a fuck about the politics (mind you, I probably should) I just like stories about the government doing whatever the hell it wants.

What?????
>Truman created FBI

Everyone is a bit strong of a word for this scenario.

Ignored the supreme court rulings 1933-1937