Which President ignored the Constitution the most?

>JFK
>Hated by /pol/
What kind of newfaggotry am i reading?

But they do. For many obvious reasons.

>For many obvious reasons.
Like???...
Cause really i don't really browse /pol/ now but he has always been held in high regard because of fighting the CIA and something about muh based catholic fighting governmenr kikes

>They hate it
But Kennedy was killed for taking power from the Federal Reserve.

FDR
Lincoln would be closer if it wasn't wartime and he wasn't facing a constitutional crisis already
FDR just saw things getting bad and took advantage of it to empower himself like the despot he was

>elected four times, niggas
I mean, you know that wasn't a law until AFTER him, right?

>elected
good one

FDR, the Jewish puppet.

>all three of these presidents are famously hated by /pol/
JFK isn't hated by /pol/, it's exactly the opposite.

Lincoln and it's not even close.

He also started the FBI crackdown on the KKK.

incestuous southern subhuman detected

>Lincoln
>"M-M-MUH SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS"

What's Article 9 say, again? "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."
>"unless when in cases of rebellion"

GEE I FUCKING WONDER WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN 1861 AT THE SAME TIME

SURELY IT WASN'T HALF THE STATES RISING UP IN REBELLION

BECAUSE IF IT WAS IT WOULD MAKE ANYONE WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT THIS SOUND LIKE AN UNEDUCATED RETARD WHO DOESN'T KNOW HIS OWN CONSTITUTION

Oh cool, i'm glad you figured it out.

FDR, but rightfully so.

>implying the KKK haven't always been government puppets

In what way?

Bush, Obama, Trump

It increases with time

Seems that will continue, the last 3 administrations have had to rely increasingly on executive action to achieve temporary results, further increasing the precedent for the next administration who will just undo any changes. Gonna have us some Imperial Roman shit at this rate.

FDR literally did not give two shits about the Constitution.

SAD

I love him, but this. Dude straight up told the supreme court to fuck off.

...and the problem is?

>all three of these presidents are famously hated by /pol/

Explain how each of these ignore the constitution because off the top of my head I'm not sure. Also it's Andrew Jackson

>muh habeas corpus

Why isn't Johnson on the list with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Dude was out.of.control.

FDR.

Don't get me wrong, I fucking love the absolute madman and without him America wouldn't be what it is today but he walked all over the constitution and didn't give a fuck.

Guy is the Sulla of our republic.

Is secession the same as rebellion?
I would say no, since they don't mean to replace the sitting government, but depart and form their own - the way every state had a right to do.

What if Donald Trump declared slavery legal again? Does he have the right to suspend habeas corpus when the states inevitably rebel?

Barack Obama

You misspelled Bollocks Ohbummer.

This. Fucking retarded embarrassment to boot

Well, for one thing, he engaged in the Dummycrap's favorite pastime of using the IRS to suppress political opposition.

>fighting the CIA
>What is the Bay of Pigs?

>rightfully so

You forgot Slick Willy BJ Cretin.

kill yourself shitdick

>Is secession the same as rebellion?
Secession is an act of rebellion
>they don't mean to replace the sitting government, but depart and form their own
And that is rebellion
>the way every state had a right to do
Secession is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America.
>What if Donald Trump declared slavery legal again?
He can't, only congress can produce or repeal an amendment
>Does he have the right to suspend habeas corpus when the states inevitably rebel?
The other user was mistaken in his quotation. It was Section 9 of Article 1, not Article 9 (which would be the 2nd amendment). Now, while the power to suspend habeas corpus is a power of congress, not the president, Lincoln didn't arrogate the power to himself because Article 4 Section 4 says "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence." Secessionist uprising in Maryland prevented congress from being convened, so he was exercising constitutional powers.

...

Reminder the biggest benefactor of the south was Lord Rothschild

>Secession is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America.
lol no
it's expressly prohibited by a Supreme Court ruling made after the war

The court did not at that time happen to misinterpret the Constitution.

Trips of truth; Lincoln took uncouth measures in order to preserve the Union from a simultaneous foreign/domestic threat

Don't bother, there's this one autismo who insists secession was retroactively illegal based on the subjective interpretation of the founders and himself

maybe you take the Scott v. Sandford decision to be equally well founded, but I doubt this to be true.

can you substantiate your assertion?

...

probably the same guy who keeps calling IQ pseudoscience tbqh

>j-just your subjective interpretation
Go die in a fire, postmodernist
>maybe you take the Scott v. Sandford decision to be equally well founded, but I doubt this to be true.
I'm not agreeing with the court because it was the court, but because it was correct.
>can you substantiate your assertion?
You won't get anything different from me than the reasoning used in Texas v. White.

>postmodernist
Your opinion and the opinions of a handful of founders are just that, OPINIONS

>authorial intent is not important to me

If it isn't written/decided law it holds no water, fuck off

Are you a pope? What god vested the power in you to determine the meaning of what other men said?

>What god vested the power in you to determine the meaning of what other men said?
You're the one making assertions, pal. I'm just saying an opinion on an opinion does not a law make

>I would say no, since they don't mean to replace the sitting government, but depart and form their own
That's splitting hairs

Their opinion isn't the law. What is law is the Constitution. The framers' opinions on what the Constitution does or does not mean is more than opinion, it is equivalent to the meaning of the Constitution. This is not a question of law, this is mere common sense, it is a fundamental principle of how human beings communicate with each other.

Have you seen papal decrees throughout the ages? They clearly don't give a shit about what previous decrees were supposed to mean so long as they can twist their wording into not contradicting their new doctrine.
Just fucking look at Vatican 2 and Ecclesiam nulla salus

autism

>Is secession the same as rebellion?
>Is taking up arms against the federal government to break away from the nation the same as taking up arms against the federal government

Yes it is, you mong. Regardless of secession's legality, you lost that fight when they fired on Fort Sumter. No matter what twisted logic you use to try and justify it, firing upon a United States Army fort is an act of open rebellion.

...

You're an idiot who can't comprehend the fact that he's wrong. It does not fucking matter what is MEANT to be said, but rather how it is translated into law. Are you this dense? Secession was not illegal until after the war. You can bitch and moan all you want but at the end of the day all you sound like is a Whigish/Republican lawyer from the mid-19th century. It doesn't fucking matter you're arguing outdated semantics you fucking autist

wow

If secession's legality was established before the Civil War, how come the Nullification Crisis was such a big deal?

that's a good question.

>"The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'"
>"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."
>"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

>"to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union,"

well I think we all know exactly what they meant by perpetuate

>the law doesn't actually exist, only the enforcement of the non-existent laws does

>If secession's legality was established before the Civil War
It wasn't, and I never said it was, in fact I explicitly stated the opposite

Nice strawman bud, but you should learn to read
>MEANT to be said

It doesn't matter at all how the Constitution is "translated into law". This does not impact what the Constitution is or is not. If it is "translated into law" in a way at variance with what was intended by it, that "translation into law" is unlawful. This applies to executive orders, acts of congress, and supreme court precedents. It is in fact possible for the entire government of the United States and of each state in particular to at once contradict the Constitution by their actions, and this does not change what the supreme law of the land is and what the federal government of and each of the United States is bound to obey.

People forget how often the founding fathers literally said "fuck that lol" and completely ignored the constitution, especially during wartime. Lincoln may have suspended habeus corpus, FDR may have tried to load the supreme court, Jackson ignored the supreme court, however the founding fathers like Jefferson, Adams, and Washington literally shit on the constitution way more than anyone else. The power of checks and balances was limited back then, the country was less stable so 1st and 2nd amendment rights were often suspended at will, and the presidents authorized a number of things that Congress or others were supposed to manage.

>It doesn't matter at all how the Constitution is "translated into law". This does not impact what the Constitution is or is not.
Your entire argument is predicated on your own interpretation of the Constitution, which is why you're right in principle but wrong in application. You're making an assertion to what you believe the Constitution to be, regardless whether or not that assertion is based on prior ones. You have to face the fact that you're in no position, legal or otherwise, to make such a claim. You can argue how it should be interpreted, but you're instead making the claim that it is in fact what you believe it to be. Despite the contemporary legal situation of secession during the 1860's to be at odds with your own belief, you continue to assert that you're somehow right. You're still arguing 19th century semantics, and it's autistic

but the jews that back the right are BASED my fellow centipede

>Jews that want to divide our nation for profits are BASED
I know your post is ironic but please, once a snake always a snake. The players have changed but the game is the same

>we can't actually know what anyone else says it's all just our interpretation
Postmodernist.

Unironically this.

FDR comes second. The whole concentration camps and court packing plan really drags him down.

(checked)
Not what I'm saying, I'm saying your interpretation as a 21st century layman is irrelevant when applied to the 19th century debate on secession. The fact remains it wasn't established as legal or illegal at the time regardless of your feefees

Fucking Nixon. He was impeached for this. I can't believe this is a history forum and hardly anybody here can come to this basic conclusion.

>Not what I'm saying, I'm saying your interpretation as a 21st century layman is irrelevant when applied to the 19th century debate on secession
I believe what the Constitution means is objective, not subjective. The fact I believe it means what I believe it means has no bearing, go ahead and ignore that entirely. Instead, go ahead and use the same historical-grammatical method I did to come to the same conclusion.
>The fact remains it wasn't established as legal or illegal at the time
WRONG. It was illegal because it was prohibited by the Constitution. By the way, that's incredibly retarded. Either a state had the right to secede or it did not, there is no room for a tertium quid here.

Nixon was impeached for the cover-up, not the break-in, which compared to FDR or Ronald Reagan could be far worse

You're making the same argument that I didn't accept before as if I'll suddenly accept it now. I'm not refuting your interpretation, however you're making claims of objectivity to secession's legality as if it has any retroactive bearing whatsoever. Get your head out of your ass

>JFK
>hated by /pol/
youtube.com/watch?v=fISgKl8dB3M

It's not retroactive, the Constitution predates the war

Nixon

i know, its just that you have some dixieboos here who justify being a jewish puppet during the civil war "because we had the same interests"