The Worst Presidents Of All-Time

[pro-bipartisan]

I know what plagerism is and you did it. Wikipedia isn't a valid source, but since you're going to use then the article actually supports what I said about what presidents were doing in passing laws and not Congress. Executive Order 1 issued by Abraham Lincoln that placed a judge on the bench without the consent of the Senate in violation of Article II Section II Clause II, which states he needed to have 2/3rds of the Senate approving the appointment before the judge worked the bench. Also, Congress sets the amount of money judges and public officials makes, but under Executive Order 1 Lincoln set the pay rate in violation of Article III Section I Clause I.

Why isn't Wikipedia a valid source? As long as you check it's sources your fine. I didn't know court cases aren't valid evidence. Also, you still have the rest of the 20th century Presidents to go.

 

[The_Patriot]

Why isn't Wikipedia a valid source? As long as you check it's sources your fine. I didn't know court cases aren't valid evidence. Also, you still have the rest of the 20th century Presidents to go.

Because anyone can edit it and it is known for inaccuracings. Produce the Supreme Court cases separately with what the majority and dissenting opinions are. I already showed what they've done and I've supplied my proof, which is the actual executive orders. So far you haven't even touched upon my statements as a whole, but cherry pick one or two things out of them. Since you've got nothing to prove that executive orders are not laws and all of the presidents since Lincoln haven't used them to circumvent the Constitution's prohibitions then we're done.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Because anyone can edit it and it is known for inaccuracings.

haha don't even get me started, you obviously don't know what you are talking about, if you edit an article without a credible source it will be taken down or changed back shortly thereafter, so do your homework before you comment.

Produce the Supreme Court cases separately with what the majority and dissenting opinions are.

I already produced the Supreme Court cases, just because you are too lazy doesn't mean I have to do your work for you. But since I know you will complain and whine like a little girl I will provide you ONCE AGAIN with the Supreme Court cases:

Mississippi v. Johnson (Unanimous)- Majority Opinion: The President has two kinds of task: ministerial and discretionary. Discretionary tasks are ones the president can choose to do or not do. Ministerial tasks are ones required by his job, in fact if he fails to do them he could be violating the Constitution. Minority Opinion: The vote was unanimous. This backs up my point that executive orders are used to operate ministerial tasks as part of the President's sworn duties.

Myers v. United States (6-3)- Majority Opinion: (Chief Justice William Taft) The President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. Minority Opinion (there are three different dissenting opinions): 1. (Associate Justice McReynolds) The Constitutional Convention intended to grant the President the "illimitable power" to fire every appointed official, "as caprice may suggest", in the entire government with the exception of judges. 2. (Associate Justice Brandeis) The President, acting alone, is powerless to remove an inferior civil officer appointed for a fixed term with the consent of the Senate. 3. (Associate Justice Holmes) It was within the power of Congress to abolish the position of Postmaster entirely, not to mention to set the position's pay and duties, and he had no problem believing Congress also ought to be able to set terms of the position's occupiers. This supports my arguement that Presidents can use executive orders to remove official executive office staff as a consequence of officers of the US Executive Branch not carrying out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government.

I already showed what they've done and I've supplied my proof, which is the actual executive orders. So far you haven't even touched upon my statements as a whole, but cherry pick one or two things out of them. Since you've got nothing to prove that executive orders are not laws and all of the presidents since Lincoln haven't used them to circumvent the Constitution's prohibitions then we're done.

You haven't shown what each President has done. I supplied my evidence of why most executive orders are constitutional.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

You have also yet to explain all the "undeclared wars" that have happened and how exactly each war was the same as declaring war on the people of the United States.

 

[MXracer169]

Jonhson and Clinton were both impeached, they deserve to be right up at the top.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Jonhson and Clinton were both impeached, they deserve to be right up at the top.

I don't think impeachment should be the most important criteria. I think there are more important issues like say the economy, education, and international relations. But even if it was, you wouldn't put Nixon up there for resigning?

 

[partier9]

1. Franklin Pierce
2. James Buchanan
3. Andrew Jackson

 

[FluffyNinja]

1. Franklin Pierce
2. James Buchanan
3. Andrew Jackson

I completely agree with your first two choices; however, I don't really think Andrew Jackson deserves to be there. Do you have particular reasons for placing Jackson in the top 3?

 

[pro-bipartisan]

I completely agree with your first two choices; however, I don't really think Andrew Jackson deserves to be there. Do you have particular reasons for placing Jackson in the top 3?

I know you weren't talking to me but here is why I think Andrew Jackson has a pretty bad President:

1. Trail of Tears (and all things he did relevant to Native Americans)
2. He was huge on the Spoils System
3. Opposed the National Bank
4. Nullification Crisis

 

[FluffyNinja]

I know you weren't talking to me but here is why I think Andrew Jackson has a pretty bad President:

1. Trail of Tears (and all things he did relevant to Native Americans)
2. He was huge on the Spoils System
3. Opposed the National Bank
4. Nullification Crisis

As historians, however, we must take an objective look at what past presidents accomplished (we must take it into historical context and understand that we can't always apply our modern-day standards of acceptability to what happened 180 years ago). For example, some would say that Jackson's abolishment of the Bank of the US was, in some ways, a good thing, especially if you are a proponent of state's rights. I can't defend his treatment of Native Americans, but his Indian Policy wasn't exactly "unpopular" at the time. The Spoils System has evolved into what we now call patronage (which sounds much more user-friendly) and it is a widely accepted practice among elected officials at both the state and national levels. During the nullification crisis, he stood against his own southern roots to qualify the authority of the Federal Government regarding tariffs. All a matter of perspective ... and historical context.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

As historians, however, we must take an objective look at what past presidents accomplished (we must take it into historical context and understand that we can't always apply our modern-day standards of acceptability to what happened 180 years ago). For example, some would say that Jackson's abolishment of the Bank of the US was, in some ways, a good thing, especially if you are a proponent of state's rights. I can't defend his treatment of Native Americans, but his Indian Policy wasn't exactly "unpopular" at the time. The Spoils System has evolved into what we now call patronage (which sounds much more user-friendly) and it is a widely accepted practice among elected officials at both the state and national levels. During the nullification crisis, he stood against his own southern roots to qualify the authority of the Federal Government regarding tariffs. All a matter of perspective ... and historical context.

My matter of perspective is what was best for the country at the time. And I think the way he treated Native Americans, his handling of the economy, and his use of the spoils system wasn't best for America at the time.

 

[hazlnut]

My list would include:

(The first 3 are the worst, the rest are debatable)

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Did they just stop teaching U.S. History in parts of this country ??-- OR is the red kool-aide just that strong that people lose all sense of facts and reality.

I know FDR is the garbage nonsensical answer the far-righties are dishing out, but history has judged him to be one of our greatest Presidents.

Sorry fellas...

 

[FluffyNinja]

My matter of perspective is what was best for the country at the time. And I think the way he treated Native Americans, his handling of the economy, and his use of the spoils system wasn't best for America at the time.

So it would have been better for the nation (which was largely agrarian and expanding westward) to accept the Bank of the US which favored the wealthy over the common man, who really needed the money during these expansive times? It would have been better for the nation to allow South Carolina to arbitrarily nullify Federal Laws, paving the way for secession (I assume you do know this was also called the "Secession Crisis")? How was the Spoils System any more harmful to the nation then, than Patronage is today? Sure he appointed a few incompetent people, and gave jobs to some of his old military buddies.....so what's changed? Hasn't EVERY President since been guilty of the same?
Like I said the whole Trail of Tears fiasco, I cannot defend, but this was accomplished with the praise of most Southern and East Coast Land-owners, only the Supreme Court truly challenged him on it.

 

[FluffyNinja]

BTW, I'm certainly not defending Andrew Jackson as being one of our greatest Presidents, I just don't believe he belongs at the bottom. I would at least place him in the top 30 though. I mean, come on, you really think Grant, Harding, Hoover, or Johnson deserve to be ranked higher than Andrew Jackson?

 

[pro-bipartisan]

So it would have been better for the nation (which was largely agrarian and expanding westward) to accept the Bank of the US which favored the wealthy over the common man, who really needed the money during these expansive times?

Not only did he not accept the National Bank but he vetoed much of Henry Clay's "American System" which would have moderinized the economy. His specie circular and refusal to recharter the bank caused the Panic of 1837, a five year depression in which unemployment was at its highest up to that time and banks were failing. I just don't think the government refusing to take part in the economy is the right way to go.

How was the Spoils System any more harmful to the nation then, than Patronage is today? Sure he appointed a few incompetent people, and gave jobs to some of his old military buddies.....so what's changed? Hasn't EVERY President since been guilty of the same?

Performance in public office, Jackson maintained, required no special intelligence or training, and rotation in office would ensure that the federal government did not develop a class of corrupt civil servants set apart from the people. His supporters advocated the spoils system on practical political grounds, viewing it as a way to reward party loyalists and build a stronger party organization. As Jacksonian Senator William Marcy of New York proclaimed, “To the victor belongs the spoils.”

That's from Digital History. Basically my point is that not only did he take it to a whole another level, but he was the first President who really started using it to a profound effect and he saw it as a good thing.

Like I said the whole Trail of Tears fiasco, I cannot defend, but this was accomplished with the praise of most Southern and East Coast Land-owners, only the Supreme Court truly challenged him on it.

That makes sense, so since a lot of the country supported him it was okay? Like you said before, you can't defend it.

Also, to be clear, I don't think Andrew Jackson is one the worst three Presidents of all time I just think he certainly is down there in that ten worst area.

 

[pro-bipartisan]

BTW, I'm certainly not defending Andrew Jackson as being one of our greatest Presidents, I just don't believe he belongs at the bottom. I would at least place him in the top 30 though. I mean, come on, you really think Grant, Harding, Hoover, or Johnson deserve to be ranked higher than Andrew Jackson?

I don't think Hoover was as bad as everyone thinks. He did a lot more than people think:

Regarding the economy, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress. Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands, and by instructing the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to pursue gangsters for tax evasion, he enabled the prosecution of Al Capone. He appointed a commission that set aside 3 million acres of national parks and 2.3 million acres of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veterans' hospital facilities; wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; created an antitrust division in the Justice Department; required air mail carriers to adopt stricter safety measures and improve service; organized the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs; instituted prison reform; proposed a federal Department of Education (not enacted); advocated $50-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; began construction of the Hoover Dam; and signed the Norris-La Guardia Act that limited judicial intervention in labor disputes.

Regarding foreign affairs,

Following the release in 1930 of the Clark Memorandum, Hoover began formulating what later became Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy. He began withdrawing American troops from Nicaragua and Haiti; he also proposed an arms embargo on Latin America and a one-third reduction of the world's naval power, which was called the Hoover Plan. The Roosevelt Corollary ceased being part of U.S. foreign policy. In response to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, he and Secretary of State Henry Stimson outlined the Hoover-Stimson Doctrine that said the United States would not recognize territories gained by force. During his presidency, Hoover mediated between Chile and Peru to solve a conflict on the sovereignty of Arica and Tacna, that in 1883 by the Treaty of Ancón had been awarded to Chile for ten years, to be followed by a plebiscite that had never happened. By the Tacna-Arica compromise at the Treaty of Lima in 1929, Chile kept Arica, and Peru regained Tacna.

 

[FluffyNinja]

[

QUOTE=pro-bipartisan;1058792435]Not only did he not accept the National Bank but he vetoed much of Henry Clay's "American System" which would have moderinized the economy. His specie circular and refusal to recharter the bank caused the Panic of 1837, a five year depression in which unemployment was at its highest up to that time and banks were failing. I just don't think the government refusing to take part in the economy is the right way to go.

Many would disagree; laissez faire was not always such an "evil" term you know Also, to place blame for the Panic of 1837 and the insuing depression soley on Jackson's shoulders is historicaly irresponsible. Again, a matter of perspective i suppose, but many historians point to excessive land speculation and the irresponsibility of banks issuing tons of unbacked paper money ("rag money" as Jackson called it) thus leading to widespread inflation. Also, please don't forget, Martin Van Buren was actually in office when the Panic occurred and a proactive response on his part, it is generally agreed, could have possibly prevented the five-year depression.

Basically my point is that not only did he take it to a whole another level, but he was the first President who really started using it to a profound effect and he saw it as a good thing.

Is it a good thing? In the opinion of some, this form of "eliminating bureaucracy" is not only effective, but desireable.

That makes sense, so since a lot of the country supported him it was okay? Like you said before, you can't defend it.

That's usually how it works, you know the whole "majority rules - minority rights" thing. I'm not saying it makes it morally "right" (but that's an entirely different issue) I'm just saying, AT THAT TIME, this policy was viewed as ACCEPTABLE by most.

Also, to be clear, I don't think Andrew Jackson is one the worst three Presidents of all time I just think he certainly is down there in that ten worst area.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, and I have enjoyed the discussion..... seriously. You've obviously, at least done some historical research, unlike many who post here.

 

[FluffyNinja]

I don't think Hoover was as bad as everyone thinks. He did a lot more than people think:

Regarding foreign affairs,

On the issue of Hoover, unfortunately, all of the good things he accomplished will be forever overshadowed by two things:
1. The Bonus Army's March on Washington - 1932
2. His unwillingness to use federal dollars to finance social programs to help alleviate hunger and homelessness. Don't get me wrong, I will not ignorantly blame the Depression on Hoover; I'm just critical of his immediate policy reactions.

When you dis the homeless, the hungry, and the veterans, you're committing political suicide.

 

[partier9]

I completely agree with your first two choices; however, I don't really think Andrew Jackson deserves to be there. Do you have particular reasons for placing Jackson in the top 3?

I have two real problems with Jackson:

First going against the supreme court decsion regarding the Cherokee and forcing them to relocate.

Second his fight and victory of the bank. Without Biddle to help control the economy and with the money sitting in Jackson's pet banks the country entered the panic of 1837. Also Jackson issued the Specie Circular which also hurt the economy.

I really don't have a problem with his use of the spoil system however.

What makes him worse then say Grant is that Grant just ruined his presidency, while Jackson hurt his and destroyed Van Buren's presidency.

 

[Tucker Case]

Want to see something creepy. I've memorized every known US President's famous last words:

Calvin Coolidge: "Good morning, Robert"
Franklin Pierce (Unknown)
Warren Harding: "That's good, go on, read some more"
US Grant: "Water"
Richard Nixon: (supposedly it is "help" but I don't believe it)

Your list coincides with some of the worst last words.

Although people think that James Buchanan was one of the worst Presidents, he had a damn good series of last words (suppose a "last sentence").
James Buchanan: "I will carry to my grave the conscious that I, at least, meant well for my country. Oh lord God, as thou wilt".

What are the current odds that W's will be "Hey guys, watch this"?

Even money?

 

[Calabrese]

Woodrow Wilson without a doubt

 

[pro-bipartisan]

Woodrow Wilson without a doubt

Why do you say that?

 

[pro-bipartisan]

I think Woodrow Wilson is a top-10 President; His "New Freedom" program promoted antitrust modification, tariff revision, and reform in banking and currency matters. I also think the Federal Reserve Act, Underwood Tariff, and 16th Amendment (I'm sure a lot of present-day conservatives hate this though) were highlights of his Presidency. Even though the Supreme Court declared the Keating-Owen Act unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart, I do appreciate his willing to try to curtail child labor abuse. The Adamson Act, Clayton Anti-trust Act and Federal Trade Commission also were good things because of limiting the work day and attempting to get rid of unfair business practices. Now to his handling of World War I, I think he did a great job keeping us out of the War for as long as he could and also realized we needed to enter the War after Germany broke the Arabic and Sussex Pledge and when we uncovered the Zimmerman Telegram. His willingness and desire for Peace also culminated when he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919.

 

[Calabrese]

Not to sound Beck-ish, but in my opinion Woodrow Wilson was probably the most extreme progressive to take power in this country with possibly the exception of FDR. He inflated the power of the federal government to an extreme point, used propaganda to an incredible extent, read private telegrams (sound familiar?), and numerous other things
To me the expansion of the federal government and removal of person liberties are the worst things a person of power can do.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Not to sound Beck-ish, but in my opinion Woodrow Wilson was probably the most extreme progressive to take power in this country with possibly the exception of FDR. He inflated the power of the federal government to an extreme point, used propaganda to an incredible extent, read private telegrams (sound familiar?), and numerous other things
To me the expansion of the federal government and removal of person liberties are the worst things a person of power can do.

Yeah he tried to take away the rights of companies to exploit child labor but the law that he had been successful passing was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in 1916.

Actually, he was one of the most powerful presidents in our history and even a war president who won the nobel peace prize. He was no Jimmie Carter.