Summer is CORRECT.

Ronald Reagan became frighteningly close to being impeached due to the supposed Iran Contra scandal/cover up.
Dan.

 
Summer is CORRECT.

Ronald Reagan became frighteningly close to being impeached due to the supposed Iran Contra scandal/cover up.
Dan.

 
Well if memory serves me....he was shipping anti-tank weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages. Then he lied about it.
I'll try and post my best/worst presidents later.

 
I'd just like to breifly say that James did what I expected. He put some completly off the wall presidents down on both the "best presidents list" and "worst presidents list". I mean I can't help but think "what the crap!" Jimmy Carter on the best president list! HA! and I knew James you'd throw Abe on the worst list, but gosh you didn't even include him on this best list in addition. And I like Ronald Reagan as much as the next fella, but come on. You could argue that his administration was good, but he was seriously about the dumbest president we have had (even though I do agree with the man on most issues).

----Dan closes with a political trivia question:
What issue caused did Ronald Reagan to become frighteningly close to being impeached?-----

 
Thanks Daniel for getting things rolling again...

Here are my lists... (Note that I have included some on both lists. I'll explain why later.)

The Best
1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. John F. Kennedy
3. Jimmy Carter
4. Ronald Reagan
5. George Washington

The worst:
1. Andrew Jackson
2. Ronald Reagan
3. Franklin Roosevelt
4. Abraham Lincoln
5. Ulysses S. Grant
6. Lyndon B. Johnson

 
OKay. Since it has been nearly two months since anyone has posted to this blog, and since James's question still stands, I figure I'll just go out on a plank here and post and answer to the question: "Who do you think are the 5 best , and the 5 worst US Presidents?"

Here is my reply. I feel that this question is a very difficult question to ask, and I honestly do not feel that I know enough "history" to answer it to the best of my ability. However the question has been asked, and I do indeed study history, so I will make an attempt to at least guess at the best five Presidents, and the worst five Presidents. Of course any reader of this blog needs to realize that I am very bias. Not only due to my political and religious beliefs, but also due to my recent readings. I have recently studied several presidents deeply by reading biographys of the presidents that interest me. SO obviously I am sure I am swayed by the fact that I may simply know more about one president than another.

Okay here goes:
The top five presidents in NO PARTICULAR ORDER are:
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
and of course Abraham Lincoln

The Worst are:
Andrew Jackson
George Washington
Rutherford B. Hayes
Gerald Ford
Ulysses S. Grant

---oh yeah one more bad president: Hillary Clinton.. hahahahha

 
One other point on the last topic... the quote you gave Aaron says that "Civil liberties are not absolute rights. They must be balanced against the public safefy."

I agree to the first sentence. Civil liberties are not absolute because of the word "civil." These are rights we have because the government gives them to us (as in the Bill of Rights and other laws) These rights are by nature limited because the government can amend the Consitution and take away those rights.

HOWEVER, human rights come from God. Human rights are absolute. The rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" can not be denied... well than CAN be denied, but those who would do so are against God Himself.

Also, there is overlap between human rights and civil liberties (For instance free speech).

Now as to the initial line that civil liberties should be balanced against public safety, to an extent that is correct. One can not scream "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, one can not commit acts that are intended to intimdate others from exercising their civil libertie, etc. However, those limits are extremely restricted and are limited to protecting the rights of others. Certainly there are occasions when rights are limited for a limited period of time in extreme situations (I.e. your right to drive on a public street through a neighborhood is curtailed if a tornado just went through there) BUT this can not be used as an excuse to stifle dissent as was the case during WWI when you could be imprisoned for speaking against the war or the draft. During WWI my very website (www.jmbzine.com) would land me in jail. That is wrong.

Laws are limited to protect liberty, not the other way around.

 
TOPIC: Who do you think are the 5 best , and the 5 worst US Presidents?

I'm throwing this topic out to keep things moving, but feel free to continue talking about the last topic.

 
Aaron, I would argue that the rights of you and I so far have not been limited... but if we were of Arabic decent they would already be limited.

Also, like it or not the Constitution does not delineate seperate rights for US citizens and non-citizens. If we want to deny fair trials to non-citizens, we will have to either amend the Constitution or violate it. So far it looks like Ashcroft wants to do the later.

 
Justice Kept In the Dark

A few snips from the article:

"The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the chief executive’s extraordinary powers to protect the national security. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” wrote Justice Robert Jackson 50 years ago.

Civil liberties are not absolute rights. They must be balanced against the public safety. At a time when suicidal mass murderers are trying to infiltrate the United States, the balance has shifted."

"In international law, terrorists, like spies, are “unlawful combatants.” They don’t even enjoy the basic rights of prisoners of war, who are entitled by the Geneva Convention to be properly fed and housed and not subjected to torture. But terror suspects living in the United States will be able to go to a federal court to file a writ of habeas corpus, the ancient protection against arbitrary imprisonment by the state. The federal courts are likely to throw out any military tribunals that do not offer the “fair and full trial” promised by the Bush administration. So far, according to senior officials, only a small number of suspects now in federal custody are likely to be considered to be tried in a military tribunal—and only then if a strong connection to the Qaeda network can be firmly established."

"Public fear is behind much of the aggressive stance taken by law enforcement at all levels. One Justice Department official suggested to NEWSWEEK that the administration chose to get tough now to head off a public cry for even more draconian measures in the event of a second major terror attack. If the terrorists do hit again—a high probability, federal officials still warn—panicked Americans might call for even more drastic steps. Privacy safeguards would likely come under assault from government eavesdroppers. And Americans really would have to start worrying about their freedoms as well as their safety."