FDR the dictator

FDR was the only POTUS who could control Hoover and who Hoover respected. Also, in this environment Hoover will have his legally dubious practices tacitly sanctioned by the WH- IOTL FDR loved to get the latest political intel from Hoover.

I am aware FDR could handle Hoover like so many others, but he was not fond of the man. Much of the FDR administration was staffed by people FDR spoke to for a few minutes, or was selected at random, but whom FDR liked.
 
I think we can safely say that if Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested additional powers to be granted to him by the United States Congress, they would likely pass it despite Republican and Southern opposition. However, it is likely that the Supreme Court would declare any such Act as Unconstitutional, even those Justices that normally would vote in favor of the New Deal programs. Therefore, Roosevelt is locked from making any such reforms, for a time.

FDR would then use his charisma and charm to slander the Supreme Court, moving public opinion in favor of legislative action on the part of the American Congress. The Supreme Court would be packed with Pro-Roosevelt judges, or at least those who could be controled through Edgar Hoover, allowing the Emergency Powers Act to be passed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation would become the government's secret police force, collecting evidence that can be used against those who opposed Roosevelt's policies.

The New Deal would continue much as it did historically, though more of Roosevelt's proposed legislation would get through, notably a system of Universial Healthcare. The 1936 Presidential Election might be more of a blow-out than it actually was......
 
Why exactly would the south be against this? Wide spread poverty, limited infastructure grids, add in Heuy Long, and the area looks ripe for a powerful leader.

More over if congress grants more authority to the resident how is it overturned by the supreme court? Actually nevermind that, without knowing the exact laws or acts which grant FDR the powers of a dictator arguing over the legality serves no point.
 
Why exactly would the south be against this? Wide spread poverty, limited infastructure grids, add in Heuy Long, and the area looks ripe for a powerful leader.

More over if congress grants more authority to the resident how is it overturned by the supreme court? Actually nevermind that, without knowing the exact laws or acts which grant FDR the powers of a dictator arguing over the legality serves no point.

On the former question, they would not be against giving FDR powers, but the AMOUNT of power he is to be granted. In their mind it might be too large an expansion of his power. Also, many poor whites in the South who would easily support such measures were not able to vote due to existing laws such as the poll tax and the literacy tests.

On the latter, Judicial Review is an important role for the Supreme Court within the government. If the Supreme Court declares that any Bill or Act by the United States Congress or the President is Unconstitutional, it is effectively dead, null, and void. Nothing can be done short of a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy process. It doesn't even matter if the extension of powers is small or large. If they believe that the Constitution does not condone such legislation, then they will kill it.
 
On the former question, they would not be against giving FDR powers, but the AMOUNT of power he is to be granted. In their mind it might be too large an expansion of his power. Also, many poor whites in the South who would easily support such measures were not able to vote due to existing laws such as the poll tax and the literacy tests.

On the latter, Judicial Review is an important role for the Supreme Court within the government. If the Supreme Court declares that any Bill or Act by the United States Congress or the President is Unconstitutional, it is effectively dead, null, and void. Nothing can be done short of a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy process. It doesn't even matter if the extension of powers is small or large. If they believe that the Constitution does not condone such legislation, then they will kill it.

Alright but why would the Dem stornghold of the south decide not to back FDR? FDR sought emergency powers like that in a war, so they are overtly broad. Like many acts in WWI which few found illegal due to the national crisis.

As to the SCOTUS as stated before, without an actual law in front of us to look at how FDR may have gained dictator powers, there is no point outside of speculation as to it being legal.
 
I believe I know what Fenwick is trying to get at.

FDR would not be dictator in the same sense as hitler or Stalin. He would be elected in 1932 with the same democratic majority he had. He would gradually increase his power through legal means, such as searching for old clauses in the constitution that no one would remember.

Now on to FDR's support: if FDR improved the lives of most of the commonfolk in the nation by returning jobs,fixing banks, and building infrastructure. If he could have the majority of the workers,and farmers support him, they would rally to help him in case of an attempt to remove him from power.

As I said before FDR would not be a dictator in the same sense that Hitler or Stalin were but I can see him being a kind of "Lord Protector" like Cromwell in the same sense. Being the FDR would be guiding America out of the great depression and fixing the nation, I think most commonfolk would support him as long as long the nation recovers and returns to prosperity. FDR would be dictator in all but in name like Cromwell who ruled like a king except without without being crowned king.

FDR would still be called president but he would have all of the power of a dictator.

Where would J Edgar Hoover be in this world: chief of some sort of american secret police?
 
I believe I know what Fenwick is trying to get at.

FDR would not be dictator in the same sense as hitler or Stalin. He would be elected in 1932 with the same democratic majority he had. He would gradually increase his power through legal means, such as searching for old clauses in the constitution that no one would remember.

Now on to FDR's support: if FDR improved the lives of most of the commonfolk in the nation by returning jobs,fixing banks, and building infrastructure. If he could have the majority of the workers,and farmers support him, they would rally to help him in case of an attempt to remove him from power.

As I said before FDR would not be a dictator in the same sense that Hitler or Stalin were but I can see him being a kind of "Lord Protector" like Cromwell in the same sense. Being the FDR would be guiding America out of the great depression and fixing the nation, I think most commonfolk would support him as long as long the nation recovers and returns to prosperity. FDR would be dictator in all but in name like Cromwell who ruled like a king except without without being crowned king.

FDR would still be called president but he would have all of the power of a dictator.

Where would J Edgar Hoover be in this world: chief of some sort of american secret police?

That is about what I had in mind. People seem to view dictator in the modern "evil" sense when in 1932 American's, left, right, and center all spoke of the need for a dictator to guide the US out of the depression.
 
Alright but why would the Dem stornghold of the south decide not to back FDR?


For the same reason the "Solid" South provided FDR's only challengers within the Democratic Party. For the same reason the support of the "Solid" South was so shallow that it could, and did, evaporate and southern lawmakers needed to be coddled continuously.

Race.

The South didn't vote for FDR because he was a Democrat. The South voted for FDR because he wasn't a Republican.

If you're going to examine how FDR could have become a dictator of the "emergency only" kind, you're going to have to understand US politics.

FDR sought emergency powers like that in a war, so they are overtly broad. Like many acts in WWI which few found illegal due to the national crisis.

And then were quietly scrapped once the war was won. What are going to happen to FDR's emergency powers once the height of the crisis is over, as it was, by late '33 and early '34? They're going to be legislated away, legally challenged, or simply ignored.

Will such a "Mayfly" dictatorship meets your needs?

As to the SCOTUS as stated before, without an actual law in front of us to look at how FDR may have gained dictator powers, there is no point outside of speculation as to it being legal.

Again, you're failing to understand the point being made. Let me use the NRA again as an example.

That legislation passed in June of '33, the regulations it authorized were drawn up by late '33, saw enforcement by early '34, and were first legal challenges appeared at that time. As the first cases worked their way up through the appeals process, many other cases were being brought and some moved even faster than the others. The many active cases produced a legal limbo and sections of the NRA never were actually enforced to any great deal.

The many cases produced "victories" and "defeats" for the Act but, because each case was judged on it's own merits, none had yet touched upon the overall constitutionality of the Act itself. The DOJ actually sought out cases looking for one that would do so and, in April of '34, found one involving kosher poultry of all things.

That was the case which overturned the Act in 1935 a few weeks before it was due to expire anyway. The Act was so disliked at the time that Congress, far from being the mindless rubber stamp you assume it to be during this period, wasn't even contemplating renewing the Act despite heavy pressure from the Administration.

Waving off the eventual SCOTUS decision on the Act, ignores the many other legal rulings which had already delayed or set aside large portions of the Act's regulatory powers. Thanks to legal challenges which began immediately once the Act took effect, the NRA was never fully implemented in the manner FDR and his administration felt was necessary.

The Act is not the model of emergency dictatorial powers you believe it to be and the "delay" in the SCOTUS ruling on the Act as a whole does not mean the Act was in full force during it's brief existence.

You're going to have to find some way else to convince us. The immediate and successful challenges to his administration's policies means that FDR's support was no where near as solid or broad as you'd like to assume. And, with nearly 40% of the electorate voting for the incumbent who had almost passively presided over the onset of the Great Depression, the people of the time did view the crisis to be as deep or morale sapping as you'd like to assume.
 
That is about what I had in mind. People seem to view dictator in the modern "evil" sense when in 1932 American's, left, right, and center all spoke of the need for a dictator to guide the US out of the depression.

Even if the majority of the left, right, and center wanted a dictator what are the chances of them agreeing on one person to take the job? FDR only got 57% of the popular vote. If the other 43% didn't want him becoming president then they definitely didn't want him dictator.

Lets pretend that America in 1933 is magically converted into a country where everyone agrees with the president and the other branches of government are willing to give up power to FDR. So why would he try to expand his power? Is there some senator out there that would vote him absolute power but not on his bank reform bill?
 
Top