9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her

by Brion T. McClanahan

Of the forty-four presidents who have led the United States, nine made mistakes that permanently scarred the nation. Which nine? Brion McClanahan, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers and The Founding Fathers' Guide to the Constitution, will surprise readers with his list, which he supports with exhaustive and entertaining evidence. 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America is a new look back at American history that unabashedly places blame for our nation's current problems on the backs of nine very flawed men.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook, Biography, Presidents

352 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 1, 2016

About the author

Brion McClanahan received a B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He finished his Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, and had the privilege of being Clyde Wilson's last doctoral student. He is the author or co-author of four books, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, (Regnery, 2009), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes, (Regnery, 2012). He has written for TheDailyCaller.com, LewRockwell.com, TheTenthAmendmentCenter.com, Townhall.com, and HumanEvents.com. McClanahan is a faculty member at Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, has appeared on dozens of radio talk shows, and has spoken across the Southeast on the Founding Fathers and the founding principles of the United States. If you would like to book Dr. McClanahan for a speaking appearance, please send him an email with all pertinent information.

Reviews

[Jdetrick · Rating 1 out of 5]

I enjoy reading about different opinions than mine, and I often will read books whose political philosophy is opposed to mine. And indeed, I don't agree with the basic premise of this book, which treats the Constitution as many do the Bible; an inviolate document that is as relevant now as it was over 200 years ago. That being said, I wanted to read the arguments. Sadly, the arguments are paper thin, full of overheated rhetoric and hyperbole. It's an obviously slanted work, ignoring history when it suits the author's purposes. It's disappointing. I actually agree with some of its statements, but it often draws historical fact into ridiculous conclusions.

[Tom · Rating 1 out of 5]

Presidential history filtered through the prism of libertarian self-parody. Utterly worthless bilge.

[Mark Geise · Rating 5 out of 5]

"9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her" is a fantastic read. McClanahan takes on mainstream history by classifying as the worst presidents in American history several that are usually named among the best. He evaluates presidents based on how well they upheld their oaths of office (protect and defend the Constitution). If we use this rating system, the usual ranking of presidents is largely inverted. The "do-nothing" presidents usually rank very low on mainstream rankings, but these are often presidents that took their oaths seriously and did not want to overstep their constitutional boundaries.

The nine presidents who screwed up America, according to McClanahan, are George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Obama. McClanahan includes Washington because his second term was the first instance of an unconstitutional overreach of power, largely fueled by Alexander Hamilton's influence. Each successive presidency that McClanahan describes oversteps its constitutional boundaries a little bit more, with Obama being quite possibly the most king-like president in American history. McClanahan believes that virtually every president of the last century should have been impeached for unconstitutional actions. In this time period, executive overreach and constitutional ignorance have been at their greatest. Many unconstitutional actions now are not even questioned by the American public, by the states, or by the other branches of the federal government. The Constitution was never intended to be a living document. If we wish to add powers or make other changes to the Constitution, the amendment process should be followed. The will of the majority should not be sufficient to ignore the Constitution; that is one of the main purposes of a binding constitution. The Founding Fathers were afraid of tyranny of the majority, and the president and executive branch were meant to be one of the checks on the majority. In today's political climate, this is as important as ever. Progressives like Bernie Sanders (and virtually every other major candidate for office, for that matter) wants to jam unconstitutional legislation down our throats because the majority of people support it. They believe that the United States is a democracy, not a republic.

The four presidents that McClanahan commends are Thomas Jefferson (his first term), John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge. These presidents took their constitutional limitations seriously. They took a Founder's view of the nation, respecting states' rights and avoiding federal overreach. I especially enjoyed learning more about John Tyler; I knew very little about him before I read this book. His choices of Jefferson, Tyler, Cleveland, and Coolidge were fairly unsurprising because they are among the most libertarian presidents, but these choices may come as a shock to a reader that opens this book without any knowledge of the author or his perspective.

I would recommend this book to anyone that wishes to uphold the Constitution in today's political climate. Executive power continues to increase largely unchecked. If we wish to resolve this major issue, we need to evaluate prior presidential administrations. McClanahan reiterates the intentions of the Founding Fathers based on their writings and speeches at the time; their intentions are too often lost with all the claims of a living Constitution, as this perspective tends to treat the Founding Fathers as relics of an ancient era. It is important to challenge mainstream opinions on American political history, and this book should contribute to that mission.

[Leslie Walker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. I was looking for a scholarly work, but should have known better from the title.

[Michael Malice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great proof that the Constitution has literally never worked the way conservatives imagine it does.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have once again decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2024 US Presidential Election. This was a great success as I prepared for 2020, with an outcome at the polls (and antics by both candidates up to Inauguration Day) that only a fiction writer might have come up with at the time! Many of these will focus on actors and events intricately involved in the US political system over the last few years, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.

This is Book #12 in my 2024 US Election Preparation Challenge.

I am always looking for authors who are able to push me outside of my way of thinking without being a sycophant to any leader, using them as the standard-bearer of all things that are right. Brion T. McClanahan does well to criticize many US presidents through constitutional analysis, a wonderful basis for discussion. While I may not agree with some of his sentiments, I enjoyed how McClanahan approached the argument and used fact, as well as reference to the US Constitution itself. Exploring the shortcoming of nine men who held the title of POTUS, as well as lauding four more, McClanahan clearly argues that the US Constitution has not been followed and needs better exploration. Gatekeepers are necessary, though McClanahan is unwilling to offer such a role, citing a belief that this could be handled by self-restraint. A well-argued book that opened my mind and kept me eager to learn more.

Brion T. McClanahan effectively presents how there have been nine men who have served as US President and led the country down a path that cannot be deemed acceptable. He places his arguments firmly on the hands of the US Constitution, the founding document used to regulate laws and leadership limits. McClanahan clearly lists the presidents and their shortcomings. He examines Andrew Jackson’s excessive push of a national bank, while also exploring that the push by Teddy Roosevelt to regulate the environment was out of hand.

Delving into some of the more constitutionally flimsy presidents, McClanahan cites Wilson and FDR, both of whom led during wartime and used their power to limit the powers of the citizenry. McClanahan argues that pushes to limit authority using the war as an excuse falls short and should not be forgotten by the attentive reader. He cited the US Constitution’s infallibility and that these men blatantly reworked it to suit their needs, supported at times by the US Supreme Court. While McClanahan clearly believes that the court cannot be activist, he pushes the constitutional power too far, in my view.

To offer the other side McClanahan offers up found presidents who saved America through their constitutional support and limited power. There is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson would be on the list, which McClanahan. felt was strongly constitutional and made sure to limit his first administration in pushing for the confederate nature of the country, where states could (and should) run their own systems, as clearly listed in the constitution. There were moments of power seeking that could have caused Jefferson trouble, but the third president made sure to step back and permit American expansion only through the rules of the constitution, adding Louisiana but ceding power to Congress to decide the treaty. doing the likes of John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge to the mix, McClanahan explores how the constitution’s power was neither an impediment or hurdle to their successful presidencies, keeping the country running within the parameters the Founding Fathers thought important.

While I am the first to say that I am neither a constitutional originalist, nor do I feel the courts cannot interpret the laws put before them, I can accept the views that Briton T. McClanahan has. He makes his views clear and offers evidence to support the arguments made. His views are primarily related to the US Constitution rather than criticism tied to any other leader. McClanahan provides well-developed chapters and offers clear and concise views, supported with historical facts and moments the reader can enjoy. This is precisely the type of book I seek for alternate views, more worried about the laws and well-founded sentiments that smearing any leader because of their ties to others. In a summer of presidential election preparation, there will surely be a great deal of criticism and attacks, something that I am sure McClanahan would do if he were able to write about either 2024 candidate. But... that’s a story for another day!

Kudos, Mr. McClanahan, for a strong book that kept me thinking.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is my dearest hope that by the time Donald Trump leaves the West Wing, the office of the presidency will have been so discredited that no one will take it seriously anymore. Congress will take serious measures to counter executive overreach, and the American people will somberly reflect that it was a bad idea to allow so much responsibility, expectation, and power to rest on the shoulders of one man. My second dearest hope is that pigs will fly. Brion McClanahan does what he can to take the American monarchy down a few pegs, though, by devoting half his book to exposing the greatness of a few titans as irresponsible hubris, and hailing a few forgotten men for their diligent work thwarting or ameliorating the excesses of others.

McClanahan scrutinizes each president based on how effectively they fulfilled their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Because Article II of the Constitution, which creates the office of President, does not include a full job description, McClanahan relies on debates from the Constitutional convention and the States’ ratification proceedings to determine what was expected of the president. This figure was not to be a king in democratic clothing, but a guardian of the rule of law: his primary job was to keep Congress, the only legislative body, in check – the job that George III failed to do when he allowed Parliament to tyrannize the colonies. Those who maintain a zealous watch are praised here; the rest, like those who invent new powers for themselves, or accept new powers from Congress through legislative fiat instead of constitutional amendment, or presume on the states or other branches' prerogatives, or allow the other branches to presume on the same, are condemned. In general: 19th century presidents were largely faithful to the job, and 20th/21st century presidents sought to re-invent and magnify the office, and did so to the point that the old republic is now ruled by Jabba the State. (I borrow that, with gratitude and a bellylaugh, from Anthony Esolen.)

McClanahan’s critique is thus very strict, and he does not pardon men for doing pursuing good ends through improper means: that is not how the rule of law works. The Constitution is not a dead decree, a sacred writ that forces us to live in perpetuity by an 18th century society’s rules, but neither is it a piece of clay to be molded in any way. Those who wish to change the structure of US Government must do so through amendment, or – as the North threatened to do, as the South attempted to do – remove themselves and try again. McClanahan’s strict adherence to the original intent of the Constitution, and the observance of the rule of law, will no doubt earn the most criticism from those who read this, who believe that the government should periodically assume new powers as it “needs” them, without respecting the appropriate procedures. But those procedures, the rule of law, protect us from merely being controlled by the whims of men.

So, who are the nine?

- Andrew Jackson, who terminated the Second Bank of the United States through extralegal means, promoted a dubious tariff that picked sectional favorites, and threatened to order the militia into South Carolina to prevent it from seceding in response to said tariffs;

- Abraham Lincoln, who failed to recognize the legal separation of the southern States from the Union, illegally made use of State militias to invade a foreign power, presumptuously revoked habeus corpus, instituted a draft, instituted the income tax, and helped devalue the currency for starters;

- Theodore Roosevelt, who made the president a celebrity and inserted himself into the legislative process, assuming powers not granted to him by the Constitution, including to make presidential proclamations.

- Woodrow Wilson, who drove legislation, attempted to institute tariffs that picked sectional favorites, persecuted and jailed Americans for exercising the first amendment, instituted the Federal Reserve, and created powerfully intrusive regulatory bodies with no constitutional sanction;

-Franklin D. Roosevelt, who created the American conservative movement by violating so much precedent and expanding the power of his office so quickly that critics didn’t even know where to begin countering his illegal intrusions into lives of people and the economy;

-Harry S. Truman, who turned America into the guardian of the world and helped establish the military-industrial complex’s power over the American future;

- Lyndon B. Johnson , who continued overreach in both domestic and foreign policy; like FDR before him and Nixon after him, he created agencies that combined legislative, judicial, and judicial functions, ignoring the wisdom of checks and balances;

- Richard Nixon, who continued the same sorry trend and pawed at the economy as well, and began the steady erosion of the dollar as a unit of real value; and

- Barack Obama, who greatly expanded Bush’s illegal wire-tapping, droning, and pushed through the Affordable Care Act, which made the sorry debacle of US healthcare even more onerous .

The two most controversial names on the list are Lincoln and Obama; Lincoln, because most people will refuse to consider that the constitution of the United States – the little c –constitution – was much different in 1860 than in 2018, that people did consider themselves members of the State of Maryland or the State of Vermont, and that the Union was a debatable issue; and Obama, because he was merely burning down a house that had already had its doors and windows pried off and its interior walls torn down by previous presidents. Oddly, even though McClanahan refers to Obama as the ‘worst’, the chapter on said president is rather short. Frankly, I think ranking a then-sitting president was a mistake.

There are some general lessons to be learned. In the 20th century, the easiest way to gain enormous power was through war -- either real war, or by couching social programs in the language of war. Two, the most common violation is the president assuming responsibilities -- lawmaking and warmaking -- that are Congress's alone. The president is not granted the authority to summon militias; only Congress may do that, and they require a state governors' request. It doesn't matter if Congresses passes a law giving itself power to do this or that -- that's not how the rule of law works. If they could empower themselves, they should just dispense with the formalities and issue straightforward dicta like honest oligarchs.

Following the rogues' gallery, McClanahan then devotes the second half of his book to praising Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge. Jefferson is no surprise, rejecting anything that smacked of monarchy in presidential treatment and , ending as he did the illegal Alien and Sedition acts. Tyler will be unknown to most Americans; he was the first vice president to assume the office of president after Zachary Taylor died, and he spent most of his time in office vetoing Congressional actions that had no warrant in the Constitution. He was so consistent at it that both parties grew to hate him. Good on ya, Johnny! Cleveland was also solid on reining in Congress, and if nothing else he deserves a standing ovation for doing his best to prevent the United States from enveloping Hawaii. Coolidge, of course, has a deserved reputation for being a calm and steady hand on the rudder, intent on reversing growth as best he could within constitutional limits. The sad truth of political economy is that a bad president can increase his powers in violation of the law through his own will, while a good president's own scruples forbid him from violating the law to reverse course.

The book ends with a series of suggested amendments which would in theory curtail the power of el presidente, though given how much bureaucratic power is now vested in the sprawl of executive departments, said amendments only only be a start. These amendments include limiting the president to one term and sharply enforcing Congress's sole responsibility as a warmaking body.

When I began reading this, I was a little worried about McClananhan's style, which -- when he is lecturing -- can grow abrasive. It's not a style fit for communicating with people who disagree with you, and I'm happy to report that he largely reins himself in here, though his language grows a little less formal as he comes nearer to the 20th century. I think he manages to be approachable to those who disagree with him, but very few people care more about rule of law than doing what they think should be done now, and to the devil with the consequences. That, combined with the fact that human beings frequently revert to some tribal desire for a strong leader who can take charge and restore confidence in the future -- whether he's killing the old shaman for not pleasing the gods, or forcing everyone to buy health insurance to "fix" the cost of insurance -- makes me think all human political experiments beyond a certain scale are doomed to failure.

Happy president's day...

Related:
Recarving Rushmore, Irvin Eland. A very similar but more thorough review of each president based on their contribution to liberty, peace, and rule of law.
The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy. The story of how quiet servants like Tyler and Cleveland were supplanted by celebrities with delusions of grandeur .
The Twilight of the Presidency, George Reedy. A masterful review of how the American monarch is hindered by the sheer expanse of his office

[Trisha Cook · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read. If you thought you knew how the Constitution is supposed to work with checks, balances, and restrictions on executive overreach, maybe you do, but I certainly didnt know as much as I thought I did. Presidents whom I admire, and admittedly still do, seem to have ignored their oath to defend the Constitution either in an effort to "save" America or to simply extend executive power to levels that the Founding Fathers never wanted or intended for this country. After reading this, I understand how the author comes to the conclusion that America now has an "Imperial" or "Monarchical" Presidency instead of the one intended. Constitutionally, very few Presidents have actually upheld their duty, and oath, to defend the Constitution. Instead they have ignored their oath in order to forward their political agendas, Constitution be damned. As for politicians in general, I typically hate them all anyway because there is not an honest one in the bunch.

[Jim Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I THOUGHT I KNEW A LITTLE ABOUT HISTORY; I WAS WRONG.

Read The 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and then you tell me how much you knew about American history I was shocked to read how these 9 Presidents and others, and especially our current President, totally ignored the U. S. Constitution and more specifically their Oath of Office to Defend the Constitution of the United States. Lost in the reading is the total and undeniable avoidance of the duties of Congress as defined by our Constitution to oversee the activities of the Executive Branch of government. These Presidents may have broken the country's laws but Congress went along for the ride with little to no opposition. And where was the Supreme Court while all this was happening - asleep at the wheel!

This book should be a MUST READ book before the 2016 election. We currently hear the candidates tell us what they are going to do if elected President. The news media and the various moderators of the debates ask the obvious and dumb questions of these men and women when they should be asking them HOW they are going to do all they claim they are and stay within the confines of the U. S. Constitution. Barack Obama has become the poster child for breaking his oath of office and ignoring the Constitution. We have become a lawless country where our own government picks and chooses the laws it intends to enforce and the laws it chooses to ignore (sanctuary cities, securing the border). I wish that just one of the debate moderators would ask any one of the candidates to describe what a President is permitted to do by our own U. S. Constitution; my guess is that only one would know for certain. George Washington and his Gang of 56 must be turning in their graves to see what America, its Presidents, the thousands who have served in its Congresses, the members of its Supreme Courts, and state legislatures have done to America. Washington would be uncontrollably distraught seeing the lack of concern voiced by the citizens of this great nation who he and his gang of 56 were trying to protect and what these citizens have done because of their ignorance of history, lack of knowledge regarding their own Constitution and what elected men and women are doing to them without their knowledge or their permission.

Every candidate is keying in on America's desire to "take back their country." But...before Americans can take back their country, they must first WAKE UP! It's going to take more than just a handful of concerned citizens to take back their country; it is going to take the country to take back the country. It's going to take citizens who educate themselves on American history and how this great country was designed to succeed not just follow a bunch of hypocritical and power seeking politicians. Wake up America! Start by reading this book. IT WILL OPEN YOUR EYES AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST 200 YEARS! You will be shocked at some of the Presidents who made the list and why; I know I was.

[Mitchell Kaufman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the best writing, but I do agree with the conclusion that the Presidency has expanded in scope and power far beyond what the Founders intended. I also agree with the author's high regard for Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge.

[Brianna Marie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Would not recommend

Revisionist, poorly argued, brief, and biased beyond justification. Loses all nuance and merely describes events in summary--hardly an informative work.

[Utena · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was really hard for me to like. It does touch up on some good points that presidents have overreached their executive power but I don't think the author realized that Constitution is vague when it comes to limiting much of the power of the president. Most presidents have probably read the Constitution but drawn on their conclusion as to what exactly they can and cannot do when it comes to their own presidency.

In times of war, some presidents might overreach their power. Abraham Lincoln ordered the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War because he was hoping to stop the rebellion in the South. Maybe that was the only way in his mind that would, hopefully, end the war.

Of course many scholars might see this as an overreach and might even see him as using his presidential power far beyond the scope of what our Founding Fathers might have considered but you also have to consider that Presidents in both war and peace will use their presidency power with the demands of the times. Sometimes this is good and sometimes this could be looked at as bad. I don't think these presidents did much wrong.

If McClanahan really wanted to look at presidents that screwed up America, he might look at the ones who did nothing that led up to the Civil War.

This book made me roll my eyes and put it down several times because I think the author's biased toward Cleveland and Coolidge to the point he thinks they seem to the better presidents the U.S. has ever had.

Still if you like history as much as I do, then this book will be for you.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting read. The title is obviously an overstatement to some degree. The author reviews the actions of 9 Presidents whom he believes failed to keep their oaths to exercise the office of President according to the Constitutional guidelines for the office.

It would have been helpful if McClanahan made more of a distinction between situations in which these presidents went beyond the stated responsibilities of the President as opposed to the situations in which these Presidents violated Constitutional precedent. In general, I agree that Jackson, FDR, and LBJ absolutely abused their power. And it is noteworthy that these Presidents generally use times of crisis to expand the power of the office.

On the other hand, in a national crisis, such as the secession of the southern states, it is difficult to say that the President should only sit and wait for a divided Congress to act. I do understand McClanahan's point, though. If we do think it's ok for Presidents to do act in such a way, then the Constitution should be amended to clearly grant those responsibilities.

Regardless of your view of how the President should conduct the office, the book is thought-provoking.

[Ailith Twinning · Rating 1 out of 5]

I hate that I used to think like these guys.

Just, Christ, Libertarians are exhausting.

[Stephen Adkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book could be summed up with one phrase that appears multiple times throughout:

"according to the Constitution as ratified."

Don't be fooled by the title or the cover - this book isn't nearly as partisan as it seems from its title and its marketing. I'm guessing those decisions were influenced by the publisher, because the author rarely uses the term "screwed up" in the text, and if he does, it's only within the context of the above phrase. The simple premise of the book is to define what a strict, originalist understanding of the Constitution is, and then to compare that to the major policies of various Presidents throughout American history. It's true that he devotes more time to ripping Democrat heroes like Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, but then again that would be expected against the rubric of a strict reading of the Constitution. After all, Progressives have long argued that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that should adjust to the changes of society. That said, however, McClanahan is equally ready to disapprove of Republicans like Lincoln, Bush 1 and 2, and Nixon (even Reagan, though that's slightly more subtle).

This book is clearly targeted at Conservatives, especially those who regard the Constitution as something akin to a sacred text. The author confines himself fairly well to simply holding up the records of various well known presidents to that light, and simply stating that, "according to the Constitution as ratified" they did a good or bad job at being the President, within the narrow understanding of the President's job description. This book isn't going to convince a Progressive who sees the constitution as outdated or even an instrument of oppression that Barack Obama screwed up America. But it might convince a Republican who believes the Constitution is Very Important to reconsider his beliefs that Reagan or Bush were the greatest presidents in history. The author's point is that if you want to rate GW Bush as The Greatest President, okay, but you can't do it using the Constitution, because his most prominent policies were flagrant violations of it. And for Conservatives who hate Obama, the rhetorical device is basically, "If you think Barack Obama was terrible in light of the Constitution, you should look back at history and see all the ways his predecessors paved the way." Alternatively, this book should be seen as a celebration/vindication of the early opponents to centralized, national power, and of Jeffersonian principles of anti-federalism as a check against tyranny.

For Progressives, especially those who think it's very scary that President Trump has the nuclear codes, along with all the rest of his vast Presidential powers, I would recommend reading this. Even if it's obviously marketed to the right, and even if it's less-than-scholarly in places, I believe this book does a nice job of explaining why many thinkers on both sides of the aisle favor localism over centralization, and why people fear federal overreach. Even if you think Conservatives were stupid for thinking Obama was an evil guy, many of the precedents he set are now making life much easier for a power-hungry individual like Trump. Much better, according to this author, if the men featured in this book had simply taken seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution as ratified in 1787, rather than expand their power and hand over an unbalanced and unchecked Presidency to a crazed lunatic.

[Sage Aaron · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is mostly propaganda.

[Matthew Banner · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some disingenuous themes at work here. Some of the themes are correct, but in some cases here, the circumstances are completely ignored and events are treated as a polemical grab-bag for Texas Sharpshooters. Entire laws at the disposal of every president since 1795 were wholly ignored(Militia Act of 1792 rev.94 & 95 which expand emergency powers to the president, etc). Yet at the same time many of the presidents on the list are indeed kind of on the wrong side of history.

If you appreciate explication rather than a loaded narrative, this certainly isn't the right book. There is heavily dubious ambiguity and double standards when making constitutional arguments. And I have to say that the chapter on Lincoln was mostly neo-confederate apologist material; most of which are not even his arguments, they are actually rather common(look up Cult of the Lost Cause) and have sound rebuttals should anyone decide to read about the event rather than skim for potentially damning evidence and ignoring what doesn't fit.

McClanahan also curiously skips Buchanan, Johnson(who was actually impeached!!), Clinton, Bush (W).

[D.H. Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very quick but thought provoking read about just how out of control the Federal government, and especially the executive branch, has become. This book easily could have gone into more depth with each of the 13 presidents described (9 bad and 4 good) and been at least twice as long. It is depressing to think that we may never see a president who actually governs according to the Constitution as it was ratified in 1788 ever again.

[Tabitha Ellis]

Definitely made me think of some of these famous presidents in a different way, comparing them to their presidential oath. Some of them I went in thinking that they had not been good for America (eg. FDR), and others I thought were, and then a few I knew next to nothing about.
While I don't agree with all of his assessments, this was a good read and I definitely learned from it. It is incredible to think that most of the problems we've seen in our country in my generation, the stage was set for them within years of the founding of America. It's not just a recent problem, though seemingly every president has tried to outdo the last with things like Executive orders, but it's been a long time pile up issue.
PS, I knew almost nothing about any of the presidents whom he said tried to save America, and it's interesting to think that that's exactly the reason I didn't know about them, they just fulfilled their duty and didn't push the envelope and expand their powers and therefore "do" a whole lot. They just did what the Constitution asked of them.

[Graham Seibert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise American history from the point of view of what has happened to the Constitution.

McClanahan opens with a thesis about the intent of the founders versus modern expectations.
"These men argued that the president was not to be a king, nor would he have the power George III
had in England. But the understanding of the executive branch among most Americans— including
historians— has been distorted. We ask what we think the president should do in office, not what he is constitutionally permitted to do in office. The latter should be the measure of the man." "In the Constitution, the founding fathers generation left as a vehicle for preserving self-government. We ignore it at our peril."

The terms of office of the 13 presidents addressed in the book cover the full history of the country:
the founding, expansion through the early 18th century, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the
progressive era, World War I, the Depression, World War II, Vietnam and the great Society, and now
Obama.

McClanahan discusses each of the presidents' undertakings in various spheres of action. In foreign
policy and in war, did they follow the constitutional separation of powers whereby the Senate takes
the lead? Did they allow the Senate to advise and consent? Did they allow the legislature to draft the
legislation, or did they actively involve themselves in the legislative process? Did they execute the
laws as passed by Congress, or did they selectively enforce them? Did they push themselves into the
legislative and judicial spheres by setting up national boards that performed all three processes
without supervision?

His conclusion is that the nine presidents who screwed things up built on each other's precedents,
increasingly ignoring the written limits on executive power in the Constitution. If there is one
somewhat hopeful note, it is that it is not getting worse. The invasions of privacy in the Lincoln and
Wilson administrations seem to be at least as destructive as those of Bush and Obama. Likewise, the
suppression of freedom of the press during the wartime administrations of Lincoln, Wilson and
Roosevelt was worse than what we are seeing today. Today's invasions are more threatening
because they are backed by more dangerous technologies: electronic eavesdropping, drones,
access to bank records and the like.

The four presidents they got things right were Jefferson, Tyler, Cleveland and Coolidge. They stayed
within the prescribed powers of the chief executive. McClanahan notes that history considers the
latter three to be weak presidents because they did not "get things done." That is exactly the point,
and perhaps the most difficult point for any government. One has to know when not to act.

McClanahan confines himself quite narrowly to a discussion of the Constitution and the
constitutionality of the activities of these 13 presidents. He could not do otherwise and hold the book to a readable length. His final chapter, what can we do, is a prescriptive list of constitutional
amendments that might bring things back into balance.

What he does not discuss, what he could not discuss within the scope of this book, are the limits of
human nature. Humans have a bias toward action. The citizenry looks to the president, as the man in charge, to fix problems whether or not they are within his job description. Since taking action usually involves assuming more power and commanding resources that can be parceled among one's friends, it is entirely natural for a chief executive to eagerly answer a call to action. This is the nature of leaders worldwide. The restraint that the Constitution calls for is unnatural. We should not be surprised that presidents do not answer the call.

It takes a lot of drive and a big ego to seek the presidency. It is not surprising that two of the four
presidents that McClanahan credits with trying to save the institution were modest men who came
into the presidency when their predecessor died in office. Tyler and Coolidge had few further political ambitions and could afford to be honest. Coolidge resisted intense pressure to help predominantly black citizens victimized by the greatest Mississippi flood of all times. His heart may have gone out to them, and they may have been predominantly Republican voters, but it was not the federal government's job to do anything. He stood on principle. McClanahan writes
"The founding generation considered self-control a key measure of character. Anyone with enough
political clout can abuse power. Restraint requires more tenacity and backbone than rampant,
damaging, and often narcissistic autocratic rule. Executive restraint is a republican virtue, passed
down from the great example of the Roman Cincinnatus, the general who saved Rome from collapse
but then gave up power willingly to return to his fields and resume his life as a farmer."

The Progressives, dating back to Theodore Roosevelt, took an expansive view of the Presidency.
They saw their job as not merely executing laws, but leading and improving the society. McClanahan notes that Franklin Roosevelt "believed that Americans in modern industrialized society had the need for new 'rights,' including the 'right' to a job, food, clothing, recreation, a home, medical care, education, and freedom from the 'fear' of unemployment, old age, sickness, and unfair competition." A president who believes it is his job to guarantee these "rights" to the citizenry must make himself a dictator to do so. Both Roosevelts, Wilson, Johnson, Nixon and Obama have pushed as hard as possible in that direction.

The role of state governments is a major theme. Although the founders intended the United States to be a confederation of 13 states, Lincoln's interpretation when the Confederate states seceded was
that it was a confederation of the people within the states – the states themselves had no standing.
The union of the peoples that made up the United States was indissoluble.

McClanahan favors the notion that smaller governments, closer to the people, will be more
responsive to their needs than a large distant central government. Even when they are not, their
mistakes will be limited. This was certainly the plan of the founders. The national government was to concern itself with matters like national defense and interstate commerce that were beyond the scope of the states. That which could be done by the states, such as education, roadbuilding and the like, was no business of the federal government. Though the federal government has intruded itself into these spheres claiming it can do a better job, the fact is more that it simply has the muscle to push state and local governments aside, and it does so.

The United States Constitution drew on English common law and the Enlightenment philosophers,
especially Britons such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. The population of the United States in
the 18th century was predominantly English, though with the admixture of Germans that Franklin
found so upsetting. Blacks and Indians, though populous, generally did not have political rights. The Constitution was therefore a document adapted by and for a small, homogeneous population. What it did was to codify the common sense and experience of enlightened Englishmen, incorporating the insights of the great minds of the time. It was revolutionary primarily in that it was of one piece, contemporary, and written and agreed.

English law has been a global success. Most national constitutions draw heavily on the American
Constitution and its British roots. One observes, however, that as implemented they are more a
reflection of their own populations than the English philosophers. Argentina, Haiti, Ukraine and many other countries' constitutions set forth high aspirations. However, in practice they represent the people, not the noble words. As the population of the United States has diversified away from the founding British and Northern European stock, the workings of constitutional law have changed as well. We have hugely diverse mixture of founding stock Europeans, Southern and Eastern
Europeans, American Indians, Afro-Americans, Middle Easterners and Asians all trying to live
comfortably under the blanket of a constitution designed by and for Britons. We should not be
dismayed that it has been stretched out of shape.

[Yael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who have the greatest American Presidents been? Who are the worst? The answers may surprise you.

As the author says, the problem with academic polls on this matter isn't the questions, but rather the perception of the executive office, a perception that has been skewed by the success of the United States in the 20th century and the growth of the power of the executive branch relative to the other branches and levels of government. The historians who usually participate in these polls lack an originalist perspective of the Constitution, and thus rank the presidents based on the outcome of their policies, not on how they upheld the oath they took when sworn into office, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It is on the latter basis that the author ranks the best and worst US Presidents.

Among the worst, those who screwed America up, are Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, and Barack Obama. Among the best are Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge. Those judgments depend on whether a given President upheld his oath of office or not, not on the results of his time in office. The Founders of this nation were terrified of untrammeled executive power unchecked or poorly checked by other branches of the government, and set up the new nation's government to provide checks and balance that would keep any one branch of the government, especially the executive branch, from seizing and wielding inordinate power not granted by the Constitution.

Not that any given President in the "Naughty" list was or is a bad man or a disliked one; nor were those in the "Nice" list necessarily "great" in the normal sense, that is, the sort of people about whom spectacular movies are made and that sort of thing. "Did they uphold the Constitution during their term in office, or not?" is the one measure by which Brion McClanahan ranks the Presidents, which is also a measure of the degree to which Presidents have protected our liberties or damaged them.

This book is an eye-opener. These days, thanks to rapidly declining standards in public schools and our colleges and universities, the average American citizen is not learned in Constitutional law and its applications. This book is a great introduction to that subject, in terms of both its history and the men charged with upholding and applying it, and a way for repairing the shameful gaps in our education when it comes to civics and American history.

[Gregg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Terrible. This takes the author’s interpretation of the Constitution and uses that as the metric for screwing up America. We have a process that determines Constitutionality and that is the measure of whether something is Constitutional or not, not this guy’s opinion. It’s no wonder the ones who saved America are ones who accomplished nothing and are considered among the worst in history. The executive needs to challenge the limits of his authority. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. When that authority goes unchecked, that is where there is a problem.

[Void lon iXaarii · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is what happens when you rate the work of presidents not by great speeches or grand wasteful projects that please the media propaganda but on the extent to which they actually kept the oath they swore and fulfilled the job for which they were hired.

It's fascinating from beginning to end, giving refreshingly different perspectives on men one might think are known, and more than a few times bringing to light great unsung heroes who did amazing things in the world but were forgotten exactly because as a result of their actions (sometimes including purposeful committed, sometimes painful, self-sacrificing in-actions at crucial moments) the world ended up being better and people did not experienced crises but instead had the wealth and freedom to choose their own things they cared about or activities THEY (as opposed to the governments) wanted to do with their lives. This is very different opposed to the often praised presidents who took from them individual freedoms and the crucially important resources so that these political parasites can write their names in history with the sweat of others, while the these payed the prices for the glory of it's overlords.

Fascinating American history book, wonderfully different and original in content and presentation, and all written with intelligent witty writing and deep insights both political and economical hiding behind an impressive knowledge of history and legal issues through the centuries.

PS: To anybody who enjoys the book I'd also warmly recommend the author's brilliant free podcast. http://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/c... It's amazing just how much knowledge of the highest quality and presented so coolly he actually gives away there. The great podcast is what got me to rediscover this great author after years now, and now that i'm done with the book it's where I can continue every week to with great excitement get new historic awesomeness. What an amazing age to be alive in!

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of those books worthy of a second (or even third) read.

9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her by Brion T. McClanahan was a very interesting read because he basically rates and ranks our presidents based on who best fulfilled their oath to faithfully uphold, protect, and defend the US Constitution. Most rankings seem to be more about who was the most popular and seemed to get things done. But often they got things done by going around the constitution, usually for political purposes. Some of the best, by this criteria, are ones who almost never make anyone's presidential rankings. And many who are regularly ranked best do not make this list because they violated their oath of office. There will be many surprises in store for readers. You may agree or disagree but by this author's measure, if you read with an open mind, you'll have to agree with his conclusions. The question then comes down who faithfully executed their oath of office and who didn't. And don't worry, there's plenty of blame and credit to go around on all sides of the aisle. As much as I like what some presidents have done in building this country, I do have to admit there were many cases where they did things counter to the Constitution.

[Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very informative. I did not realized the limitations placed on the executive office by the Constitution. Every politician in Washington needs to read this to better understand the restraints in place. The Federal government has taken too many liberties by exacting control over what the states were supposed to do for themselves, and making those independent governments and individual citizens dependent upon the Feds. As, I believe, Coolidge said, "It's up to the people to support the government; but the government shouldn't support the people." The support we have received from the government -- Social Security, Welfare, FEMA, etc. -- only makes the people weak and dependent on the government. The four presidents who stood by the Constitution and their oath to defend it, were seen as "do-nothing presidents." I commend their integrity and strength to stand up to the belly achers and maintain restraint.

[Terri King · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book. I gave it three stars because it is slightly slanted to a particular ideology and leaves some holes in how it looks at presidential actions. From an originalist standpoint, the book makes sense, but from a context standpoint, we have to remember that presidents responded to particular challenges based on the context of situations with what they hoped would be the best at the time they were confronted. The one thing that is consistent throughout is that politicians have been partisan to special interest groups since the beginning - if you are to take the premise of the book as truth. Corruption of government officials by groups who lobby to have decisions/laws in their favor seems to have been consistent. Worth the read to get a different perspective on presidential leadership.

[Adrian Brown · Rating 2 out of 5]

From my uncle. Interesting only as an opportunity to understand another point of view. The author is an "originalist" for the role of the executive. I understand better the originalist position, but I have the following issues with it:
1. To a certain extent, it involves mind reading the founders to find their intent.
2. It's inflexible in the face of change. I guarantee that the founders had no concept of the current world when they wrote it.
3. The chief executive has to have some flexibility in how things are executed. I think some of the examples in this book excessively detract from that flexibility.
4. A chief complaint in the book was about the president usurping Congress's legislative role. At least part of the blame for that lies with Congress.

[Kathryn · Rating 2 out of 5]

I actually read about two-thirds of this books before deciding to add it to my donation pile without finishing it because I finally had had enough of McClanahan's position that adhering to the Constitution as originally written is more important than morality, the health of its citizens, stabilizing the U.S. economy, or ANYTHING else.

(His writing about FDR was the written equivalent of "foaming at the mouth", and the fact that he evidently thinks that FDR should have let the country continue to go to hell after he took office in 1933 was the final straw for me.)

[C. D Shells · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a college student who’s major is History, I went into this book thinking it had potential. However quickly I saw it was nothing but smoke and mirrors. Instead of talking about one specific person for a chapter or a couple pages. He will mention it and be done with it just as fast. Some of the major themes that were missed was slavery, watergate, and the trail of tears. Felt less like a historical work. More like a bad opinion piece from someone with a high school level of understanding.

[Brady Nelson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Total nonsense. The author doesn't even follow his own ridiculous premise that the only way to judge a president is by his adherence to the constitution.

No president was worse in that aspect than Thomas Jefferson and the author actually praises Jefferson for it while blasting the others.

Jeffersons legacy is completely defined by Federal overreach. More federalist than the Hamilton presidents around him.