When the US Constitution was written, many people − from those who wrote the document to those on the outside who read it − believed that endowing the president with kinglike powers was dangerous.
Founders were geniuses [whose] dusty ass opinions count
No, but they were educated, and may have expected that to persist. #NoChildLeftBehind was a great concept executed terribly; and it made things worse. So the founding fathers had that leg up.
Some concepts were sound, and only missed the loophole where corruption took hold in all three branches at the same time. That’s a pretty honest assumption that it wouldn’t.
The assumption underpinning the whole concept was this idea that politics could be “nonpartisan.” Several founders, including Washington, cautioned that the system would fail if political parties emerged, which happened instantly (in fact, you can see the beginnings even within the constitution itself with vulgar compromises like the three-fifths compromise), because as it turns out, politics isn’t just a matter of high-minded ideas but of different classes persuing their conflicting material interests. The reason they couldn’t imagine a political party taking over all three branches at once is because they had no understanding of how politics actually works.
Even then, the way the division of powers shook out was left very ambiguous in the constitution. The concept of judicial review that gives the SCOTUS significant power by allowing it to strike down laws was not spelled out in the constitution but established later in Marbury v Madison. The president’s role was similarly ambiguous, the only reason it really exists is they knew they’d have to put Washington at the helm somewhere for anyone to buy into it and he immediately clashed with Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who thought his role should be extremely limited.
Maybe they should have foreseen a situation where evil and immoral people were allowed and even encouraged to succeed in any sphere of power, whether politics, religion or business. Its actually society which is sick and not just politics.
No, but they were educated, and may have expected that to persist. #NoChildLeftBehind was a great concept executed terribly; and it made things worse. So the founding fathers had that leg up.
Some concepts were sound, and only missed the loophole where corruption took hold in all three branches at the same time. That’s a pretty honest assumption that it wouldn’t.
The assumption underpinning the whole concept was this idea that politics could be “nonpartisan.” Several founders, including Washington, cautioned that the system would fail if political parties emerged, which happened instantly (in fact, you can see the beginnings even within the constitution itself with vulgar compromises like the three-fifths compromise), because as it turns out, politics isn’t just a matter of high-minded ideas but of different classes persuing their conflicting material interests. The reason they couldn’t imagine a political party taking over all three branches at once is because they had no understanding of how politics actually works.
Even then, the way the division of powers shook out was left very ambiguous in the constitution. The concept of judicial review that gives the SCOTUS significant power by allowing it to strike down laws was not spelled out in the constitution but established later in Marbury v Madison. The president’s role was similarly ambiguous, the only reason it really exists is they knew they’d have to put Washington at the helm somewhere for anyone to buy into it and he immediately clashed with Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who thought his role should be extremely limited.
Maybe they should have foreseen a situation where evil and immoral people were allowed and even encouraged to succeed in any sphere of power, whether politics, religion or business. Its actually society which is sick and not just politics.