no amount of constitution is going to help when his party is complicit and is the majority in congress and the courts.
You need a couple of amendments to that constitution then.
Here’s the thing, you don’t need to amend the constitution if you don’t have anyone enforcing it.
I think we need to drop the premise that the Founders were geniuses who’s dusty ass opinions count for jack shit.
The secret is that they were just regular politicians from a long time ago.
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.
I hate this, lets compare historical figures like they have the knowledge we have now. The US constitution was a massive evolution but also a transformation in how a government would operate in particular in regards to democracy and power coming from the governed. just a written codified document behind a government was a pretty big deal much less the separation of powers and documenting of rights.
What exactly is your point in regards to this article?
It’s promoting the idea that the opinions of politicians from the 1700s carry any more weight than the opinions of doctors from the 1700s.
Adherence to “what the founding fathers wanted” is a toxic meme. They were historical figures, that’s all.
The Supreme Court uses this meme as a totem to excuse motivated reasoning in their decisions and people are simply conditioned to accept the words of 300 year old politicians over the reality of the present.
We can understand the danger of Trump without quoting from old slave owners, pretending that they carry special wisdom.
it’s especially ironic, considering that the founding fathers themselves did not want this. they created a “living document” because they were smart enough to realize that times change and laws should change with it.
unfortunately, their biggest fans today have completely ignored that part.
The Electoral College was put in place, at least in part, exactly to stop the public at large from electing someone like Trump.
More like it was put in place to stop people like Lincoln and FDR. The founders were economic elites, whether slaveowners or rich capitalists, and they were afraid that “the mob” would elect someone who would persue the material interests of the common people, against them, especially in regards to slavery.
The purpose of the Electoral College was to guarantee that the president was elected by the states and not the people. So you are half right, the electoral college can interfere if it’s not what the states want. While there are some states that want to always go with the popular vote not all are on board.
And yet, the purpose of a system is what it does.
Would love to abolish the EC and add ranked choice voting nationally.
Would love to abolish the EC and add ranked choice voting nationally.
💯 And mail-in ballots for all voters, and all races have a “none of the above” option, and an actual majority from all eligible voters is required to win, and if “none of the above” wins the election we do a new election with all new candidates.
What do you think of Mao Zedong and Vladimir Lenin?
Time to put that second amendment to use.
If it’s not used, it will be removed
Delegate John Dickinson asked a rhetorical question: “Will a virtuous and sensible people chuse villains or fools for their officers?”
I think the problem is as a group we are neither virtuous or sensible.
We would be very sensible and make good decisions if the media was fair and the schools would be great. Unfortunately we dont live in that society.
You have more faith than me
