The Flaw in the System

[kalm]

A great read regarding how the founders mistakenly relied on virtue:

The fatal flaw of the United States Constitution was its belief that Americans would always elect moral leaders. It rested not only on law but on custom: on the belief that honor would outweigh shame, that norms would guard what laws could not, and that loyalty to the republic would outweigh loyalty to faction. The Founders built a government on trust, not fear, a fragile covenant between power and conscience.

Law and norms were the twin instruments of that covenant. Law is written and enforceable; it commands obedience through authority. Norms are unwritten courtesies, expectations of restraint, honor, and propriety that hold power within moral bounds. Law can punish wrongdoing; norms depend on self-command. One governs conduct through compulsion, the other through conscience. When laws lose the support of moral norms, they still function, but only as empty machinery. They work in process, not in principle. The Constitution may survive on paper, but without honesty, restraint, and good faith, it becomes law without loyalty—a system of rules unmoored from trust.

When that moral foundation collapses, the institutions that depend on it hollow out. The Constitution cannot act by itself. It depends on the people sworn to uphold it and on their belief that the law deserves obedience. The president, whose duty is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” embodies that dependence. The law’s power lives only in the person who enforces it. If that person stops believing in limits and uses authority for self rather than public good, the Constitution survives in form but not in spirit. It becomes a weapon of power instead of a restraint upon it.

The Founders understood that the seeds of tyranny flow naturally through the veins of the people. They had learned from the Greeks and Romans that appetite and spectacle—bread and circuses—are the most dangerous forces in a republic. They feed demagogues and turn liberty into display. The Greeks did not condemn appetite itself; they feared appetite unruled by reason. When appetite governs, freedom decays into servitude.

[GannonFan]

I honestly have to take the other opinion here. Almost the entire structure of the Constitution, with its separation of powers, with its defined set of powers, with the federal structure of government in balance with state governments, was almost done entirely because the Founders knew that you couldn't just rely on virtuous men to populate the governing ranks, and that safeguards were needed to at least limit the impact of unscrupulous men ascending to positions of power. In fact, both Madison and Hamilton use this topic for a large number of Federalist Papers, including at least #10, #47, and #51 (all Madison) and #21 (Hamilton) to explicitly say that the tendencies of men will be to purposes and ends that are contrary to virtue and that the government being set up by the Constitution has as one of its main designs a barrier to this lack of virtue having a way to dominate government.

It sounds like a nice argument, that the Founders heads were all in the sky and thinking how awesome mankind was and how perfect this would be, but they also had the reality, even in their own ranks, of different political passions, different factions, and even personal avarice, to not pretend that only virtuous men would populate government.

[BDKJMU]

Cliff notes version:
-When donks control the federal branches, the Constitution is sacred.
-When conks control the federal branches, the Constitution is flawed.

Did I do that right?

[kalm]

I honestly have to take the other opinion here. Almost the entire structure of the Constitution, with its separation of powers, with its defined set of powers, with the federal structure of government in balance with state governments, was almost done entirely because the Founders knew that you couldn't just rely on virtuous men to populate the governing ranks, and that safeguards were needed to at least limit the impact of unscrupulous men ascending to positions of power. In fact, both Madison and Hamilton use this topic for a large number of Federalist Papers, including at least #10, #47, and #51 (all Madison) and #21 (Hamilton) to explicitly say that the tendencies of men will be to purposes and ends that are contrary to virtue and that the government being set up by the Constitution has as one of its main designs a barrier to this lack of virtue having a way to dominate government.

It sounds like a nice argument, that the Founders heads were all in the sky and thinking how awesome mankind was and how perfect this would be, but they also had the reality, even in their own ranks, of different political passions, different factions, and even personal avarice, to not pretend that only virtuous men would populate government.

I had similar thoughts when reading it. But if they were aware of the potential for a Trump (as they shoukd have been), then they failed to provide enough safeguards against it.

[GannonFan]

I honestly have to take the other opinion here. Almost the entire structure of the Constitution, with its separation of powers, with its defined set of powers, with the federal structure of government in balance with state governments, was almost done entirely because the Founders knew that you couldn't just rely on virtuous men to populate the governing ranks, and that safeguards were needed to at least limit the impact of unscrupulous men ascending to positions of power. In fact, both Madison and Hamilton use this topic for a large number of Federalist Papers, including at least #10, #47, and #51 (all Madison) and #21 (Hamilton) to explicitly say that the tendencies of men will be to purposes and ends that are contrary to virtue and that the government being set up by the Constitution has as one of its main designs a barrier to this lack of virtue having a way to dominate government.

It sounds like a nice argument, that the Founders heads were all in the sky and thinking how awesome mankind was and how perfect this would be, but they also had the reality, even in their own ranks, of different political passions, different factions, and even personal avarice, to not pretend that only virtuous men would populate government.

I had similar thoughts when reading it. But if they were aware of the potential for a Trump (as they shoukd have been), then they failed to provide enough safeguards against it.

The safeguards weren't put in place to prevent a Trump from being President, the safeguards are in place to make sure our system of government perseveres and outlasts Trump. In that regard, it's working as intended. Trump would like the capability to deploy National Guard troops wherever he wants, doing whatever he wants. But other than LA, which got caught unprepared (think Newsome), he's been stymied left and right by the courts to try to put them anywhere other than DC, which is its own special case. He would love to serve another term and stand for election in '28, but even he realizes he can't do that (and the 12th amendment gets in the way of trying to circumvent the 22nd as he can't be on the ticket as the VP either). Like I've been saying, Trump goes away in January of 2029, assuming he lives that long, and his power may be trimmed even sooner if the GOP loses control of either house of Congress with next year's election.

Read the Federalists Papers (as I've said before, reading all of this stuff, from the Founding documents to SCOTUS cases, goes a long way to sifting through the opinions of people who haven't read them). They run pretty much contrary to what this article is trying to contend.

[Caribbean Hen]

Cliff notes version:
-When donks control the federal branches, the Constitution is sacred.
-When conks control the federal branches, the Constitution is flawed.

Did I do that right?

Exactly

Also, Thomas Jefferson impregnated how many enslaved black girls out of wedlock? Is he despicable?

John F Kennedy had sleepovers arranged with Marilyn Monroe by the Secret Service only she wasn’t wearing any pajamas…. Poor Jackie

Who knows how many I’m skipping, but fast-forward to slick Willie Clinton…. Can we forgive him because of who his wife is?

Despite his faults, Trump is on a path that will lead him to being remembered as one of the greatest American Presidents!!!

[kalm]

I had similar thoughts when reading it. But if they were aware of the potential for a Trump (as they shoukd have been), then they failed to provide enough safeguards against it.

The safeguards weren't put in place to prevent a Trump from being President, the safeguards are in place to make sure our system of government perseveres and outlasts Trump. In that regard, it's working as intended. Trump would like the capability to deploy National Guard troops wherever he wants, doing whatever he wants. But other than LA, which got caught unprepared (think Newsome), he's been stymied left and right by the courts to try to put them anywhere other than DC, which is its own special case. He would love to serve another term and stand for election in '28, but even he realizes he can't do that (and the 12th amendment gets in the way of trying to circumvent the 22nd as he can't be on the ticket as the VP either). Like I've been saying, Trump goes away in January of 2029, assuming he lives that long, and his power may be trimmed even sooner if the GOP loses control of either house of Congress with next year's election.

Read the Federalists Papers (as I've said before, reading all of this stuff, from the Founding documents to SCOTUS cases, goes a long way to sifting through the opinions of people who haven't read them). They run pretty much contrary to what this article is trying to contend.

The amendments are malleable. And I’m pretty sure they were Leary of any potential king assuming power where he could consolidate it to a point rendering Congress and the courts irrelevant.

[GannonFan]

The safeguards weren't put in place to prevent a Trump from being President, the safeguards are in place to make sure our system of government perseveres and outlasts Trump. In that regard, it's working as intended. Trump would like the capability to deploy National Guard troops wherever he wants, doing whatever he wants. But other than LA, which got caught unprepared (think Newsome), he's been stymied left and right by the courts to try to put them anywhere other than DC, which is its own special case. He would love to serve another term and stand for election in '28, but even he realizes he can't do that (and the 12th amendment gets in the way of trying to circumvent the 22nd as he can't be on the ticket as the VP either). Like I've been saying, Trump goes away in January of 2029, assuming he lives that long, and his power may be trimmed even sooner if the GOP loses control of either house of Congress with next year's election.

Read the Federalists Papers (as I've said before, reading all of this stuff, from the Founding documents to SCOTUS cases, goes a long way to sifting through the opinions of people who haven't read them). They run pretty much contrary to what this article is trying to contend.

The amendments are malleable. And I’m pretty sure they were Leary of any potential king assuming power where he could consolidate it to a point rendering Congress and the courts irrelevant.

They are, to a point, depending on which ones you're talking about. But a lot of that "malleability" has already been solidified with SCOTUS decisions (i.e. Thorton in the case of the 12th and 22nd overlaps). As for things being irrelevant, Congress has been making themselves irrelevant for years, that's not a new thing at all. Yet, at the same time, the courts have risen to be anything but irrelevant. Again, the system works. Despite having less than virtuous people in it. Again, by design.