Opinion The Framers of the Constitution did not agree on everything but they did agree on this...

[ChosenOne]

The Founding Fathers had a pretty clear eyed, and some might call it almost creepily prescient view of what form a future threat to the US democracy would take....

The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of our Constitution feared most of all this very moment in American history, when the American People would be tempted by the seductive demagoguery of a modern-day populist demagogue.

In a letter to George Washington in 1792, over 230 years ago, Alexander Hamilton warned of this day and this demagogue, who would “mount the hobby horse of popularity” and whose “objects” “may justly be suspected to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’” 3p. 4

Thomas Jefferson agreed with Alexander Hamilton about very little, except about the existential danger to the Republic of a populist demagogue.

“If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for him,” Jefferson presciently wrote to James Madison in 1787.
.
.
.

.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25050952-luttig-endorsement
cite

InB4 magats pretend they do not know who this shines the brightest spot light on as Trump stands around in the hotdog costume asking 'who do you think this references'?

Are you at all surprised that they could see this type of threat so clearly and that it has played out pretty much exactly as they predicted it would?

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, the founders were pretty good about foreseeing problems and it's why they wanted a small federal government and a weak President.

 

[filthybliss]

Yeah, the founders were pretty good about foreseeing problems and it's why they wanted a small federal government and a weak President.

That supreme court ruling of Trump v. United States was unconstitutional by any metric.

 

[Deorum]

That supreme court ruling of Trump v. United States was unconstitutional by any metric.

Hey I created this GIF, lol.

 

[filthybliss]

Hey I created this GIF, lol.

It is a glorious one for sure.

 

[44nutman]

That supreme court ruling of Trump v. United States was unconstitutional by any metric.

Yeah but Justice Thomas got a bunch of free trips and one badass RV for free for selling out America.
Huzzah for Justice Thomas.

 

[Deorum]

It is a glorious one for sure.

It's too bad about all the bribery and corruption, I find his personality highly likeable -- the 2A rulings even more so -- and can't help but smile when he laughs.

 

[OneOfOne]

Therefore vote Kamala?

 

[oski]

the American People would be tempted by the seductive demagoguery of a modern-day populist demagogue.

This demagogue wouldn't come from a communist family and push for crazy things like removing free expression, guns from legal citizens, or after years of failure, continue to push for a policy of mass immigration?

Would they?

After such bloody wars for freedom, would our forefathers even have considered such a possibility?

 

[Sinister]

Yeah, the founders were pretty good about foreseeing problems and it's why they wanted a small federal government and a weak President.

Eh, they also wanted aspects of authoritarianism, because the last thing they wanted was the ability of farmers and soldiers to vote away power and wealth from the Elites. Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson were all pretty staunch haters of the idea of direct democracy. This isn't a good position to have if you also dislike an overpowered Federal Government and President, as well as a Judiciary who doesnt think they ARE the law.

 

[ChosenOne]

This demagogue wouldn't come from a communist family and push for crazy things like removing free expression, guns from legal citizens, or after years of failure, continue to push for a policy of mass immigration?

Would they?

After such bloody wars for freedom, would our forefathers even have considered such a possibility?

They could come from any angle but in this case what we clearly see it came from a right maga populist angle with Trump being the Avatar.

 

[SandisLL]

Guns removal actually does work opposite.
The same Alaska in old times had de facto 0 knife and guns control in schools and still might had 0 accident in school during decade. This reality will come in mindset of society when they will get that morale levels and character are above Law. Always. They should cope with this and deal with reality like this. Otherwise might see smiling guest with submachine gun demanding something and telling that he and his friends wants to get this or this otherwise you will die tonight.

I think that CCW permits should get issued after exams in shooting range, exams about law in area and first stuff : first aid.
One from things why I a bit support U.S reps is their opinion about CCW permits....while I don't think that these are panacea at all.

 

[SandisLL]

Guns removal actually does work opposite.
The same Alaska in old times had de facto 0 knife and guns control in schools and still might had 0 accident in school during decade. This reality will come in mindset of society when they will get that morale levels and character are above Law. Always. They should cope with this and deal with reality like this. Otherwise might see smiling guest with submachine gun demanding something and telling that he and his friends wants to get this or this otherwise you will die tonight.

I think that CCW permits should get issued after exams in shooting range, exams about law in area and first stuff : first aid.
One from things why I a bit support U.S reps is their opinion about CCW permits....while I don't think that these are panacea at all.

 

[SandisLL]

There is one difference between slave and free man : it is right to bear arms. Father Innocent had admitted this reality and he was Patris Iluminata.

 

[panamaican]

Eh, they also wanted aspects of authoritarianism, because the last thing they wanted was the ability of farmers and soldiers to vote away power and wealth from the Elites. Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson were all pretty staunch haters of the idea of direct democracy. This isn't a good position to have if you also dislike an overpowered Federal Government and President, as well as a Judiciary who doesnt think they ARE the law.

I agree with them on the problems with direct democracy. I don't think it is an aspect of authoritarianism. Rather it's a check against fickle changes in public opinion. They didn't want rapid changes in government and I think that's a good idea.

 

[ChosenOne]

I agree with them on the problems with direct democracy. I don't think it is an aspect of authoritarianism. Rather it's a check against fickle changes in public opinion. They didn't want rapid changes in government and I think that's a good idea.

Agreed.

Very similar to the concept of stare decisis, in the SC, which this SC has made a mockery of in their zeal to push an extreme right wing agenda.

 

[Sinister]

I agree with them on the problems with direct democracy. I don't think it is an aspect of authoritarianism. Rather it's a check against fickle changes in public opinion. They didn't want rapid changes in government and I think that's a good idea.

Allowing for governing bodies to be appointed and not elected is authoritarian by nature. And I dont think they had a problem with the fickleness of public opinion, granted that opinion aligned with their own. They didnt entertain notions of layered democracy until those Soldiers they promised to pay who fought the Revolutionary War actually wanted their money, and wanted representation with their taxation. What they got, was a watered-down mechanism for that which was expressly designed to favor the wealthy whose membership they wanted to assure the US would become an Empirical competitor to the UK.

 

[Sinister]

Agreed.

Very similar to the concept of stare decisis, in the SC, which this SC has made a mockery of in their zeal to push an extreme right wing agenda.

The SCOTUS are a result of the layered democracy he is advocating. You have the illusion that you have the choice who sits on the SCOTUS, because you can vote for the President who gets to appoint them, and you can vote for Senators who confirm them.

Until you realize the Senate can just...deny a vote whenever they want. Like say, a turtle from Kentucky decided you cannot confirm a SCOTUS Justice during an election year, and then the very next available opportunity he rescinds that rule and allows the confirmation of a more preferable Justice weeks before an election.

There is no logic to this that makes it make sense, other than the obvious. Which was an intended purpose of the Senate. To crush the will of the people when they think the people are idiots. And it resulted in the first roll back of a right in U.S. History.

 

[Osculater]

Therefore vote Kamala?

D'oh!

 

[ChosenOne]

The SCOTUS are a result of the layered democracy he is advocating. You have the illusion that you have the choice who sits on the SCOTUS, because you can vote for the President who gets to appoint them, and you can vote for Senators who confirm them.

Until you realize the Senate can just...deny a vote whenever they want. Like say, a turtle from Kentucky decided you cannot confirm a SCOTUS Justice during an election year, and then the very next available opportunity he rescinds that rule and allows the confirmation of a more preferable Justice weeks before an election.

There is no logic to this that makes it make sense, other than the obvious. Which was an intended purpose of the Senate. To crush the will of the people when they think the people are idiots. And it resulted in the first roll back of a right in U.S. History.

Ya people blame Trump for all the 'norm' breaking and simply saying 'if there is no law preventing it I will do it'.

But it was really Mitch who stuck in his finger in the eye of norms, with that SC betrayal move.

And it is sad because Norms are actually more effective in these areas that trying to write specific laws, as long as both sides play in good faith and realize they open themselves up to harm when they break a norm.

When, instead you try to hard code everything into law, then the punishment is only captured by the letter of the law, and someone intent on breaking it can hire teams of lawyers to exploit it. A norm captures a concept of what one can and cannot do, should and should not do, and is much broader than a hard coded law, and thus harder to get around.

But again the lack of enforcement of a norm, means you must have players who are playing in good faith and do not want to break the system.