At lease one founder raised the very points you mention. That founder was Franklin.
He had a famous quote when a woman asked him, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention something to the effect of:
"Professor Franklin, what have you given us -- a monarchy or a republic"
To which Franklin famously replied "A Republic--- if you can keep it"
A lesser known Franklin quote went to the effect that:
Our incoming President is a man of great integrity. We have no guarantee that future Presidents will be of similar integrity.
I take that to mean that the government will only be as good as the people who serve as officers in the future, and there's no way to assure that a thief or a traitor will not fill those offices.
"I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. [Sir Richard] Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho’ many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that’s always in the right.
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected?"
The Founders did not believe they had created a "perfect government structure." They clearly intended it to be amended and made provision for amendment. The Constitution was amended in 1791 by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. Since the the Constitution has only been amended seventeen times. The result is a rather rigid government structure that frequently does not function well. All of us probably have Constitutional provisions we believe should be changed or thown out all together. Yet, we do not make those changes!
The Constitution is not as rigid as many presume or pretend. The Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I brightly highlighted flexibility under the Constitution.
No generation could do (or could be expected to do) all the work that might be necessary to meet the exigencies of any subsequent generation. So the People in Article I vested in Congress the power (and assigned the duty) "To make all Laws" that subsequently turn out to "be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" not only all "the foregoing Powers" of Congress, but also "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The people of each generation were expected to elect people to Congress and to the presidency to enact laws that represent our interests in light of the exigencies of our time.
And those things not of the federal are reserved for the States.
Horizontal and vertical checks and balances. Not one have more power than allowed by Constitution.
This admin is trying a hostile takeover of the separation of powers. SCOTUS and Congress are assisting against each's own self-interest and Constitutional prerogatives.
Change is suppose to be hard to protect from the whims of a heated populace.
The Senate - the cooling of the heated temperament of the house. The house a close reflection of the will of the people by their constituents and subject to 2 year terms requiring renewal by the constituency - not the money brokers.
The self-benighted have flipped all of this on its head by use of any means to obtain and hold power.
The Executive power brokers of an Imperial presidency ideas are the old Tories that liked the king. America was never 100% happy with the DOI and revolution to break from Britain. The Congress makes the laws - not executive orders of a petulant man-child.
It is up to "We the People" to keep the flames of freedom to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" out of the hands of those that want to decide who is part of the franchise. This power brokers believe they get to decide contrary to the Constitution. The monopolist of economic freedom want to take your political freedoms to vote so they can continue to exploit.
Use the power vested in US, the people, to choose by voting our consent of our own governance - "Of, by, and for the people".
And the People commanded in Article VI that every public servant (state or federal) of any significance must publicly acknowledge that, in all official conduct, he or she is "bound" to "support this Constitution" as the paramount part of "the supreme Law of the Land."
"I take that to mean that the government will only be as good as the people who serve as officers in the future, and there's no way to assure that a thief or a traitor will not fill those offices."
From another Founder, John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Adams also said this:
"There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution."
Yet. who decides which Religion? Everyone I see today wants to be exclusively "the one" instead of the many to satisfy the free will and needs of the many.
Every man must come to his own religion through his on inspection of his own heart and not though the sword of the legislative dictates (the magistrate)
(Paraphrase - John Locke, 1689 - A Letter Concerning Toleration).
Keep in mind that the Constitution only deals with issues that were salient to the Founders at the time. We are now almost 250 years later. It is virtually impossible to pass amendments. So we are stuck with the Supreme Court as interpreters and this isn't working. Expand the Court, which does not require an amendment. Yeah, then we could get into a ridiculous "arms race" over the number, but perhaps that would force a truce. Eliminate lifetime tenure. Even 18 years is too long imo. We also need to expand the House. I'd like to see reform of the Senate too, to make it at least somewhat more population based, which would require an amendment so is unlikely to happen. And eliminate the Electoral College.
Mr. Moore, I am not a religious man but I say "amen" to everything you stated. However, with the current level of division in our country right now, accomplishing any of the actions you propose may be wishful thinking but I hope not. Agreed that SOMETHING has to be done.
A change in the majority in Congress and the end to gerrymandering would be a beginning. The rest of Mr. Moore's changes would be welcome, along with kicking corporate lobbyists out of the House and Senate. No one's vote should count more (or less) than anyone else's.
1st - Get money out of politics. Corporations are not people.
Money is not equal free speech.
The monopolist and oligarchs have more than their one vote per person by using money to deny, disenfranchise, challenge in court, etc. to use their excessive economic power to reduce our voting political power and buy their politicians of choice.
I think those are the most common changes that experts (and perhaps the general populace also) would like to see. Another one is to make it harder to impeach someone, and simultaneously easier to convict them once impeached. A common suggestion is to require a 60% vote of the House to impeach (as opposed to a simple majority), and also 60% of the Senate to convict (versus 2/3). The raised bar in the House will help to stop frivolous impeachments by a deranged majority (as in Mayorkas, where the Senate didn't even bother to hold a trial, but rather dismissed the charges by majority vote if I recall correctly).
But of course, there are too many groups (particularly the less populous states) that have outsized power in relation to their population currently (in the Senate, the Electoral College and to a lesser degree, the House). They would be crazy to approve a change that diminishes their influence. So I think we're stuck with that for a long, long time.
Problem is, expanding the court would require 60 votes in the US Senate. That’s the requirement for cloture for normal legislation. Even if we hit on every race where we’re remotely competitive, we wouldn’t have more than ~52-53 votes. That means we’d need 7-8 Republicans to abandon what has been their party’s most important quarter-century project (capturing SCOTUS). Sorry, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. The court certainly needs reforming but doing so legislatively looks like a very heavy lift.
I especially want to see the electoral college eliminated. We are always told "one person, one vote". However, my vote does not have the same weight as someone voting in Montana. That is not a democracy! Increasing the size of the House to better represent the population also makes sense. Re: the court- I once read of a system that allowed each president two judges during each term. Judges would retire from the court using a defined time limit to allow this. Sorry I am not remembering all the details. I just know it made so much sense when I read it. Takes the politics right out of the equation!
Gotta love it. Satire is a superpower. And thanks for reminding us that we are all responsible for continuing the work of the moral and social geniuses responsible for furthering human progress. I wish that concept were engraved on each and every monument erected to anything, anywhere.
Did the Founders let us down, or is it we who have let down the Founders? All the people of that period are the Founders. The writers of the Declaration and the Constitution are the Framers. They were a small group who were trying to do something new and unheard of at the time. They realized that they could not foresee every eventuality, so they left a living document, which too many people treat as written in stone or open to twisty interpolation (especially, see the six radical Supreme Court Justices--they are NOT conservatives). It began with Thomas Jefferson, who hijacked the Electoral College, which had been proportional, and which Jefferson insisted was winner take all. See Heather Cox Richardson's discussions of this point. Much evil would have been prevented with electoral votes allocated by popular vote in each state, and likely, the electoral college would have been abolished long ago.
We need to look at what in our society allowed the emergence of Trump and MAGA and work to end what enabled them. That means looking at the grievances of people who felt left behind, the way big money is used in elections (thanks to the radical Supreme Court), the role of social media, and the decline in support for education.
Each generation must renew democracy, or it will be lost.
Yes, the constitution was meant to be a living document.Yes, the 6 justices are not conservative but radical and reactionary. They are, at least some of them, corrupt and controlled by the rich and powerful who seek to rig the system against ordinary Americans and in their favor.
Like Trump, many of the justices were hatched in a cocoon of comfort and convenience unknown to most Americans. Other justices (but certainly not all) grew into their zone of safety and stability, protected from discomfort and lack. They are out of touch with the lives and struggles of the majority of Americans, and have no idea of how much worse they are making it for us.
Indeed. The Founders weren't perfect men. Many didn't practice what they preached about all men being created equal, because they were slave owners. Even the mighty George Washington, who at least had the decency to free his slaves upon his death. But in defense of the founders, no one could have envisioned a complete no-account human being like Trump. He's one of a kind. He wants to go down in history, THINKS he'll go down in history, in fact. And he's right. But he'll be infamous, not the other way around. He's flirting with Hitler territory now, Putin territory, too. He's as low-life a scumbag as the United States has yet produced. May we never see another like him.
At his Mount Rushmore speech, having exhausted the threats of Socialists, he went full Joseph McCarthy on Communists. Neither are the current problem. For that, he'd have to look in the mirror at what he and his cult have spawned.
Exactly! Every time he has a chance to bring America together, a concept with which he's unfamiliar, he widens the gap between rational and irrational thinkers. He could have taken a leadership role during COVID, for example, but his brain doesn't work that way. He didn't want that tied to HIM, so he could get re-elected. But his divisive rhetoric had the opposite effect and caused the needless death of hundreds of thousands. Why Americans gave him a second chance after such a disastrous first term is one of the greatest mysteries of our time. I'm trying hard not to resent those who had a hand in reinstalling him in power. But it's difficult.
It's true that blind faith in any of our purported public servants (including those of the 1780's) is about as good an idea as choosing to be actually blind. But I don't think Larry's point about the electoral college was really that the people who were morons were those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. I think his point was to ridicule (as a moron) a presidential candidate (or president) who ignored the Constitution and just presumed or pretended that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution were morons.
The Constitution includes one article expressly devoted to the presidency. It clearly highlights two things a person must do to be president: first, earn "the greatest Number of Votes" of "the Electors" in the Electoral College, and, second, swear (promise) to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," i.e., ensure that all actions as president serve one purpose: to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Constitution also made perfectly clear that it wasn't designed to be entirely democratic. And James Madison highlighted the reason in Federalist No. 10. Our Constitution was designed to protect us all from any "faction," i.e., any "majority or [even] a minority" who are "united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" as a whole. The Constitution was designed to reflect the "reason" of the People as a whole and to protect us all (including any minority) from the "passions" of any part of the People. That's part of the point of choosing representatives (including in the electoral college, as well as in Congress and even in the presidency) to represent the people as a whole.
I dunno. I think the Founders (at least some of them) were smarter than the comedian gives them credit for. And even in his declining years, Franklin was still firing on more cylinders than most of the younger men there.
We need to remember that in 1788 the 13 states were pretty independent of each other, and often times were even at each other's throats. Not directly relevant, but Ohio and MIchigan actually went to war over the strip of land where Toledo stands. So a lot of compromises were made and a lot of corners were cut in order to come up with a document and a plan that all 13 of them could tolerate-- even if they held their noses when they signed on.
IOW, sure the Constitution has flaws. Many of them, particularly regarding representation and slavery were even recognized at the time (although the latter was the unspoken elephant in the room). But those flaws were necessary in order to tame a 13-headed monster.
And they also recognized that pretty much any form of government is only as good as the people staffing it.
Franklin gave the last speech of the Convention- and it also was his last public speech before he died, although he wrote it but gave it to a colleague to be delivered. It pretty much summarizes the whole situation:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others....
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another’s Throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.
What I have loved most about our forefathers has always been their forward-thinking, trying their best to make sure we, of their future, wouldn't fall prey to the things they had to fight to get to the point of writing this wonderful piece of our history. They always knew everything, going forward, was not going to be peaches and cream and that there were going to be a lot of ruts in the road ahead. I still find it amazing that, today, the ONLY person to stand up for all our rights today is Major Jason, and I would love to see him awarded a Medal of Honor, not a prison sentence and the stripping of his rank and pay.
Maybe the Founders were old-fashioned slave owners who were more interested in protecting property and wealth than in actual one-person/one vote democracy? And the Declaration of Independence was aspirational but not necessary legally binding? And it's okay to make changes? Cause right now the US is ruled by 3 corrupted branches all in thrall to a (stupid) cult leader and with one of those branches where the majority are having seances with the founders who are astounded that there's a house slave and a woman asking for guidance?
As highlighted by Ben Franklin (quoted above) neither the Constitution nor the men responsible for writing it ever were or ever should be perceived to be perfect. That's the very reason for (at least) two whole articles, an important part of a third article, and one immediate amendment.
Article VII required our Constitution to be discussed and approved (if at all) by "the Conventions" (representing the people) of at least "nine States." Article V then emphasized that the Constitution always could be amended. In fact, the original Constitution wouldn't have been ratified if people didn't understand that it could be--and promptly would be--amended. That was what was called the Massachusetts Compromise (ratify first and then amend). Then, Amendment IX promptly highlighted that "the Constitution" never did and never could be perceived to contain a complete "enumeration" of all the "rights" that were "retained by the people."
The Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I also is a reflection of the imperfection of the Constitution. No generation could do (or could be expected to do) all the work that might be necessary to meet the exigencies of any subsequent generation. So the People in Article I vested in Congress the power (and assigned the duty) "To make all Laws" that subsequently turn out to "be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" not only all "the foregoing Powers" of Congress, but also "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The people of each generation were expected to elect people to Congress and to the presidency to enact laws that represent our interests in light of the exigencies of our time.
Two words not found in the Constitution are capitalism and corporation. I am nearly as old as Donald tiny penis and I have been a socialist since I majored in economics 60 years ago. Donald has started a class war so I say let's give it back to him. We need to have a nationwide strike for every first and third Wednesday of the month. No one works and no one shops or buys on those days. It worked for Gandhi. Spend those days doing something that you enjoy or need to catch up with at home. What are our demands: Medicare for all, subsidized health care, more green energy production, income tax equity, stabilization of social security by eliminating the income ceiling for contributions, and court reform for starters.
You assume the many people from the working classes can afford to do this. When people live paycheck to paycheck, how do they pay their rent, their mortgage, or just buy groceries? It seems there should have been a call for a mass boycott of the soccer games, as only the elite can afford to attend. Find a way to shift the burden to the more well off, instead of the lower classes. Or ask people to give up investments in the stock market.
Being a genuine hillbilly, I understand the reality of hunger and poverty. Miners were frequently moved out of company housing into the street during strikes and their credit at the company store was cancelled. The choice is short term pain for real gains versus more of the status quo. The elite are happy with the status quo so there is little chance that they will participate. The elite class uses the politics of division to maintain their elite status.
"Declaration of Independence: A Man Can't Be Too Careful What He Signs These Days" by the legendary satirist Stan Freberg. It was featured on his classic 1961 comedy album Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America, Volume One: The Early Years.
Yes but: What was left unsaid is a mention of the bottom line. If the Humanoid White House Pathogen and the Heritage Foundation choose to ignore a future election outcome or court ruling there are others who will be (& have always been) the ultimate "deciders". The real deciders are the ones with the guns. Just as it has been in many so-called "Banana Republics" it is the police and military who are the ones that actually decide. (This is why the "Republican Base" has always had a firearm fetish). They can remain passive and accept the election results or, they can choose a different result. Who will disobey the Commander in Chief when he refuses obey the courts or the voters?
Right, Bob, "the ones with guns" are not "the People" with guns, but ICE and the military which has been purged of its loyal-to-the-Constitution leaders.
"For 250 years, we have relied excessively on the hope that democratic norms largely unsupported by legal coercion would hold the system together." So very true. But also very fixable. The Framers gave Congress tremendous power over the other two branches of government through the "necessary and proper" clause. A single term Congress *effectively* using its "necessary and proper" powers could put in place all of the "legal coercion" needed to rein in both a narcissistic, sociopathic president AND corrupt, power-mad federal judges.
Especially true of the U.S. in which "We the People of the United States" established our collective sovereignty over our public servants by acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," as the Preamble highlights. The First Amendment (securing our freedom of expression, communication, association and assembly, including the right and power to vote) also evidences and secures vital aspects of our individual sovereignty over our public servants.
NOTE: Folks complain that democracy seems chaotic. What they fail to recognize is that it is only democracy's chaotic flexibility that can deal with the chaotic Universe in which we live:
* “The only constant in life is change.” – Heraclitus of Ephesus, ca. 400 BCE;
* "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one that is most adaptable to change" — Charles Darwin.
My note above, of course, explains why. Folks want their systems to be perfect, which is why WC said democracy is the worst. In large, complex systems that are generally chaotic, however, the "imperfections" are a feature that makes them robust against changes, not a bug that shows up flaws. Other forms of government try to be too perfect, which is why they work so poorly.
I am so sick and tired of hearing this trope repeated, with the implication that good governments happen to people who deserve them and bad governments only to people who do not deserve better. The statement is an abstraction tossed out like a truism, to justify the demeaning of others. How many of the people who bandy this quote around are aware that Joseph de Maistre was a monarchist who believed in a stratified society? All Humans deserve good government: that is, government who looks after the best interests of its citizens and enables them to thrive. Maistre did not have democracy in mind when he wrote that. We need to just toss that quote in the trash can where it belongs. We have a set of values that we are working toward that can create the kind of governements that honors humanity and all being. Let's keep working together to ensure that kind of government endures, grows, and becomes what we set out to create.
I have no statistics on how many people realize that de Maistre was a rabid jack-booted fascist long before Benito Mussolini coined the term. I have certainly been fully aware of it. I still trot the quote out frequently, however, because as nasty as its author was, the quote is terribly true.
From time immemorial, folks have chosen tyrannical leaders. The oldest long-form literary work still in print, The Epic of Gilgamesh, starts with the people of Uruk complaining about living under a tyrant. So, what did they do? They, of course, looked for another tyrant to live under!
In 2019 Alaa Al Aswamy published a little monograph entitled The Dictatorship Syndrome detailing how tyrannies exist with the complicity of those tyrannized. Dictatorship is a whole-of-society disorder. This is the problem that de Maistre's quote refers to. I do not know how clearly de Maistre understood the dynamic, but he clearly identified it.
Do not throw the quote out. Remember that trope about babies and bathwater.
At lease one founder raised the very points you mention. That founder was Franklin.
He had a famous quote when a woman asked him, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention something to the effect of:
"Professor Franklin, what have you given us -- a monarchy or a republic"
To which Franklin famously replied "A Republic--- if you can keep it"
A lesser known Franklin quote went to the effect that:
Our incoming President is a man of great integrity. We have no guarantee that future Presidents will be of similar integrity.
I take that to mean that the government will only be as good as the people who serve as officers in the future, and there's no way to assure that a thief or a traitor will not fill those offices.
Franklin said more the day the Constitution was signed that we would do well to bear in mind. See https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/benjamin-franklin-closing-speech-at-the-constitutional-convention:
"I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. [Sir Richard] Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho’ many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don’t know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that’s always in the right.
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected?"
Wow.
The Founders did not believe they had created a "perfect government structure." They clearly intended it to be amended and made provision for amendment. The Constitution was amended in 1791 by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. Since the the Constitution has only been amended seventeen times. The result is a rather rigid government structure that frequently does not function well. All of us probably have Constitutional provisions we believe should be changed or thown out all together. Yet, we do not make those changes!
The Constitution is not as rigid as many presume or pretend. The Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I brightly highlighted flexibility under the Constitution.
No generation could do (or could be expected to do) all the work that might be necessary to meet the exigencies of any subsequent generation. So the People in Article I vested in Congress the power (and assigned the duty) "To make all Laws" that subsequently turn out to "be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" not only all "the foregoing Powers" of Congress, but also "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The people of each generation were expected to elect people to Congress and to the presidency to enact laws that represent our interests in light of the exigencies of our time.
And those things not of the federal are reserved for the States.
Horizontal and vertical checks and balances. Not one have more power than allowed by Constitution.
This admin is trying a hostile takeover of the separation of powers. SCOTUS and Congress are assisting against each's own self-interest and Constitutional prerogatives.
Change is suppose to be hard to protect from the whims of a heated populace.
The Senate - the cooling of the heated temperament of the house. The house a close reflection of the will of the people by their constituents and subject to 2 year terms requiring renewal by the constituency - not the money brokers.
The self-benighted have flipped all of this on its head by use of any means to obtain and hold power.
The Executive power brokers of an Imperial presidency ideas are the old Tories that liked the king. America was never 100% happy with the DOI and revolution to break from Britain. The Congress makes the laws - not executive orders of a petulant man-child.
It is up to "We the People" to keep the flames of freedom to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" out of the hands of those that want to decide who is part of the franchise. This power brokers believe they get to decide contrary to the Constitution. The monopolist of economic freedom want to take your political freedoms to vote so they can continue to exploit.
Use the power vested in US, the people, to choose by voting our consent of our own governance - "Of, by, and for the people".
s/
DOI family of a signer
And the People commanded in Article VI that every public servant (state or federal) of any significance must publicly acknowledge that, in all official conduct, he or she is "bound" to "support this Constitution" as the paramount part of "the supreme Law of the Land."
So, I ask myself, why is that?
"I take that to mean that the government will only be as good as the people who serve as officers in the future, and there's no way to assure that a thief or a traitor will not fill those offices."
From another Founder, John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Adams also said this:
"There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution."
https://www.azquotes.com/author/90-John_Adams/tag/constitution
Yet. who decides which Religion? Everyone I see today wants to be exclusively "the one" instead of the many to satisfy the free will and needs of the many.
Every man must come to his own religion through his on inspection of his own heart and not though the sword of the legislative dictates (the magistrate)
(Paraphrase - John Locke, 1689 - A Letter Concerning Toleration).
There’s a reason why Franklin decided not to be a pol…..
That is not quite true. Thomas Payne said In America, the Law is the King.
Keep in mind that the Constitution only deals with issues that were salient to the Founders at the time. We are now almost 250 years later. It is virtually impossible to pass amendments. So we are stuck with the Supreme Court as interpreters and this isn't working. Expand the Court, which does not require an amendment. Yeah, then we could get into a ridiculous "arms race" over the number, but perhaps that would force a truce. Eliminate lifetime tenure. Even 18 years is too long imo. We also need to expand the House. I'd like to see reform of the Senate too, to make it at least somewhat more population based, which would require an amendment so is unlikely to happen. And eliminate the Electoral College.
Mr. Moore, I am not a religious man but I say "amen" to everything you stated. However, with the current level of division in our country right now, accomplishing any of the actions you propose may be wishful thinking but I hope not. Agreed that SOMETHING has to be done.
A change in the majority in Congress and the end to gerrymandering would be a beginning. The rest of Mr. Moore's changes would be welcome, along with kicking corporate lobbyists out of the House and Senate. No one's vote should count more (or less) than anyone else's.
Right you are, Steve.
Thanks. Having just started my 78th year, I've learned a few things.
It's amazing how much one learns after passing the 3/4 of a century mark.
Congrats. I'm behind you 5 years.
Me too.
Heather Cox Richardson, in a conversation with Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, agreed with many of your points, as do I.
That was an excellent conversation.
1st - Get money out of politics. Corporations are not people.
Money is not equal free speech.
The monopolist and oligarchs have more than their one vote per person by using money to deny, disenfranchise, challenge in court, etc. to use their excessive economic power to reduce our voting political power and buy their politicians of choice.
I can see so many parallels to what is going on in this Country to the French Revolution. Perhaps the guillotine for the fat corrupt felon?
I think those are the most common changes that experts (and perhaps the general populace also) would like to see. Another one is to make it harder to impeach someone, and simultaneously easier to convict them once impeached. A common suggestion is to require a 60% vote of the House to impeach (as opposed to a simple majority), and also 60% of the Senate to convict (versus 2/3). The raised bar in the House will help to stop frivolous impeachments by a deranged majority (as in Mayorkas, where the Senate didn't even bother to hold a trial, but rather dismissed the charges by majority vote if I recall correctly).
But of course, there are too many groups (particularly the less populous states) that have outsized power in relation to their population currently (in the Senate, the Electoral College and to a lesser degree, the House). They would be crazy to approve a change that diminishes their influence. So I think we're stuck with that for a long, long time.
Problem is, expanding the court would require 60 votes in the US Senate. That’s the requirement for cloture for normal legislation. Even if we hit on every race where we’re remotely competitive, we wouldn’t have more than ~52-53 votes. That means we’d need 7-8 Republicans to abandon what has been their party’s most important quarter-century project (capturing SCOTUS). Sorry, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. The court certainly needs reforming but doing so legislatively looks like a very heavy lift.
I especially want to see the electoral college eliminated. We are always told "one person, one vote". However, my vote does not have the same weight as someone voting in Montana. That is not a democracy! Increasing the size of the House to better represent the population also makes sense. Re: the court- I once read of a system that allowed each president two judges during each term. Judges would retire from the court using a defined time limit to allow this. Sorry I am not remembering all the details. I just know it made so much sense when I read it. Takes the politics right out of the equation!
Gotta love it. Satire is a superpower. And thanks for reminding us that we are all responsible for continuing the work of the moral and social geniuses responsible for furthering human progress. I wish that concept were engraved on each and every monument erected to anything, anywhere.
Did the Founders let us down, or is it we who have let down the Founders? All the people of that period are the Founders. The writers of the Declaration and the Constitution are the Framers. They were a small group who were trying to do something new and unheard of at the time. They realized that they could not foresee every eventuality, so they left a living document, which too many people treat as written in stone or open to twisty interpolation (especially, see the six radical Supreme Court Justices--they are NOT conservatives). It began with Thomas Jefferson, who hijacked the Electoral College, which had been proportional, and which Jefferson insisted was winner take all. See Heather Cox Richardson's discussions of this point. Much evil would have been prevented with electoral votes allocated by popular vote in each state, and likely, the electoral college would have been abolished long ago.
We need to look at what in our society allowed the emergence of Trump and MAGA and work to end what enabled them. That means looking at the grievances of people who felt left behind, the way big money is used in elections (thanks to the radical Supreme Court), the role of social media, and the decline in support for education.
Each generation must renew democracy, or it will be lost.
Yes, the constitution was meant to be a living document.Yes, the 6 justices are not conservative but radical and reactionary. They are, at least some of them, corrupt and controlled by the rich and powerful who seek to rig the system against ordinary Americans and in their favor.
Like Trump, many of the justices were hatched in a cocoon of comfort and convenience unknown to most Americans. Other justices (but certainly not all) grew into their zone of safety and stability, protected from discomfort and lack. They are out of touch with the lives and struggles of the majority of Americans, and have no idea of how much worse they are making it for us.
Very well said and correct.
Definitely on my ‘must see’ list! Thanks, Jen!
Indeed. The Founders weren't perfect men. Many didn't practice what they preached about all men being created equal, because they were slave owners. Even the mighty George Washington, who at least had the decency to free his slaves upon his death. But in defense of the founders, no one could have envisioned a complete no-account human being like Trump. He's one of a kind. He wants to go down in history, THINKS he'll go down in history, in fact. And he's right. But he'll be infamous, not the other way around. He's flirting with Hitler territory now, Putin territory, too. He's as low-life a scumbag as the United States has yet produced. May we never see another like him.
At his Mount Rushmore speech, having exhausted the threats of Socialists, he went full Joseph McCarthy on Communists. Neither are the current problem. For that, he'd have to look in the mirror at what he and his cult have spawned.
Precisely!!
Exactly! Every time he has a chance to bring America together, a concept with which he's unfamiliar, he widens the gap between rational and irrational thinkers. He could have taken a leadership role during COVID, for example, but his brain doesn't work that way. He didn't want that tied to HIM, so he could get re-elected. But his divisive rhetoric had the opposite effect and caused the needless death of hundreds of thousands. Why Americans gave him a second chance after such a disastrous first term is one of the greatest mysteries of our time. I'm trying hard not to resent those who had a hand in reinstalling him in power. But it's difficult.
For certain, Trump will go DOWN in history. Nothing he has done or is likely to do will elevate him.
It's true that blind faith in any of our purported public servants (including those of the 1780's) is about as good an idea as choosing to be actually blind. But I don't think Larry's point about the electoral college was really that the people who were morons were those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. I think his point was to ridicule (as a moron) a presidential candidate (or president) who ignored the Constitution and just presumed or pretended that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution were morons.
The Constitution includes one article expressly devoted to the presidency. It clearly highlights two things a person must do to be president: first, earn "the greatest Number of Votes" of "the Electors" in the Electoral College, and, second, swear (promise) to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," i.e., ensure that all actions as president serve one purpose: to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Constitution also made perfectly clear that it wasn't designed to be entirely democratic. And James Madison highlighted the reason in Federalist No. 10. Our Constitution was designed to protect us all from any "faction," i.e., any "majority or [even] a minority" who are "united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" as a whole. The Constitution was designed to reflect the "reason" of the People as a whole and to protect us all (including any minority) from the "passions" of any part of the People. That's part of the point of choosing representatives (including in the electoral college, as well as in Congress and even in the presidency) to represent the people as a whole.
I dunno. I think the Founders (at least some of them) were smarter than the comedian gives them credit for. And even in his declining years, Franklin was still firing on more cylinders than most of the younger men there.
We need to remember that in 1788 the 13 states were pretty independent of each other, and often times were even at each other's throats. Not directly relevant, but Ohio and MIchigan actually went to war over the strip of land where Toledo stands. So a lot of compromises were made and a lot of corners were cut in order to come up with a document and a plan that all 13 of them could tolerate-- even if they held their noses when they signed on.
IOW, sure the Constitution has flaws. Many of them, particularly regarding representation and slavery were even recognized at the time (although the latter was the unspoken elephant in the room). But those flaws were necessary in order to tame a 13-headed monster.
And they also recognized that pretty much any form of government is only as good as the people staffing it.
Franklin gave the last speech of the Convention- and it also was his last public speech before he died, although he wrote it but gave it to a colleague to be delivered. It pretty much summarizes the whole situation:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others....
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another’s Throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.
What I have loved most about our forefathers has always been their forward-thinking, trying their best to make sure we, of their future, wouldn't fall prey to the things they had to fight to get to the point of writing this wonderful piece of our history. They always knew everything, going forward, was not going to be peaches and cream and that there were going to be a lot of ruts in the road ahead. I still find it amazing that, today, the ONLY person to stand up for all our rights today is Major Jason, and I would love to see him awarded a Medal of Honor, not a prison sentence and the stripping of his rank and pay.
Maybe the Founders were old-fashioned slave owners who were more interested in protecting property and wealth than in actual one-person/one vote democracy? And the Declaration of Independence was aspirational but not necessary legally binding? And it's okay to make changes? Cause right now the US is ruled by 3 corrupted branches all in thrall to a (stupid) cult leader and with one of those branches where the majority are having seances with the founders who are astounded that there's a house slave and a woman asking for guidance?
As highlighted by Ben Franklin (quoted above) neither the Constitution nor the men responsible for writing it ever were or ever should be perceived to be perfect. That's the very reason for (at least) two whole articles, an important part of a third article, and one immediate amendment.
Article VII required our Constitution to be discussed and approved (if at all) by "the Conventions" (representing the people) of at least "nine States." Article V then emphasized that the Constitution always could be amended. In fact, the original Constitution wouldn't have been ratified if people didn't understand that it could be--and promptly would be--amended. That was what was called the Massachusetts Compromise (ratify first and then amend). Then, Amendment IX promptly highlighted that "the Constitution" never did and never could be perceived to contain a complete "enumeration" of all the "rights" that were "retained by the people."
The Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I also is a reflection of the imperfection of the Constitution. No generation could do (or could be expected to do) all the work that might be necessary to meet the exigencies of any subsequent generation. So the People in Article I vested in Congress the power (and assigned the duty) "To make all Laws" that subsequently turn out to "be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" not only all "the foregoing Powers" of Congress, but also "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The people of each generation were expected to elect people to Congress and to the presidency to enact laws that represent our interests in light of the exigencies of our time.
Two words not found in the Constitution are capitalism and corporation. I am nearly as old as Donald tiny penis and I have been a socialist since I majored in economics 60 years ago. Donald has started a class war so I say let's give it back to him. We need to have a nationwide strike for every first and third Wednesday of the month. No one works and no one shops or buys on those days. It worked for Gandhi. Spend those days doing something that you enjoy or need to catch up with at home. What are our demands: Medicare for all, subsidized health care, more green energy production, income tax equity, stabilization of social security by eliminating the income ceiling for contributions, and court reform for starters.
You assume the many people from the working classes can afford to do this. When people live paycheck to paycheck, how do they pay their rent, their mortgage, or just buy groceries? It seems there should have been a call for a mass boycott of the soccer games, as only the elite can afford to attend. Find a way to shift the burden to the more well off, instead of the lower classes. Or ask people to give up investments in the stock market.
Being a genuine hillbilly, I understand the reality of hunger and poverty. Miners were frequently moved out of company housing into the street during strikes and their credit at the company store was cancelled. The choice is short term pain for real gains versus more of the status quo. The elite are happy with the status quo so there is little chance that they will participate. The elite class uses the politics of division to maintain their elite status.
“We are totally in trouble.”
No truer words were ever spoken.
"Declaration of Independence: A Man Can't Be Too Careful What He Signs These Days" by the legendary satirist Stan Freberg. It was featured on his classic 1961 comedy album Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America, Volume One: The Early Years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOOQfGWt8Hc
All the ss's look like eff's.
A side note: Try writing the current shape of the letter 'S' with a quill pen! Disaster. A more open-form substitution of the letter was required.
Yes but: What was left unsaid is a mention of the bottom line. If the Humanoid White House Pathogen and the Heritage Foundation choose to ignore a future election outcome or court ruling there are others who will be (& have always been) the ultimate "deciders". The real deciders are the ones with the guns. Just as it has been in many so-called "Banana Republics" it is the police and military who are the ones that actually decide. (This is why the "Republican Base" has always had a firearm fetish). They can remain passive and accept the election results or, they can choose a different result. Who will disobey the Commander in Chief when he refuses obey the courts or the voters?
Right, Bob, "the ones with guns" are not "the People" with guns, but ICE and the military which has been purged of its loyal-to-the-Constitution leaders.
"For 250 years, we have relied excessively on the hope that democratic norms largely unsupported by legal coercion would hold the system together." So very true. But also very fixable. The Framers gave Congress tremendous power over the other two branches of government through the "necessary and proper" clause. A single term Congress *effectively* using its "necessary and proper" powers could put in place all of the "legal coercion" needed to rein in both a narcissistic, sociopathic president AND corrupt, power-mad federal judges.
"Every nation gets the government it deserves."
– Joseph de Maistre, 1811
Especially true of the U.S. in which "We the People of the United States" established our collective sovereignty over our public servants by acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. to "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," as the Preamble highlights. The First Amendment (securing our freedom of expression, communication, association and assembly, including the right and power to vote) also evidences and secures vital aspects of our individual sovereignty over our public servants.
NOTE: Folks complain that democracy seems chaotic. What they fail to recognize is that it is only democracy's chaotic flexibility that can deal with the chaotic Universe in which we live:
* “The only constant in life is change.” – Heraclitus of Ephesus, ca. 400 BCE;
* "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one that is most adaptable to change" — Charles Darwin.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill
My note above, of course, explains why. Folks want their systems to be perfect, which is why WC said democracy is the worst. In large, complex systems that are generally chaotic, however, the "imperfections" are a feature that makes them robust against changes, not a bug that shows up flaws. Other forms of government try to be too perfect, which is why they work so poorly.
I am so sick and tired of hearing this trope repeated, with the implication that good governments happen to people who deserve them and bad governments only to people who do not deserve better. The statement is an abstraction tossed out like a truism, to justify the demeaning of others. How many of the people who bandy this quote around are aware that Joseph de Maistre was a monarchist who believed in a stratified society? All Humans deserve good government: that is, government who looks after the best interests of its citizens and enables them to thrive. Maistre did not have democracy in mind when he wrote that. We need to just toss that quote in the trash can where it belongs. We have a set of values that we are working toward that can create the kind of governements that honors humanity and all being. Let's keep working together to ensure that kind of government endures, grows, and becomes what we set out to create.
I have no statistics on how many people realize that de Maistre was a rabid jack-booted fascist long before Benito Mussolini coined the term. I have certainly been fully aware of it. I still trot the quote out frequently, however, because as nasty as its author was, the quote is terribly true.
From time immemorial, folks have chosen tyrannical leaders. The oldest long-form literary work still in print, The Epic of Gilgamesh, starts with the people of Uruk complaining about living under a tyrant. So, what did they do? They, of course, looked for another tyrant to live under!
In 2019 Alaa Al Aswamy published a little monograph entitled The Dictatorship Syndrome detailing how tyrannies exist with the complicity of those tyrannized. Dictatorship is a whole-of-society disorder. This is the problem that de Maistre's quote refers to. I do not know how clearly de Maistre understood the dynamic, but he clearly identified it.
Do not throw the quote out. Remember that trope about babies and bathwater.
Typo: should be “jot and tittle. "
"