ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th October 2019, 09:32 PM   #41
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,255
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 10:36 PM   #42
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,712
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Responsibility does not grant authority.

While they have an oath to the Constitution (responsibility) the Constitution is not a fount of authority for them. Executive authority is vested in a president, not any subordinate office. They really don't have independent authority to act contrary to a president's direction.
I agree. What they have is a duty to do so when the President's direction is criminal or breaks the Law or runs counter to the Constitution.

Any national leader of a Democracy who has no check on his authority and who opposes, blocks and defies all attempts to check his authority, is an Autocrat by any measure you might like to mention... an Autocrat is only a step (and a very small one) away from being a Dictator.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 24th October 2019 at 10:41 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 12:12 AM   #43
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
This isn't 4chan or r/TheDonald.

Not enough dummies for that **** to work.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 25th October 2019 at 12:17 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 03:55 AM   #44
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,466
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
I've been hearing that one for literally EVER single administration since at least Reagan from the opposition party. Democrats said it about Reagan & both Bushes, Republicans said it about Clinton and Obama.

Just out of curiosity, how many of those Presidents publicaly stated multiple times that they should have their term extended beyond the Constitutional limit?
Granted, Trump has made it clear that he has no understanding of the Constitution, and his supporters later tried to pass it off as a joke, but there's a difference between "Our opponent will try to remove term limits" and "I want to remove my term limits."
Armitage72 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 04:11 AM   #45
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
2. A Senate rule that forbids the use of the nuclear option for appointing the above, and would require a very large majority (say, over 3/4) for the nominee to pass appointment.
While I generally agree with your items here, 75% would mean almost no one would ever be confirmed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 04:13 AM   #46
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
One good thing about the Trump Presidency is that it has revealed the true totalitarian nature of the Left. Red-pilled people were already aware of this, but Trump's Presidency has unmasked the Left for many normies.
Wow, you've really gone full tinfoil, there.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 04:24 AM   #47
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,299
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
While I generally agree with your items here, 75% would mean almost no one would ever be confirmed.
This was my first thought - particularly if there are any Republicans around during a Democratic administration.

Also, can we just say that, to the idiot in chief, the "deep state" is likely just any career government worker that disagrees with whatever harebrained scheme pops into his empty head?

(And he most likely picked it up from the white supremacists he surrounded himself with, since they seem to be the type to believe that the FBI, the mafia, and "financiers" ie. "the Jews", are conspiring to run a shadow government?)
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 04:29 AM   #48
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Right, in that case we should write it (((deep state))) to remove any confusion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 05:05 AM   #49
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,880
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I agree. What they have is a duty to do so when the President's direction is criminal or breaks the Law or runs counter to the Constitution.

Any national leader of a Democracy who has no check on his authority and who opposes, blocks and defies all attempts to check his authority, is an Autocrat by any measure you might like to mention... an Autocrat is only a step (and a very small one) away from being a Dictator.
No, they do not have a duty to do so....depending on a scenario.

I said they have the duty....they just lack the power to do so. If the president directs executive power to do something illegal, the officer cannot do it. However, they cannot do something else, either. The officer does not possess any executive authority under the Constitution.

All executive power is vested in the president. if the president orders that power to be used illegally, the Constitution does not transfer a shard of that power to the officer to act independently. They still lack the power to make a different decision.

And I don't care if it is an autocrat or not. I can only argue what the Constitution says. If the Constitution makes someone an autocrat, there isn't a.magical interpretation that makes that untrue.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 25th October 2019 at 05:07 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 10:38 AM   #50
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.

Discuss.
Yeah.... thats not what teh Deep State is. The Deep State is a shadow government that is above the law and weilds Orwellian power with impunity.

No thanks
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 10:40 AM   #51
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
He hasn't respected any of our other laws...a lot of people (myself included) are skeptical he will respect the Constitution term limit.
YOU are pushing the idea of the Shadow Government, all the more telling how you've read Orwell once to often.

Not Christian
Not Liberal
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 10:46 AM   #52
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Yeah.... thats not what teh Deep State is. The Deep State is a shadow government that is above the law and weilds Orwellian power with impunity.
Yeah.... thats not what teh Deep State is.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 10:51 AM   #53
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
He hasn't respected any of our other laws...a lot of people (myself included) are skeptical he will respect the Constitution term limit.
you're not alot of people.... you're one opinion... embellishment!
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 10:56 AM   #54
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
you're not alot of people....
How would you know?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:05 AM   #55
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,466
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How would you know?

Especially since, as I mentioned, Trump himself has said several times that he should get a longer term.
Armitage72 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:20 AM   #56
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wow, you've really gone full tinfoil, there.
Not really the OP did.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:22 AM   #57
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How would you know?
how would you. Always priceless when someone tries to pad their argument by posing as "a lot of people"

Give stats backing it up or go home.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:32 AM   #58
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,002
The title of this thread keeps reminding me of the distilled essence of pretty much every Holocaust conspiracy theory.

"There's no such thing as a deep state, but there should be, and I'm glad it's working!"
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:50 AM   #59
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The title of this thread keeps reminding me of the distilled essence of pretty much every Holocaust conspiracy theory.

"There's no such thing as a deep state, but there should be, and I'm glad it's working!"
In the end it was the Snowflakes who sold us out.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:54 AM   #60
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Not really the OP did.
No, not really.

So far "the left" is following the democratic procedures more than "the right".

Quote:
how would you.
Yes, that was my point, really.

Quote:
Give stats backing it up or go home.
Stats for ChristianProgressive being more than one person? How would I have that?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 11:59 AM   #61
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, not really.

So far "the left" is following the democratic procedures more than "the right".



Yes, that was my point, really.



Stats for ChristianProgressive being more than one person? How would I have that?
Seven is often the loneliest number
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 12:15 PM   #62
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,002
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
In the end it was the Snowflakes who sold us out.
I have no opinion about that.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 12:19 PM   #63
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,228
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Seven is often the loneliest number
Those are all English words but the sentence is rather nonsensical.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 01:07 PM   #64
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,995
We don't need a "deep state". We need what we have, a civil service loyal to the institutions of governmet, committed to the rule of law and willing to speak truth to power.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 01:14 PM   #65
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.

In law school, we actually discussed whether the bureaucracy formed a fourth branch of government. The belief at the time was that maybe it did. Now I think that it definitely should. The power that almost all presidents wielded was done with an eye towards tradition and propriety. A whole lot of our system really rests on the assumption that the president will behave within tolerances. Now it has been amply demonstrated that with executive orders and friendly appointments, the president has far more power than the other branches - especially in that he is able to act the most quickly.

I support limiting those powers. It's not a deep state and it's nothing new. It's just putting into law what had previously been mere tradition.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 01:16 PM   #66
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,556
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
again, assuming that he and his brownshirts respect the term limit [election].
ftfy

There's no way he could ignore term limits because most if not all states would not put him on the ballots.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 01:18 PM   #67
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,556
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Why would you worry about that? It's not as if he's repeatedly talked about how he deserves to have his term extended because everyone was so mean to him.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 02:24 PM   #68
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,067
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
As I have said before

...Courteously snipped...

4. Remove the President's power to appoint people who have not been previously approved by the Senate, as Acting heads of Departments . In the absence of such an approved person, the Deputy Head of Department will automatically assume the role of Acting head of Department until the Senate can pass a replacement.

... More courteous snipping...
Make all appointments to the President's cabinet unique to the Person / Job.
Want Joe Napalm / Secretary of Agriculture? The Senate approves her for the job.

When the position of Secretary of Defense opens up, the President can't just move Joe Napalm because she's been previously approved for Ag. Joe Napalm / Secretary of Defense must be approved by the Senate.

Just because Joe Napalm was approved for Agriculture because of her vast experience with Agriculture does not make her qualified for the Defense job.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 03:02 PM   #69
Cabbage
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Seven is often the loneliest number

Eight can be as bad as seven
It's the loneliest number since the number seven.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 03:38 PM   #70
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,216
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No, they do not have a duty to do so....

I said they have the duty
Make up your mind, do they have a duty or not?

Quote:
....they just lack the power to do so. If the president directs executive power to do something illegal, the officer cannot do it. However, they cannot do something else, either.
But not doing it is doing something else, so you are saying they have to it - even if it's illegal.

Quote:
The officer does not possess any executive authority under the Constitution.
Executive authority is not the only power.

Quote:
And I don't care if it is an autocrat or not. I can only argue what the Constitution says. If the Constitution makes someone an autocrat, there isn't a.magical interpretation that makes that untrue.
The Constitution doesn't make the president an autocrat.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 03:51 PM   #71
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The Constitution doesn't make the president an autocrat.

The problem is that the Constitution assumes the president will be an aristocrat - with all of the honor and duty felt by such men in 1789.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2019, 05:09 PM   #72
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,880
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Make up your mind, do they have a duty or not?

But not doing it is doing something else, so you are saying they have to it - even if it's illegal.

Executive authority is not the only power.

The Constitution doesn't make the president an autocrat.
The highlighted "not" is not supposed to be there.

The powers in the Constitution are countable.

Quote:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court
That is pretty much it. The executive, judicial, and legislative power is exclusively assigned. That beurocrat doesn't get any.


They probably do have to choose either to quit or do something illegal. They are not vested with any of that Constitutional power to countermand that order.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 04:12 AM   #73
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,402
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Quote:
They really don't have independent authority to act contrary to a president's direction.
I agree. What they have is a duty to do so when the President's direction is criminal or breaks the Law or runs counter to the Constitution.
They have a duty to STAY and sabotage?

Or a duty to quit and go public with (or otherwise "rat out") the crimes and illegalities they've been witness to?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 04:31 AM   #74
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,402
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
In law school, we actually discussed whether the bureaucracy formed a fourth branch of government. The belief at the time was that maybe it did. Now I think that it definitely should. The power that almost all presidents wielded was done with an eye towards tradition and propriety. A whole lot of our system really rests on the assumption that the president will behave within tolerances. Now it has been amply demonstrated that with executive orders and friendly appointments, the president has far more power than the other branches - especially in that he is able to act the most quickly.

I support limiting those powers. It's not a deep state and it's nothing new. It's just putting into law what had previously been mere tradition.
I'm not so sure the system of "separation of powers, and checks and balances" was designed with an assumption of good faith on the part of the executive branch.

Something very well might be broken in the system, but I don't think poor assumptions in design are the cause. I'm definitely not sure formally setting in stone that empowering often-secretive, unelected, and most importantly, unaccountable "bureaucrats" is the remedy.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 26th October 2019 at 05:05 AM.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 04:33 AM   #75
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,402
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The problem is that the Constitution assumes the president will be an aristocrat - with all of the honor and duty felt by such men in 1789.
I think the founders were probably assuming every president had the potential to be an aspiring monarch.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 05:11 AM   #76
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,538
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I think the founders were probably assuming every president had the potential to be an aspiring monarch.
Exactly. I think loss leader has it 100% wrong.


An example of where it was assumed that “this will all work out if people are honorable and follow tradition” is the UKs unwritten constitution
Giz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 08:16 AM   #77
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I think the founders were probably assuming every president had the potential to be an aspiring monarch.

Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 26th October 2019 at 08:17 AM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 08:33 AM   #78
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,880
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.
Why are you choosing only a subset of founders? 39 delegates signed it and they all count.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 09:40 AM   #79
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,862
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.

I disagree about Hamilton. He was super smart. But untrustworthy and a conniving almost psycho SOB. You should read John Adams letters. Hamilton was his Vice President and he thought Hamilton was a sleazy snake with aspirations of making himself the American monarch.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2019, 09:44 AM   #80
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,862
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The problem is that the Constitution assumes the president will be an aristocrat - with all of the honor and duty felt by such men in 1789.
I wouldn't say that's true at all. Hoped at best.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.