politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If you read Washington's Farewell Address, the section where he warns about the dangers of party politics sounds to a modern ear like he is talking specifically about Trump.
Did he and his founding father co-authors have uncanny foresight? The truth is simpler than that. They lived their lives up to that point under oppressive authoritarian rulers.
They were describing the evils they knew from experience. The reason it sounds like Trump to us is that he's the evil we know from experience.
They read a lot of history, particularly the english civil war, the roman civil wars. They were aware of the limitations of democracy and the vulnerability to demagogues, but they still thought it was superior to monarchy, "if you can keep it".
Maybe, but the Founding Fathers were kind of naive when it came to how the politics of the system they designed would play out. The Constitution is an imperfect document written by imperfect people who didn't understand that political parties would form or what positions the political opposition should take.
That being said, the Founding Fathers thought there would likely be a new constitution within a lifetime.
The founding fathers can't really be spoken about as if they're one person. They disagreed with each other just like you'd expect. Some were probably more naive than others.
At least some of the founding fathers did understand political parties and that they would form. Some of them were against political parties, yes, especially George Washington, but the first American political parties were established during Washington's tenure as president. Everybody knew it would happen, but many of them tried their best to stop political party formation. That's why Washington talked about it in his farewell address that I mentioned.
The idea that the founding fathers believed a new constitution would come within a lifetime is just a misconception as far as I can tell. One founding father, Thomas Jefferson wrote about how a constitution lasts 19 years, and would only last longer due to force. But I don't think any of the founding fathers, even Jefferson, really believed we'd have a new constitution within that time. In fact, when that time limit expired, Jefferson himself was the sitting president. Did he really think he was only president due to his use of force at that time? I suspect not.
And it took over 5 years for all of the states to ratify the constitution that they came up with. I think a person experiencing this would feel in their bones that Constitutions were expected to last a long time.
Isn't the US constitution the first written constitution in the world? (besides the 10 commandments, if that counts) It may look outdated today, but it was a great legal innovation at the time and influenced world history up to today.
It depends on how you look at the Articles of Confederation, another American basic law which was replaced by the Constitution.
Also, it isn't me saying that the Constitution wasn't a big deal. It is just me pushing against the deification of the document.
Yes, I agree that it should not be taken as dogma, but there is some value in having some good faith well though out cross-generational legal inertia that evolves slowly with culture and technological developments over time...which would be the job of SCOTUS.