Trump has made my political science students skeptical — of the Constitution

[NotreDame]

Double post

 

[NotreDame]

Double post

 

[NotreDame]

The point is that the authors of the Constitution did not foresee that Congress would fail to perform its oversight duties and did not include additional checks. So yes, the failure is with Congress, but ultimately, Congress is established by the Constitution along with all of the other checks and balances in our political system, so the root failure is still in the Constitution.

I disagree with your assessment. The framers very likely did foresee a Congress not acting since, after all, the proverbial “checks” given to Congress aren’t mandates but discretionary powers. It is difficult to conclude the framers did not foresee Congress not acting when vesting to Congress discretionary powers and “checks.” And it is most prudent to provide that discretion to Congress as opposed to mandating when to act.

The discretionary power being the most prudent approach, how is such a prudent approach a “failure”?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The kids get it.

"We think our fathers fools,
So wise we grow
Our wiser sons, no doubt,
Will think us so"

Alexander Pope

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I disagree with your assessment. The framers very likely did foresee a Congress not acting since, after all, the proverbial “checks” given to Congress aren’t mandates but discretionary powers. It is difficult to conclude the framers did not foresee Congress not acting when vesting to Congress discretionary powers and “checks.” And it is most prudent to provide that discretion to Congress as opposed to mandating when to act.

The discretionary power being the most prudent approach, how is such a prudent approach a “failure”?

When the primary motivation for inaction is political expediency, I fail to see the purpose of allowing discretion.

 

[Silmarien]

In the context of American politics, it is specific. Only really in Europe & Oceania is there a facade of different democratic parties. Was when you said that anti-democratic sentiment had been vindicated.

It's not very specific even in the context of American politics. There are different wings within the Democratic Party, and plenty of people who are there by default simply because there's no other option in a two party system. I have no particular love for the Democratic Party, but in New York you can only vote in a primary if you are a member of the party. (That is different in other states.)

My comment about anti-democratic sentiment referred to the mistrust of populism that is present throughout the Federalist Papers. The founders were very leery of direct democracy and the ways in which a democracy can be hijacked by a demagogue. Trump is not the first demagogue we've had in the US, but he's a pretty on point modern demonstration of the concerns they had about populism.

Well California being the most fertile state in the nation, having a large debt affecting the other states in the union, subsides or otherwise. But a large political block vote. At 40 million people looking at a fair size European country level, but with no where near amount of land or resources California has. Could become it's own nation the NCD New Californian Democracy, or something. Smaller parties would have more say.

Eh, I would not shed any tears if the United States did break up into a handful of smaller nations, though I'm not sure that would actually solve any problems. There are rural conservative communities in California that are opposed to the state's policies, just as there are liberal and progressive communities in conservative states. Disagreements would simply manifest one level down.

Smaller parties do have plenty of say in the United States, however. Our Congress was intentionally set up to favor them--each state has two Senators, regardless of population, so proportionally speaking, the people of California have significantly less of a voice in politics than the people of a less populous state.

"We don't have a common goal anymore" So the common goal was to decide federal or state? That's more of a decision for the elite interests at the time.

What should a common goal be now?

No, there has never been consensus on to what degree power should be centralized--hence my comment about that debate going back to Hamilton and Jefferson. But we've got a climate right now where each side believes that the other is out to destroy their way of life, and as far as I can tell, both are correct in this belief.

 

[Sparagmos]

Okay. Great. But your comment said something different.

Now, let’s get to the central issue. You say “The constitution intended to safeguard, with checks and balances, against corruption.“ How do you know? Because, when I read the Constitution, I cannot find any language addressing “corruption.”

Of course, the failure to use the word “corruption” doesn’t necessarily mean the Constitution doesn’t have as its feature a “safeguard” against corruption. Perhaps the structure of the government in the constitution creates or has as a feature of its structure a “safeguard” against corruption. I’m not convinced, however, the Constitution has a “safeguard” against corruption.

So, explain to me how the Constitutional “checks and balances” creates a feature, specifically a safeguard, against corruption? And let’s be clear as to what the phrase “checks and balances” doesn’t appear in the Constitution. What the Constitution creates is what is determinative.

The phrase “checks and balances” must refer to what the text of the Constitution creates, and logically refers to the creation of three, independent, branches of government, with each branch having delegated to it certain and specific powers to exclusively exercise that the other branches of government may not exercise, with each branch given a power to potentially limit another branch of government.

Hence, the power to declare war and mobilize the militia, and armed forces, is reserved to Congress and a check on executive power to wage and engage in war. The power of the purse and requirement to fund the armed forces on a biannual basis by Congress is a potential check on the executive branch as commander in chief. Appointing ambassadors, cabinet members, etcetera, by the executive branch, is limited by the advise and consent, and vote to occur in the Senate.

Executive veto power is a potential check on Congressional law making power. Commander in chief is a limit on Congressional power to dictate and determine how the armed forces are to be used while engaged in war.

The power of judicial review is a potential limit on the other two branches of government vested to the judiciary.

So, how exactly do the “checks and balances,” as described above, in the Constitution, create a safeguard against corruption?

One more final point.



An “opening for corruption”? Well, an “opening for corruption” is not the equivalent of corruption, and according to you, and suggested by the author, the Constitution “safeguards”’against the latter.

So, it seems to me, yourself, the students, and the misguided author of the article who is apparently misguiding the leaders of tomorrow, have jumped the gun! There presently not being “corruption” but a mere “opening for corruption” to occur, it seems to me then the allegedly failed safeguard hasn’t failed yet!

I didn’t read this whole post because it’s really long and I think your beef is with the students perspective here, which I didn't even say I agreed with! I haven’t read the federalist papers and my original comment here was in response to another poster who seemed to misunderstand what divestment means.

Edit: I did go back and read your whole post. AFAIK, the intention of preventing corruption through the checks and balances in the constitution is stated in the federalist papers. Did you even read the link in the OP?

 

[Sparagmos]

Liquidate your assets and buy US SAVINGS BONDS, then we can all be sure that you’d like to be around, in seven years, to roll them over!

Great idea.

 

[NotreDame]

I didn’t read this whole post because it’s really long and I think your beef is with the students perspective here, which I didn't even say I agreed with! I haven’t read the federalist papers and my original comment here was in response to another poster who seemed to misunderstand what divestment means.

Edit: I did go back and read your whole post. AFAIK, the intention of preventing corruption through the checks and balances in the constitution is stated in the federalist papers. Did you even read the link in the OP?

But you haven’t read the Federalist Papers, including number 55 cited to by the author. I’ve read number 55 of the Federalist Papers. It is accurate to say the author’s students have based some of their skepticism on an inaccurate reading of Federalist number 55.

You did say, however, checks and balances in the Constitution to safeguard against corruption was “clear to you.” You said, “This is clear to me. The constitution intended to safeguard, with checks and balances, against corruption.” Those remarks were made in response to the comments in the OP and a specific part of the article.

But if I’m questioning the veracity of the claims in the article itself, does it make sense to refer back to the content of the article as an adequate reply or rebuttal?

 

[NotreDame]

NVm

 

[RichardY]

No, there has never been consensus on to what degree power should be centralized--hence my comment about that debate going back to Hamilton and Jefferson. But we've got a climate right now where each side believes that the other is out to destroy their way of life, and as far as I can tell, both are correct in this belief.

The FBI is Federal by definition. The CIA is the epitome of centralisation. There was enough consensus for that to occur.

There is something termed "The Tech Singularity" where society moves towards eusocial selection and hive structure. It's antithesis is the "Human Singularity", or Omega point, where society moves towards prosocial selection.

 

[NotreDame]

When the primary motivation for inaction is political expediency, I fail to see the purpose of allowing discretion.

The purpose in allowing discretion is because the framers widely understood, not being omniscient, they couldn’t foresee every circumstance in the future
in which a response by Congress was prudent or imprudent. Inaction because of political expedience may be prudent, maybe not, and the people in the BEST position to decide are those living in the moment, who are better aware of and exposed to all the factors, political atmosphere, and facts, as opposed to a bunch of people no longer alive, several centuries dead, and not living in the moment, not in the best position to determine whether to act in the moment.

Wisely, the framers chose to pass of the sailing of the ship, and its direction, to the discretion of the living, as opposed to having the rutter frozen and the ship’s course already plotted through a set of circumstances in which the course of the ship is determined by dead men not living in the moment of the circumstances but are two centuries and some change dead.

That’s the purpose for discretion.

 

[variant]

The failure is with congress, that has oversight, not with the constitution.

The Constitution has failed to strike a balance that favors civic duty of oversight over political expediency.

There are other issues to be sure.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Inaction because of political expedience may be prudent, maybe not, and the people in the BEST position to decide are those living in the moment, who are better aware of and exposed to all the factors, political atmosphere, and facts, as opposed to a bunch of people no longer alive, several centuries dead, and not living in the moment, not in the best position to determine whether to act in the moment.

But the reason why it's a matter of political expedience in the first place is because Congress has discretion.

In other words, if the ONLY reason you can come up with for not making a decision is "it will hurt my party's chances of winning the next election," then perhaps you shouldn't have to make that decision. If the decision isn't yours, then there's no reason not to do it.

 

[Ringo84]

He's shown that our entire government is based on an honor system that's as constraining as wet tissue paper. All it takes is one determined fascistic narcissist to just not care what rules he breaks, and a spineless Democratic leadership that wrings its hands and tut tuts without doing much meaningful work to stop it, for our country to go down the drain.

It's really ironic. Because I have a memory longer than a goldfish's, I remember how people were hyperventilating about Obama supposedly viewing himself as a dictator because of made up nonsense like Jade Helm, fake birth certificates and gun grabbing.

Now a real would-be dictator has assumed office and is holding kids in concentration camps, and the same self-professed lovers of the Constitution have nothing to say (unless they're licking the boots of Dear Leader Trump).

It's almost like those kind of people have been arguing in bad faith for a while....
Ringo

 

[cow451]

The FBI is Federal by definition. The CIA is the epitome of centralisation. There was enough consensus for that to occur.

There is something termed "The Tech Singularity" where society moves towards eusocial selection and hive structure. It's antithesis is the "Human Singularity", or Omega point, where society moves towards prosocial selection.

Federal?
I heard from my Trump loyalist friends, the F was for “Fake”.