Unfortunately they may not have accounted for the future where lawyering became so extreme that one can weasel themselves out of any situation if it can be argued enough what the word 'the' means. If a given person, as a President, has to actually ask himself 'will this $thing violate the constitution', it's probably a pretty good chance that he shouldn't be doing $thing.I am not a fan of playing founding father ouija as some people are, especially considering as a group the 'founding fathers' had hugely varying ideas on not only the purpose of government, but even what various parts of the Constitution meant. For example, plenty of the founding fathers thought a bill of rights was unnecessary because those rights were implicit in the original document. Clearly everyone did not agree on that, haha.
That being said, the document as a whole is for the most part insanely vague. For example, while the president lacks an apparent limiting power on pardoning, he's also tasked with ensuring that the laws are 'faithfully executed'. Does pardoning people who violate the Constitution violate that aspect of his duties? Maybe! I think for the most part they viewed the Constitution as an overarching statement of principles that would be filled in by laws and norms, a lot like how the UK functions. (the UK has no constitution, it's all basically laws and norms) So, did they collectively or in some plurality think the pardon power should be unlimited? I have no idea. Personally I don't really care either as they've been dead for several centuries and this is a government for the living, not the dead.
More and more I'd rather have the government the founding fathers envisioned. And before @agent00f et. al. go apeshit on me, I don't think that the Republican party is remotely close to any path (or genuine desire to be) there.
I am not a fan of playing founding father ouija as some people are, especially considering as a group the 'founding fathers' had hugely varying ideas on not only the purpose of government, but even what various parts of the Constitution meant. For example, plenty of the founding fathers thought a bill of rights was unnecessary because those rights were implicit in the original document. Clearly everyone did not agree on that, haha.
That being said, the document as a whole is for the most part insanely vague. For example, while the president lacks an apparent limiting power on pardoning, he's also tasked with ensuring that the laws are 'faithfully executed'. Does pardoning people who violate the Constitution violate that aspect of his duties? Maybe! I think for the most part they viewed the Constitution as an overarching statement of principles that would be filled in by laws and norms, a lot like how the UK functions. (the UK has no constitution, it's all basically laws and norms) So, did they collectively or in some plurality think the pardon power should be unlimited? I have no idea. Personally I don't really care either as they've been dead for several centuries and this is a government for the living, not the dead.
I sort of agree, but mostly because the idea of founding fathers Ouija mostly helps me separate the function of the judiciary and the legislature to modify how the Constitution works in practice.
But I also kind of like the vagueness of it. The appeal to me is the power and need for individuals to be active in their own government and understand the workings of it and act responsibly to both aid and limit it. We have completely lost that and function somewhere between a republic and oligarchy. So I have mostly abandoned that ideal.
I have to say I think the founding fathers pretty explicitly set things up to be an oligarchy of sorts; that's why the Senate and Presidency were originally elected exclusively through votes of the elites. It's hard to square the idea that they built a government on the principle of individual agency in governance when they took so many steps to deliberately prevent most individuals from exercising that agency in a meaningful way.
They also thought that we should only let some people vote. Not everyone was allowed to vote like they are today. It was not just people of color and women that were excluded.
In practice I agree, although the individual states excluded them, not the Constitution. Still, they certainly had full knowledge of who was allowed to vote in their states and chose not to expand the franchise in the Constitution so yes, it stands to reason at least most of them agreed that (in a broad sense) poor people, minorities, and women shouldn't vote.
This is another reason why basing our understanding of government on what people thought several centuries ago is probably a bad idea.
I have to say I think the founding fathers pretty explicitly set things up to be an oligarchy of sorts; that's why the Senate and Presidency were originally elected exclusively through votes of the elites. It's hard to square the idea that they built a government on the principle of individual agency in governance when they took so many steps to deliberately prevent most individuals from exercising that agency in a meaningful way.
Kind of disagree. For example if the court swings and overthrows Roe V Wade, it is in effect making law. From my perspective, they are the only entity that really makes law, at least on the important issues.
This is another knot that Congress should be adding to the yarn of high crimes and threats to democratic institutions of the USA that Trump is brazenly spinning, and would be yet another argument for impeachment, all on its own, even though we already have perhaps a ~dozen of them.
This alone is alarming abuse of power....but Congress still does nothing. So petty, these little babies. LoL--simply imagine if the Black Man had done a mere 30% of the vile things that Trump has already done! The pubs would have firey crosses lit up all over the country!
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.Funny how we choose to idealize or devalue the past or future, but when you explore it becomes abundantly clear that people are a combination of enlightened ideals and corrupt bullshit, always have been always will be.
More and more I'd rather have the government the founding fathers envisioned. And before @agent00f et. al. go apeshit on me, I don't think that the Republican party is remotely close to any path (or genuine desire to be) there.
Lol wut? When did I get ready to shill for Trump but then stopped when I learned about Arpaio? My first post in this thread was saying that pardons are a good thing when used by good people, and that what Trump did is the exact reason we need to elect better people. I do believe your memory has failed you again.
I wonder if you are a paid Russian troll?
Always so funny when your sort pretend to be totally-not-conservative. Keep in mind how hard you were parroting the party line in that nazi/klan thread.
In practice I agree, although the individual states excluded them, not the Constitution. Still, they certainly had full knowledge of who was allowed to vote in their states and chose not to expand the franchise in the Constitution so yes, it stands to reason at least most of them agreed that (in a broad sense) poor people, minorities, and women shouldn't vote.
This is another reason why basing our understanding of government on what people thought several centuries ago is probably a bad idea.
Sure, just like chucky et al whine about the GOP all the time but can be counted on to vote the right way when it counts. Funny how it seems like half the right wing proclaim to be totally-not-conservative.
If im not mistaken, wasnt it fairly common for only land owners to be allowed to vote? Im assuming their loophole was that only men/white men could own land, effectively excluding everyone else. But I can see an argument being made that only those who own land can vote, obviously without the restrictions of who can buy land.
“Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?”
Yes, land ownership (well, property ownership, which could be a few different things) was the usual metric. Ben Franklin had a pretty good argument as to why land ownership as a requirement was a bad idea though, or at least it is commonly attributed to him:
They also thought that we should only let some people vote. Not everyone was allowed to vote like they are today. It was not just people of color and women that were excluded.
True, but they knew that the states were going to do that very early. States were limiting voting rights very early on, and it was generally accepted as perfectly fine. Which is to say that we did not have voting like people think we did where only people of color and women could not vote. Thinking the founders got everything right is crazy. We have to do is pick and examine what arguments support their actions.
Very interesting. I would love to hear the counter argument to that from those who it was said to. I had not considered that argument before, what about all the people in Texas who lost their homes due to the hurricane? If property ownership were the sole requirement for voting, I can easily see it affecting lots and lots of people unjustly. I guess I have more to think about.
Thank you
The counter-argument is that if you look at the people who vote today, most of them are jackasses. Accordingly, Franklin's rhetorical question has now been answered. The jackasses won the franchise.
So what? We have a better chance of living up to their ideals & forming a more perfect Union than they did.
Trump is a billionaire and owns many properties and he's the biggest jackass I've ever known, had the ownership requirement still been in effect you'd still have jackasses voting.
A functioning democracy requires a well informed public, it is this requirement I think the founding fathers failed to realize. Part of the constitution should have addressed that issue (although the general welfare clause could be the basis for it atv the federal level).
Perhaps Trump should think of things like that when he screws over Ryan and McConnell like he did yesterday. At what point is the GOP congressional leadership going to decide they've had enough of Trump and would prefer Pence? As you said, there are already plenty of credible grounds for impeachment.