• @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    847 minutes ago

    My teacher in middle school did specifically call out that it would take a project over several decades to co-opt the system.

    Well, they’ve been going after the judgeships for decades.

  • @TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Checks and balances wasn’t about avoiding fascism.

    It was to make sure all three branches of governments stayed in power over the body politic.

    And they still are in power.

  • @_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    163 hours ago

    When I was growing up, they told us the US was the greatest country in the world. Now that I’m older, I realize it’s one of the worst in the Western world in nearly every statistic.

  • @AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    406 hours ago

    Maybe it’s time you guys rewrote your constitution into something more modern instead of treating the old one as a holy scripture handed down from Olympus.

    But I doubt that’ll ever happen.

  • RubberDuck
    link
    fedilink
    268 hours ago

    A lot of people are being shown that a lot of stuff that kept their country going was decorum, shame and tradition, not rule of law.

    • @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      146 minutes ago

      Interesting take on The Social Contract.

      But basically when your entire socoety is disingenuous to some extent, shit falls apart eventually.

  • @UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    34
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Regulatory capture and citizens united both exist to undo those checks and balances. No system is immune to corruption.

    • @yeahiknow3
      link
      12
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Interestingly the US system was always more vulnerable to corruption, and everyone knew it. Our executive branch is far too powerful. That’s why when the US has engaged in nation building they never install governments like ours. Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc. the pentagon always insists on a parliamentary system, because they’re better in every way (less prone to grid lock, less prone to tyranny of the minority, weaker executive, etc.).

    • @yeahiknow3
      link
      7
      edit-2
      32 minutes ago

      Don’t forget they were also terrified of democracy. The Senate is one of the most comically anti-democratic institutions ever concocted. Wyoming has as much power as California. I mean it beggars belief that anyone but a complete imbecile could agree to something like that.

      • @Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        23 hours ago

        The founding fathers were correct. A pure democracy is also known as mob rule. Anytime you can get 51% to agree with you, you can do whatever you like.

        If 51% vote to take the homes of black people, that’s decided and done.

        Which is why modern democracies are all some form of representative democracy. Which in theory is supposed to act as a sort of check and balance on the system.

        • @Charapaso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          13 minutes ago

          I’m not following your argument, though I am slightly drunk. The disproportionate representation that’s the focus of the post means that less than 51% of the populace could wield the levers of power in the Senate. That’s minority rule, which is even worse than mob rule.

          I get that mob rule is bad, and that we need checks in place to curb the possibility of abuses of power, but I see that as necessitating laws for super majorities and ranked choice or other ways of ensuring less extreme representatives getting into power.

      • @greedytacothief@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        35 hours ago

        It’s not democratic from a person level, but it is more democratic from a state level. At the time they hadn’t quite figured out if they wanted to be a country or a collection of states that sometimes work together.

        • @yeahiknow3
          link
          2
          edit-2
          23 minutes ago

          Democracy is a system of government whose power is vested by the people (“demos”). Notice that the Senate does not legislate on behalf of people. Instead, it represents the interests of random land masses (clusters of zip codes). It is as stupid as it sounds and the exact opposite of democracy.

          One of the main arguments by Senate proponents during the US founding was that democracy was unacceptable. “Government by the people for the people? What gives these people the right…” etcetera. If you want quotes I’ll dig them up, but that’s the vibe.

          “Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. […]

          No. In fact, two democracies have never gone to war with each other. Why would they?

          Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man’s life or property will be secure." - John Adams (1807)

          Ah, redistribution of wealth and moral progress, terrifying. In case it’s not obvious from these pathetic quotes, John Adams was a moron.

        • Rhaedas
          link
          fedilink
          14 hours ago

          The first two political parties were formed around that very debate.

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      14 hours ago

      But they got it started and we changed some things. We just didn’t change enough, or perhaps changed the wrong things.