5 ms·

For some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax che

For some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax cheats, drunks, and racists. Nor were they particularly great political scientists: all of their main goals (no political parties! Congress acting on a check on the President!) fell by the wayside, and the rickety mess that is the Constitution has only survived because of a lack of threatening national competitors within a couple thousand miles of our borders.

influx 7y ago
And yet it is the oldest existing nation with a constitutional government in which the people elect their own government and representatives. It's always been a work in progress and always will be.
- harry8 7y ago
  Is it? Really? Hasn't the U.K. been a constitutional monarchy since 1688 or so? I totally accept it if we're only counting from the start of true universal adult suffrage, including women and taking no account of melanin content of skin - whoever is first on that deserves it be known widely for their national pride. Was that the USA?
  - wyre 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage UK has had universal suffrage since 1928. It looks like Finland was the first in 1904.
    - harry8 7y ago
      Hey thanks. Go the Finns! Rah! Edit: New Zealand 1893. Go the Kiwis! Ka Mate!
    - anthm1988 7y ago
      and the US didn't have universal suffrage until the 1960s. Arguably we still don't, given what the republicans have done to subvert democracy in Florida.
- scarmig 7y ago
  The US can't realistically be considered an elected government until, optimistically, the 1960s. If you want to grant the US a couple centuries worth of mulligans, you can do the same with, at the very least, the UK, and arguably some other countries like Switzerland. And you ignore the other key point, which is that the US had no real national competitors near its borders, while other countries whose stability you discount did. That's the key point to American stability, not any world historical genius in drafting the Constitution.
- anthm1988 7y ago
  Except we allowed progress to stall and now claim that's a virtue. America is by far the oldest nation with a presidency, and it's finally starting to collapse.
philwelch 7y ago
Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President?
- scarmig 7y ago
  See: impeachment proceedings. Concretely, the Trump administration ignored Congressional subpoenas, among other things, in clear acts of obstruction of justice in a way that undermined Congressional authority. Also see, for instance, his treatment of tax returns. Partisan polarization has made the idea of interbranch checks and balances defunct.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    The courts never made a ruling on whether those Congressional subpoenas were legally binding—in fact, when one of the people subpoenaed tried to take that question to federal court, the House instead chose to withdraw the subpoena. I’m also not sure what Trump’s tax returns have to do with checks and balances between the Congress and the President. Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President simply does not square up with such things as the government shutdowns of 2013, 2018, and 2018/19, the Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, and it only goes on from there. Partisan polarization has made the checks and balances between the two elected branches more, not less relevant.
    - anthm1988 7y ago
      If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president. > Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        > If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president Sure they can. They can refuse to confirm his appointments, they can pass laws with a large enough supermajority to override his veto, and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority. > What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments. Thus disproving this notion that Congress is powerless against the President. The President has the constitutional power to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.

influx 7y ago

And yet it is the oldest existing nation with a constitutional government in which the people elect their own government and representatives. It's always been a work in progress and always will be.

harry8 7y ago
Is it? Really? Hasn't the U.K. been a constitutional monarchy since 1688 or so? I totally accept it if we're only counting from the start of true universal adult suffrage, including women and taking no account of melanin content of skin - whoever is first on that deserves it be known widely for their national pride. Was that the USA?
- wyre 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage UK has had universal suffrage since 1928. It looks like Finland was the first in 1904.
  - harry8 7y ago
    Hey thanks. Go the Finns! Rah! Edit: New Zealand 1893. Go the Kiwis! Ka Mate!
  - anthm1988 7y ago
    and the US didn't have universal suffrage until the 1960s. Arguably we still don't, given what the republicans have done to subvert democracy in Florida.
scarmig 7y ago
The US can't realistically be considered an elected government until, optimistically, the 1960s. If you want to grant the US a couple centuries worth of mulligans, you can do the same with, at the very least, the UK, and arguably some other countries like Switzerland. And you ignore the other key point, which is that the US had no real national competitors near its borders, while other countries whose stability you discount did. That's the key point to American stability, not any world historical genius in drafting the Constitution.
anthm1988 7y ago
Except we allowed progress to stall and now claim that's a virtue. America is by far the oldest nation with a presidency, and it's finally starting to collapse.

philwelch 7y ago

Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President?

scarmig 7y ago
See: impeachment proceedings. Concretely, the Trump administration ignored Congressional subpoenas, among other things, in clear acts of obstruction of justice in a way that undermined Congressional authority. Also see, for instance, his treatment of tax returns. Partisan polarization has made the idea of interbranch checks and balances defunct.
- philwelch 7y ago
  The courts never made a ruling on whether those Congressional subpoenas were legally binding—in fact, when one of the people subpoenaed tried to take that question to federal court, the House instead chose to withdraw the subpoena. I’m also not sure what Trump’s tax returns have to do with checks and balances between the Congress and the President. Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President simply does not square up with such things as the government shutdowns of 2013, 2018, and 2018/19, the Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, and it only goes on from there. Partisan polarization has made the checks and balances between the two elected branches more, not less relevant.
  - anthm1988 7y ago
    If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president. > Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Not a check so much as a complete refusal to perform constitutional duty. What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      > If those subpoenas aren't valid, then congress cannot possible act as a check on the president Sure they can. They can refuse to confirm his appointments, they can pass laws with a large enough supermajority to override his veto, and they can even remove him from office with a Senate supermajority. > What McConnell did was subvert the process of checks and balances to remove the presidents ability to make appointments. Thus disproving this notion that Congress is powerless against the President. The President has the constitutional power to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to have a good reason to withhold that consent.