2 ms·
The Senate confirmation process has worked both for and against Presidents. This was a powerful argument during the ratification debates and the Anti-Federalist
by SllX 6y ago
The Senate confirmation process has worked both for and against Presidents. This was a powerful argument during the ratification debates and the Anti-Federalists were an important faction (if you could call them a faction anyway, it’s more than just the people that wrote these papers), but history has proven the President isn’t a King. Even the public discourse criticizing the excesses of Bush II, Obama and Trump have been important to curtailing those abuses, and unlike Kings, Presidents have term limits: 4 years, and then America decides if it still wants your leadership, like clockwork.
Thanks to people like the Anti-Federalists, both the writers behind the papers and the larger segment of society that was against the Constitution, a Bill of Rights was promised during the ratification debates, and then drafted and passed by the Congress and then ratified by sufficient States. The system works, better than we sometimes like to give it credit for.
EDIT: fixed wording
- ericbarrett 6y agoGreat insight, thank you.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> a Bill of Rights was promised during the ratification debates, and then drafted and ratified by the Congress Well, Articles 2-12 of the proposed Bill of Rights were ratified by the States (Congress proposes amendments but does not ratify them), though Article 2 only after quite an extended period had elapsed from it's proposal.
- SllX 6y ago> Congress proposes amendments but does not ratify them Right you are. I took a poor shortcut in my writing, but I’ve gone back and fixed the wording.