5 ms·

This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; because the framers knew that every organiza

This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. Any system of governance that depends on an unbroken chain of good people is bound to fail, and fail much sooner rather than later. The only sustainable safeguard against it is to make sure that said system of governance is limited in what it can do.

vkou 3y ago
> This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; > because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. That doesn't logically follow, given that the state governments can exercise more than just enumerated powers. And at the moment, quite a few of them are really, really fucking evil, with a few more being highly corrupt. It makes a lot more sense when you view that separation of power as a compromise made to deal with the problem <one 'evil, corrupt'[1] federal organization in conflict with another 'evil, corrupt'[1] state organization>[2] as opposed to some weird conflict between <'evil, corrupt' federal government versus the people (but the 'evil, corrupt' state governments get a free pass or something..?)>. The question of 'who gets residual powers' isn't some 250 IQ bit of brilliant statesmanship and foresight, it's a just a decision that quite honestly, has gone either way in plenty of different countries, and none of them are in any quantifiable way worse off for it. [1] Your words, not mine. I think it's a pretty childish moniker devoid of all nuance, but when in Rome... [2] Which is actually the lens through which the founders viewed things. [3] [3] And they have been proven so, so wrong by history. As it turns out, in a high-speed communication society, party unity tends to override these kind of extra-organizational struggles. It's why the party of states rights complaints incessantly about federal tyranny, but only when it doesn't control the presidency.
- 4RealFreedom 3y ago
  The federal government's powers are enumerated while everything else is left to the states. You may not like that the OP presented the federal government as corrupt but that doesn't negate the point. There is no accountability at the federal level. The federal government has turned into a mess of alphabet agencies whose sole purpose is to grow. They are not elected but write the laws. Congress has abducted their responsibility. There is recourse at the state level.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > Congress has abducted their responsibility Because it's happy with that state of affairs, and you keep voting them in. > There is recourse at the state level. No, there isn't. Not at the state level, nor at a more local level. We're at a point where even municipalities aren't able to rein in their police departments!
    - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
      > Because it's happy with that state of affairs All it will take is an embarrassing data breach like Bork's video rental records and they'll pass legislation to cover their asses.
      - vkou 3y ago
        They won't care. They'll spin it as fake news, a political attack against them. I believe the phrase of the day is 'Election Interference'. The thing with being shameless is that scandal rolls off you like water off a duck's back.
    - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
      > you keep voting them in I do not keep voting these people in. > municipalities aren't able to rein in their police departments Where are you seeing this? Seems like there's been fairly significant changes and individual officers are being held accountable. I'm genuinely curious if you have examples. I believe you can more easily push change at the local level. Our federal government is a monstrous, unstoppable force.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. This is false. America was reconceived as a country where the federal government had enumerated powers because it started as one where the federal government had no powers and could only act by ad hoc unanimity of the constituent states, and that failed hard, and the particular idea of, and particular set of, enumerated powers chosen was a compromise among the Framers who were called to fix the failing system, and whose preferences ranged from a much more powerful central government (the Hamilton and, less extremely, Pinkney plans) to a vastly less powerful one (the New Jersey plan), and did not represent a shared common vision, contrary to the later-constructed mythology. Taking this mythological common vision, and then constructiong a rationalization for it, and then presenting it as the original plan of government for America falsely projects into a hotly debated contentious compromise created to deal with particular exigencies arising under the earlier plan into a kind of perfect divine revelation of government, which it very much was not and was not viewed as by participants in the process.
- largbae 3y ago
  Great stuff... Now knowing what you do, could you speculate how would the current powers of the intelligence committee be viewed by the participants in that process?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    I think the general opinion would be, to borrow from King Louis’ Head (by way of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda): “Do what you want, I’m super dead”. Though, among those regarded as Founding Fathers, that might be most particularly the view of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” (Letter to James Madison, Paris, Sep. 6, 1789)

vkou 3y ago

> This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; > because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. That doesn't logically follow, given that the state governments can exercise more than just enumerated powers. And at the moment, quite a few of them are really, really fucking evil, with a few more being highly corrupt. It makes a lot more sense when you view that separation of power as a compromise made to deal with the problem <one 'evil, corrupt'[1] federal organization in conflict with another 'evil, corrupt'[1] state organization>[2] as opposed to some weird conflict between <'evil, corrupt' federal government versus the people (but the 'evil, corrupt' state governments get a free pass or something..?)>. The question of 'who gets residual powers' isn't some 250 IQ bit of brilliant statesmanship and foresight, it's a just a decision that quite honestly, has gone either way in plenty of different countries, and none of them are in any quantifiable way worse off for it. [1] Your words, not mine. I think it's a pretty childish moniker devoid of all nuance, but when in Rome... [2] Which is actually the lens through which the founders viewed things. [3] [3] And they have been proven so, so wrong by history. As it turns out, in a high-speed communication society, party unity tends to override these kind of extra-organizational struggles. It's why the party of states rights complaints incessantly about federal tyranny, but only when it doesn't control the presidency.

4RealFreedom 3y ago
The federal government's powers are enumerated while everything else is left to the states. You may not like that the OP presented the federal government as corrupt but that doesn't negate the point. There is no accountability at the federal level. The federal government has turned into a mess of alphabet agencies whose sole purpose is to grow. They are not elected but write the laws. Congress has abducted their responsibility. There is recourse at the state level.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Congress has abducted their responsibility Because it's happy with that state of affairs, and you keep voting them in. > There is recourse at the state level. No, there isn't. Not at the state level, nor at a more local level. We're at a point where even municipalities aren't able to rein in their police departments!
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    > Because it's happy with that state of affairs All it will take is an embarrassing data breach like Bork's video rental records and they'll pass legislation to cover their asses.
    - vkou 3y ago
      They won't care. They'll spin it as fake news, a political attack against them. I believe the phrase of the day is 'Election Interference'. The thing with being shameless is that scandal rolls off you like water off a duck's back.
  - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
    > you keep voting them in I do not keep voting these people in. > municipalities aren't able to rein in their police departments Where are you seeing this? Seems like there's been fairly significant changes and individual officers are being held accountable. I'm genuinely curious if you have examples. I believe you can more easily push change at the local level. Our federal government is a monstrous, unstoppable force.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This is why America was conceived to be a country where the central government can only exercise enumerated powers; because the framers knew that every organization eventually becomes run (at one point or all subsequent points) by corrupt, evil people. This is false. America was reconceived as a country where the federal government had enumerated powers because it started as one where the federal government had no powers and could only act by ad hoc unanimity of the constituent states, and that failed hard, and the particular idea of, and particular set of, enumerated powers chosen was a compromise among the Framers who were called to fix the failing system, and whose preferences ranged from a much more powerful central government (the Hamilton and, less extremely, Pinkney plans) to a vastly less powerful one (the New Jersey plan), and did not represent a shared common vision, contrary to the later-constructed mythology. Taking this mythological common vision, and then constructiong a rationalization for it, and then presenting it as the original plan of government for America falsely projects into a hotly debated contentious compromise created to deal with particular exigencies arising under the earlier plan into a kind of perfect divine revelation of government, which it very much was not and was not viewed as by participants in the process.

largbae 3y ago
Great stuff... Now knowing what you do, could you speculate how would the current powers of the intelligence committee be viewed by the participants in that process?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  I think the general opinion would be, to borrow from King Louis’ Head (by way of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda): “Do what you want, I’m super dead”. Though, among those regarded as Founding Fathers, that might be most particularly the view of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” (Letter to James Madison, Paris, Sep. 6, 1789)