5 ms·

It's always seemed weird to me that the founding fathers designed this system without thinking what would happen in such a scenario. You have three branches, f

It's always seemed weird to me that the founding fathers designed this system without thinking what would happen in such a scenario. You have three branches, for checks and balances, and gave one of them command of the entire US military. It seems not so much a stretch of imagination that that one may go rogue one day.

garrettgarcia 2y ago
No piece of paper can protect a people from enslaving themselves if they are determined to.
- jzackpete 2y ago
  yes, as a citizen of the USA, deporting the non-citizens feels exactly like slavery
  - timbit42 2y ago
    It won't stop there. Your turn will come.
rat87 2y ago
Theoretically the electoral college was supposed to prevent guys like Trump from becoming president. Isn't that ironic?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > Isn't that ironic It was badly engineered. And it was overly confident on trust over the course of events and human nature - while you are obliged to do the opposite.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Wasn't it established to prevent de-segregation? Three-fifths compromise and all that?
mschuster91 2y ago
> It's always seemed weird to me that the founding fathers designed this system without thinking what would happen in such a scenario. The thing is, no political system is foolproof and free of issues. But the US and the UK are about the only major countries in the world that didn't experience a forced reboot of some sorts - wars, revolutions, secessions, whatever - that brought an update of the constitution and legal system with it. Everyone else, however, did and learned from the issues that they and other countries had experienced in the meantime. By now, the US is running on the same system for over 238 years. Yes, there have been some updates and amendments, but the fundamental assumptions are still the same stuff from centuries past, when virtually instant, global communication and transport of goods and people wasn't even thinkable.
rkagerer 2y ago
If you split the armies up between them, that would invite civil war. Maybe they figured if things get too bad, officers of good conscience would stem the madness and have some political/legal cover from the other 1-2 branches? Eg. If a president tried to give orders to the military after being impeached and removed, it's doubtful they'd be followed.
- silisili 2y ago
  One may assume. The problem then is compounded by the fact the president picks the secdef, and is more or less able to fire anyone showing an ounce of 'disloyalty', as we've seen happen in recent weeks. Twice if memory serves me right. So all but the very dumbest would curate their military leaders before attempting boldness.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  That never works, see the dictorships along the history, most folks fall back into the "I was following orders" excuse, because as it happens, if they refuse there is another one with no problem with "I was following orders" that will put them into place, regardless of the form.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Hence the Allies imposed a constitution on Germany in which there is an individual obligation on military personnel to uphold the constitution over following orders. Not perfect but a useful countermeasure.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Yeah, but at the end of the day, what is on paper and the actions one is willing to do aren't really the same. It took us 48 years to get rid of our dictatorship, and in theory there were multiple occasions where the militar could have joined to take it down, it was only when the colonial wars got bad enough, that there was enough people in the movement to have made it possible. And to make a point out of it, the laws imposed by the Allied did nothing to prevent what happened in East Germany and Stasi deeds after that law came to be.
hayst4ck 2y ago
They absolutely thought about it. They plainly stated it in the country's founding document: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The founding fathers were big fans of the philosophy of John Locke and his social contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our founding father's were very very liberal and strongly believed in a consent based government which implies the idea of revoking consent. When a government starts acting in ways you cannot consent to, like invading Canada or Greenland, robbing people of due process, preventing trade, and refusing to be bound by law, they had a very clear answer. You can find many Jeffersonian quotes about this very idea that many young Americans hear from their fathers and grandfathers, sadly many of those once young Americans have been corrupted by fox news. The writer of the declaration of independence and third president of the united states chose "Rebellion unto tyranny is obedience to god," as a motto on his personal seal: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/personal-seal/ https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...
- pjc50 2y ago
jemmyw 2y ago
> and gave one of them command of the entire US military The US didn't have a military and resisted having a standing army until WWI.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  The point still stands though ? At some point , the president become “commander in chief”
quadragenarian 2y ago
It's very difficult if not impossible to design a system that allows for a madman to be in charge, because to do so, the system would have to severely curtail the executive's powers which would render him or her useless. The tacit assumption has always been that the voters would not select a madman to run a complex system but here we are.

garrettgarcia 2y ago

No piece of paper can protect a people from enslaving themselves if they are determined to.

jzackpete 2y ago
yes, as a citizen of the USA, deporting the non-citizens feels exactly like slavery
- timbit42 2y ago
  It won't stop there. Your turn will come.

rat87 2y ago

Theoretically the electoral college was supposed to prevent guys like Trump from becoming president. Isn't that ironic?

mdp2021 2y ago
> Isn't that ironic It was badly engineered. And it was overly confident on trust over the course of events and human nature - while you are obliged to do the opposite.
pjc50 2y ago
Wasn't it established to prevent de-segregation? Three-fifths compromise and all that?

mschuster91 2y ago

> It's always seemed weird to me that the founding fathers designed this system without thinking what would happen in such a scenario. The thing is, no political system is foolproof and free of issues. But the US and the UK are about the only major countries in the world that didn't experience a forced reboot of some sorts - wars, revolutions, secessions, whatever - that brought an update of the constitution and legal system with it. Everyone else, however, did and learned from the issues that they and other countries had experienced in the meantime. By now, the US is running on the same system for over 238 years. Yes, there have been some updates and amendments, but the fundamental assumptions are still the same stuff from centuries past, when virtually instant, global communication and transport of goods and people wasn't even thinkable.

rkagerer 2y ago

If you split the armies up between them, that would invite civil war. Maybe they figured if things get too bad, officers of good conscience would stem the madness and have some political/legal cover from the other 1-2 branches? Eg. If a president tried to give orders to the military after being impeached and removed, it's doubtful they'd be followed.

silisili 2y ago
One may assume. The problem then is compounded by the fact the president picks the secdef, and is more or less able to fire anyone showing an ounce of 'disloyalty', as we've seen happen in recent weeks. Twice if memory serves me right. So all but the very dumbest would curate their military leaders before attempting boldness.
pjmlp 2y ago
That never works, see the dictorships along the history, most folks fall back into the "I was following orders" excuse, because as it happens, if they refuse there is another one with no problem with "I was following orders" that will put them into place, regardless of the form.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Hence the Allies imposed a constitution on Germany in which there is an individual obligation on military personnel to uphold the constitution over following orders. Not perfect but a useful countermeasure.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Yeah, but at the end of the day, what is on paper and the actions one is willing to do aren't really the same. It took us 48 years to get rid of our dictatorship, and in theory there were multiple occasions where the militar could have joined to take it down, it was only when the colonial wars got bad enough, that there was enough people in the movement to have made it possible. And to make a point out of it, the laws imposed by the Allied did nothing to prevent what happened in East Germany and Stasi deeds after that law came to be.

hayst4ck 2y ago

They absolutely thought about it. They plainly stated it in the country's founding document: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The founding fathers were big fans of the philosophy of John Locke and his social contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Our founding father's were very very liberal and strongly believed in a consent based government which implies the idea of revoking consent. When a government starts acting in ways you cannot consent to, like invading Canada or Greenland, robbing people of due process, preventing trade, and refusing to be bound by law, they had a very clear answer. You can find many Jeffersonian quotes about this very idea that many young Americans hear from their fathers and grandfathers, sadly many of those once young Americans have been corrupted by fox news. The writer of the declaration of independence and third president of the united states chose "Rebellion unto tyranny is obedience to god," as a motto on his personal seal: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/personal-seal/ https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...

pjc50 2y ago

jemmyw 2y ago

> and gave one of them command of the entire US military The US didn't have a military and resisted having a standing army until WWI.

bamboozled 2y ago
The point still stands though ? At some point , the president become “commander in chief”

quadragenarian 2y ago

It's very difficult if not impossible to design a system that allows for a madman to be in charge, because to do so, the system would have to severely curtail the executive's powers which would render him or her useless. The tacit assumption has always been that the voters would not select a madman to run a complex system but here we are.