Framers’ Q: Can we trust a new government strong enough defend us not to also oppress us?
Trust, distrust, and mistrust are equally important in politics.
Politics, distrust, and trust are all tied up together.
Do we want USA to join the other countries on the map?
The framers gave the President limited supervisory power.
“All civil Officers of the United States” defines who is subject to impeachment.
The framers were clear that the President was to be accountable to Congress.
Two candidates for governor stand together, calling for civility among voters.
Some of the framers wanted an Executive Council to advise and bind the President.
The framers decided power was to be divided between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
The framers agreed to establish a strong, flexible presidency that would be constrained against tyrannical behavior.
Insulating the President from election politics was a big part of the framer’s strategy.
The framers wanted a presidency that served the common good.
The framer’s fear of incapacity was balanced by their fear of tyranny.
The framers wanted to avoid the tyranny that absolute power brings.
When the framers created the presidency, they were intent on solving two trust-related problems.
Pundits haven’t yet fully connected the dots in front of them. Yes, presidential use of national emergency powers to spend money on things that Congress chose not to authorize is against the Article 1 of Constitution. Here is the other dot: the choice of president became more consequential as the Office of the President became more powerful. This trend explains why election campaigns have been fought ever more viciously – by politicians and citizens alike.
Hillary Clinton said this week “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.” A day later, Eric Holder said that when Republicans…
Much of the press coverage about the Supreme Court confirmation process, mainstream and otherwise, has been about the alleged low quality of tactics undertaken by each political party as they…
The right to free speech is an integral part of modern democracy. Abuse that right and you abuse democracy. Take that abuse too far and you won’t have free speech any more.
Democracy is not dying everywhere, or even in most places. Here is an example from Slovakia. The action started just a few months ago and the people are winning!
Another illustration of the definition of insanity: recently the Washington Post published a story on how many voters and party officials in both parties seem to think more party purity…