it’s also a long term effort to de-emphasize and in fact undermine democracy itself, so that when they embrace authoritarianism completely, it doesn’t seem that radical. “What’s the big deal? We’re not even a real democracy anyway…”
1 Like
That is basically what happened in the Roman Empire.
“SPQR” (The Senate and the Roman People) continued to appear on public documents and coins. The Senate continued to meet, but it became mainly ceremonial. Elections continued, but they were mainly for local officials. The real power was with the Praetorian Guard and the army.
The US is in a similar situation. Congress has become a rubber stamp for massive budgets of thousands of pages in length with only a few hours to review. The elected president has only very limited power especially when it comes to anything that affects foreign policy, the military, or the surveillance state.
Perhaps you should deliberate more.
Systems are only perfect in a vacuum. The moment the human variable is introduced to the system it becomes corrupted.
There is no evidence to suggest that if it had remained subservient that another one of the branches wouldn’t become the dominant
In fact given human nature it is almost assured that one of the other branches would have grown exponentially in power
Good post, but you didn’t answer the question.
When the system was set up, one branch was designed to have preference and deference. Which branch?
No system is perfect, doesn’t mean it is corrupt.
Systems are not perfect because they require adaptability to address variability and transparency to address complexity. And both of those require the “human variable.”
The problem with this government system is that the system is being ignored. Complexity is being ignored in favor of Cartesian/Newtonian siloing. Probably mostly out of short-term satisfaction, greed, will to power.
They only recognize the complexity to benefit themselves. The ruling class.
Government “service” is now a guild.
1 Like
The problem is money.
Being in congress, you make more money by doing less at the direction of those that fund you.
There is no financial incentive to govern in a manner that might be…better? complex? involved? Better is subjective…perhaps ‘at all’ is the better phrase.
Congress is happy to punt the tough stuff off on the executive because the tough stuff doesn’t pay.
1 Like
My goal was to answer by implication. Didn’t work out well.
Anyway i don’t disagree with what you wrote
The judiciary became from its inception the dominant branch.
It is used to control and often “aspires” (that word used in sarcasm) to follow the will of the masses by ruling in line with the polls.
I just don’t know what the system would look like when that desire for power would have grown another one of the branches but i doubt it would be any better.
Did you think that through?
-
Considering the interests of the country’s engine when developing legislation is a good thing, not a problem.
-
Better never means better for everyone.
-
“The tough stuff doesn’t pay”? Like what?
No. That is completely wrong.
The legislature, specifically the House, was intended to be given preference and deference. The House represents The People. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
2nd the Senate, representing the states as states.
The judiciary was intended to be a referee, not a player.
3 Likes
Thank you. That makes sense but the moment Marbury was ruled upon the system changed.
Indeed.
Of course the legislature should only be writing in accordance with the Constitution.
And the executive should veto anything that is not.
This whole concept of “let the courts sort it out” is a problem.
1 Like
Not when the ‘best thing’ would be against those interests.
I don’t know what that means.
Like reforming border security. Much more profitable to leave it be and fund raise off it. Like reforming entitlements. Like establishing consistent foreign policy.
None of those things attract corporate donors (I guess FP might if it’s very specific…like trade issues) and so congress largely for the last few decades doesn’t bother with it. They push it off on the executive, happily giving up power because those tasks aren’t profitable.
Already laws…no reforming needed.
1 Like
They aren’t strong enough apparently. That’s why the house and senate put forth bills
What?
Good Lord.
You don’t understand any of this. You are completely indoctrinated to squawk “Corporation!” over and over mindlessly.
Meditate on what your life would be like if the engine was even slowed down.
You critprogs are petulant children, demanding candy after being warned.
1 Like
You believe there aren’t lobbys making bank off of those? Look into what triggered Obama into creating DACA.
You believe all those sanctuary fools aren’t getting paid? They did it because they love brown people?
1 Like
It’s like saying hot water is hot…
What language?
The courts are pieces on the political chess game played between the executive and legislative and most recently the state against the federal.
