Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem I see is the implied powers from the 'necessary and proper' and 'general welfare' clauses which Hamilton saw early on as massive loopholes through which to drive his big government dreams.
The founders wanted a limited government (Hamilton actually did too by today's standards), but after 200 years we have a federal government with 30,000 employees (70,000 including contractors) in the State Department. Under President Thomas Jefferson there were 9. The federal gov't dictates everything from the size of toilet tanks to the diameter of holes in swiss cheese.
Part of the problem too is that we just ignore the constitution. Article I section 1 says that all legislative powers are to be vested in the US congress, but we have literally truckloads of legislation coming from the executive branch. We even had the text of Obamacare being rewritten by the IRS.
We should “provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.” “Each generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”
Thomas Jefferson
Good enough for me. Originalists are full of it.
Thomas Jefferson was not infallible, though. He thought that the French Revolution was just marvelous. Adams did not, and predicted that it would end up in tyranny of some form. That was exactly what happened, in the person of Napoleon, who was declared emperor in 1804.
He doesn’t have that kind of power. What he has is power over the executive branch, which gives modern presidents a whole lot of power to be sure, but he can’t just decide to not listen. Congress still has the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.
Um yeah, but the party in power is not interested in using those powers for oversight. Until that changes, there is no check on the president except judicially which is another bad precedent to set. Instead of 3 co-equal branches right now we have 1 complicit in everything the executive does even though we know with 100% certainty that they would not be complicit in the same actions if the president was from the other party.
The problem as i see it is 1. Too much federal power from every branch, 2. The two party system and 3. The nationalization of party money.
If you want access to party money now, you have to toe the national party line whether you live in Missouri or California even though the people in both states are wildly different. The binary choice leads to poor solutions focused on short term goals at the expense of the country's long term health. It also leads to crappy candidates a la Hillary and Trump
The President does not actually control the military. And the military take an oath to support the Constitution.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;....."
I would think it virtually impossible for any civilian President to press the military into supporting a dictatorship.
So in the end game the military will support the Constitutional processes.
The only real threat would be a sterling general who stacked the military and then got elected President. An Eisenhower perhaps...though I am not sure he was personally that popular in the military.
A potus has the power that all would be dictators have. Control of the military. If he can find loyal Generals he can create a coup.
The other 2 branches be damned.
Now I do not think this is likely but I fail to see how the constitution prevents it from happening.
No he doesn’t. The military is not just going to follow orders of a president who is going against the constitution. Their oath is to the constitution, not the man. And we have some very good people in the military that understand that.
Thomas Jefferson was not infallible, though. He thought that the French Revolution was just marvelous. Adams did not, and predicted that it would end up in tyranny of some form. That was exactly what happened, in the person of Napoleon, who was declared emperor in 1804.
I totally agree, but Jefferson wasn’t the only one who assumed we would be making changes over the years. I think it was franklin who said that the constitution was a bundle of compromises. I think they viewed it as a work in progress. Certainly Hamilton did.
Um yeah, but the party in power is not interested in using those powers for oversight. Until that changes, there is no check on the president except judicially which is another bad precedent to set. Instead of 3 co-equal branches right now we have 1 complicit in everything the executive does even though we know with 100% certainty that they would not be complicit in the same actions if the president was from the other party.
The problem as i see it is 1. Too much federal power from every branch, 2. The two party system and 3. The nationalization of party money.
If you want access to party money now, you have to toe the national party line whether you live in Missouri or California even though the people in both states are wildly different. The binary choice leads to poor solutions focused on short term goals at the expense of the country's long term health. It also leads to crappy candidates a la Hillary and Trump
The libs hate the limits on power and freedoms granted by the constitution. This isn't news.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
