I suppose then that begs the question: Did those amendments pass because of an intrinsic weakness in the constitutional republic model that other models of government would be more resilient to?
I've thought about that, but never read into it. There is some sort of weakness for sure. Having not lived through an amendment really (I suppose the 27th), it's hard for me to say, just because I don't know how the landscape and the feelings of the actual people were when they were ratified. The 26th makes some sense to me, with that being during the whole Vietnam draft, albeit it didn't really work to stop America being the world empire anyway.
I mean if I were to be given perfection, I'll take a benevolent dictator. But good luck making that happen and actually work. Second to that, I still think the US is better off than moth.
I agree with you, but with the benefit of hindsight I bet there are a few more things the founding fathers would have spelled out in inarguable black and white.
I also think that no system of government is suitable for all periods of history. Right now I think America may well benefit from a Caesar brushing aside the fat and happy elite.
The founding fathers explicitly said when the government shows it's nature, burn it down and rebuild stronger, using the constitution. There are many kinds of failsafes people have come up with to prevent the exact corruption we see now, that can only be implemented when you restart from the base again. We are in the "leadup to war" period.
The problem with that is that we would need someone with the benevolence and care that Caesar had for Rome combined with his will and tactical prowess to do what needed to be done. There is an abundance of people with either of those, but rarely both.
What we need is essentially a hybrid between Javier Milei, Ron Paul, and Napoleon. We pretty much need God Emperor Atreides at this point. Trump, for all the good he has done, is nowhere near the caliber of man required to save this country from its current course.
I agree on Trump, but you're probably overselling the qualities needed to solve the current woes for America.
I is true that the person who emerges to cut the Gordian Knot will be an exceptional person, the reality is that he will emerge from a cadre of exceptional people and effectively harness that collective will to be free of the old order.
What's needed effectively is a better coalition (which, presumably, is forming now) and a leader with popular appeal that isn't an 80 year old man. The tactical stuff takes place in a war room and the best minds of humanity are yearning to break away from this bullshit.
If I recall correctly, part of this goes back to the Federalists. I'm almost positive it's one of the main reasons Alexander Hamilton has been thrust forward with that godforsaken musical in Broadway.
Jefferson on the other hand was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, who wanted to return back to the free state model. "liberalism, republicanism, individual liberty, equal rights, decentralization, free markets, free trade, agrarianism, and sympathy with the French Revolution"
I'll cut him some slack on that, given the timeframe. Lack of hindsight and some limitations on available information (due to distances, travel time, etc).
Plus, regardless of the later ramifications of the French Revolution the French nobility at the time were notoriously fucked up and gave absolutely zero shit about the people. Absolute degenerates that share a lot in common with today's modern elite.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
I suppose then that begs the question: Did those amendments pass because of an intrinsic weakness in the constitutional republic model that other models of government would be more resilient to?
I've thought about that, but never read into it. There is some sort of weakness for sure. Having not lived through an amendment really (I suppose the 27th), it's hard for me to say, just because I don't know how the landscape and the feelings of the actual people were when they were ratified. The 26th makes some sense to me, with that being during the whole Vietnam draft, albeit it didn't really work to stop America being the world empire anyway.
I mean if I were to be given perfection, I'll take a benevolent dictator. But good luck making that happen and actually work. Second to that, I still think the US is better off than moth.
I agree with you, but with the benefit of hindsight I bet there are a few more things the founding fathers would have spelled out in inarguable black and white.
I also think that no system of government is suitable for all periods of history. Right now I think America may well benefit from a Caesar brushing aside the fat and happy elite.
The founding fathers explicitly said when the government shows it's nature, burn it down and rebuild stronger, using the constitution. There are many kinds of failsafes people have come up with to prevent the exact corruption we see now, that can only be implemented when you restart from the base again. We are in the "leadup to war" period.
Use the 2nd amendment the way it was intended to water the tree of liberty.
The problem with that is that we would need someone with the benevolence and care that Caesar had for Rome combined with his will and tactical prowess to do what needed to be done. There is an abundance of people with either of those, but rarely both.
What we need is essentially a hybrid between Javier Milei, Ron Paul, and Napoleon. We pretty much need God Emperor Atreides at this point. Trump, for all the good he has done, is nowhere near the caliber of man required to save this country from its current course.
I agree on Trump, but you're probably overselling the qualities needed to solve the current woes for America.
I is true that the person who emerges to cut the Gordian Knot will be an exceptional person, the reality is that he will emerge from a cadre of exceptional people and effectively harness that collective will to be free of the old order.
What's needed effectively is a better coalition (which, presumably, is forming now) and a leader with popular appeal that isn't an 80 year old man. The tactical stuff takes place in a war room and the best minds of humanity are yearning to break away from this bullshit.
If I recall correctly, part of this goes back to the Federalists. I'm almost positive it's one of the main reasons Alexander Hamilton has been thrust forward with that godforsaken musical in Broadway.
Jefferson on the other hand was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, who wanted to return back to the free state model. "liberalism, republicanism, individual liberty, equal rights, decentralization, free markets, free trade, agrarianism, and sympathy with the French Revolution"
To be honest, that doesn’t exactly sound good either.
I'll cut him some slack on that, given the timeframe. Lack of hindsight and some limitations on available information (due to distances, travel time, etc).
Plus, regardless of the later ramifications of the French Revolution the French nobility at the time were notoriously fucked up and gave absolutely zero shit about the people. Absolute degenerates that share a lot in common with today's modern elite.
Irrelevant.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."