Some excellent points brought up in the article but
Conservatives must wake up; their beloved constitutional republic does not work.
is a sentiment im really sick of reading from these try-hard neofascist types. The examples brought up is stuff like COVID lockdowns, but the US had the least restrictive lockdowns in the entire world. The US does not have the problem of rape gangs that other countries have, because of guns. The US has yet to arrest people for hate speech like other countries have. The constitution has been the number one thing holding the left at bay in this country, and this attitude that just because we're experiencing some turbulence, the whole system needs to be thrown away, smells to me of an agenda, like telling someone to drop their shields just because they took a few hits but are overall still very protected.
Ultimately, the power of the left and the establishment comes from one thing, lies. The more normies wake up, the harder it will be for them to push their agenda. And you know what weapons we use in their campaign of lies? Free Speech, and The Right to Bear Arms.
I'd argue the constitutional republic as designed hasn't existed for at least 100 years, likely longer. It was supposed to be a state-dominant government. So if California wanted to fly the fag flag and Texas wanted to ban it, sure, fine. It keeps changing so some states can use the federal government to force others to comply.
Even after all the civil war stuff, the amendments passed in the early 20th century, they are terrible.
16th: federal income taxes -- removed the ability for each state to figure out how to levy taxes, allows growth of federal government due to being able to directly fund itself
17th: direct election of senators -- now states can't decide that on their own
19th: women voting -- states could have decided that by state, it was never prohibited to allow women to vote
23rd: DC getting electors -- not a state, federal district gets a say now
24th: poll tax -- again, should be up to the states
26th: voting age -- also should be up to the states
Don't get me wrong, I still think the US did way better in everything you mention because of the Constitution. I just argue to anyone going on about the failed "constitutional republic" is we barely have much of it left.
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.
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"
"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."
Some excellent points brought up in the article but
is a sentiment im really sick of reading from these try-hard neofascist types. The examples brought up is stuff like COVID lockdowns, but the US had the least restrictive lockdowns in the entire world. The US does not have the problem of rape gangs that other countries have, because of guns. The US has yet to arrest people for hate speech like other countries have. The constitution has been the number one thing holding the left at bay in this country, and this attitude that just because we're experiencing some turbulence, the whole system needs to be thrown away, smells to me of an agenda, like telling someone to drop their shields just because they took a few hits but are overall still very protected.
Ultimately, the power of the left and the establishment comes from one thing, lies. The more normies wake up, the harder it will be for them to push their agenda. And you know what weapons we use in their campaign of lies? Free Speech, and The Right to Bear Arms.
I'd argue the constitutional republic as designed hasn't existed for at least 100 years, likely longer. It was supposed to be a state-dominant government. So if California wanted to fly the fag flag and Texas wanted to ban it, sure, fine. It keeps changing so some states can use the federal government to force others to comply.
Even after all the civil war stuff, the amendments passed in the early 20th century, they are terrible.
Don't get me wrong, I still think the US did way better in everything you mention because of the Constitution. I just argue to anyone going on about the failed "constitutional republic" is we barely have much of it left.
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.
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"
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."