Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:31 AM Jun 2018

A Major Glitch in the Constitution.

A major glitch in the constitution is being exposed by Trump and the supine Republicans in Congress.

The source and nature of our current constitutional crisis. IT is not a mere looming crisis. The crisis is already here. The crisis is due to a major glitch in the constitution, a glitch that is being fully exposed by Trump and the supine Republicans who control the Congress.
The glitch arises from the fact that the Founders, in their limited wisdom, did not foresee, and perhaps could not have reasonably foreseen, the rise of hyper-partisanship of the sort we are now experiencing. Nor did they foresee ... and perhaps could not have foreseen ... the rise of what might be called the charismatic (in roughly the sense of Max Weber) presidency.

By that I mean a president, who by dint of his election by "the people, " could claim to be the true and singular voice and will of the people, considered as a corporate body. He is the single national office holder who is singularly placed to speak to and on behalf of the people. Against such a singular voice, the tower of babble that is the Congress is an anemic thing. And any individual Congressman is merely pissing into a howling wind. The reason they did not foresee this is because they did not assign to the people, considered as a corporate body, any role whatsoever in even electing the president. The electors of the president were to be a tiny, tiny elite, chosen by the several state legislatures, by whatever means they happened to favor. The states were not and to this day are not even required to hold plebiscites to chose electors. And many did not. In fact, It wasn't until 1876 that all states even held elections for not really the presidency but for their presidential electors. So of course the Founders did not foresee -- they could not possibly have foreseen -- the rise of a "de facto" national plebiscite for the presidency. And they could not and did not foresee what that gradual emergence of such a thing would mean for the standing of the president as a charismatic figure who alone would be positioned to speak to and behalf of the nation as a whole. Of course, in constitutional reality, thanks to the way the votes in the electoral college are apportioned, the president still isn't elected by the people considered as a corporate body. And that raises its own issues. But that's another unintended glitch in the constitution.

The glitch on which I am now focused and which is now being exposed has to do with the fact that the Founders mistakenly assumed that Congress would be intensely jealous of its institutional prerogatives when its interests and the interest of the executive were not aligned. They assumed, for example, that a president that failed to see to it that the laws (which are the province of Congress and Congress alone) are faithfully executed, would be determined to hold the president to his solemn duty to do so. What they did not foresee is that with the rise of hyper-partisanship, institutional and partisan prerogatives might often fail to be aligned. In particular, they did not foresee that when the presidency and the Congress are in partisan alignment, the Congress might allow partisan prerogatives to trump institutional prerogatives and that this might lead Congress to willingly abandon its constitutional station as a check on the presidency, even a lawless presidency.

Once the Congress has abandoned its constitutional station as a check on the presidency, the system of checks and balances is basically inoperative and the Constitution is all but null and void in practice.
That is the nature of our current crisis.

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Major Glitch in the Constitution. (Original Post) kennetha Jun 2018 OP
Actually, the Constitution addresses that. MineralMan Jun 2018 #1
Well said. SWBTATTReg Jun 2018 #3
Senators weren't elected by the people until 1914 kennetha Jun 2018 #6
Then we must elect a Congress that will do our will. MineralMan Jun 2018 #9
Great post. bdamomma Jun 2018 #21
The writers of the Constitution were men of the Enlightenment, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #2
"would act rationally and for the good of the people" NCTraveler Jun 2018 #5
I've read the Federalist Papers, so I know where they were coming from. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #8
"the Framers...assumed the Constitution would not be ignored...some...would try to enforce it." BumRushDaShow Jun 2018 #14
"The founders did not foresee the rise of hyper-partisanship" NCTraveler Jun 2018 #4
No kidding. As much as they wanted to act like they weren't. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #18
And why we need to amend the Constitution to end the electoral college. Sophia4 Jun 2018 #7
this is only one part of the electoral problems we have. unblock Jun 2018 #11
Yes. Sophia4 Jun 2018 #12
The electoral college makes this all worse kennetha Jun 2018 #13
If you think about it, it was the states that created the constitution, not the people unblock Jun 2018 #15
until we tighten up all the bdamomma Jun 2018 #22
Electoral College -is OUTDATED _ Its time for Change!!! Civic Justice Jun 2018 #17
The electoral college is a "vestige of slavery." Garrett78 Jun 2018 #24
in all fairness, the framers would never have dreamed the constitution would last 230 years. unblock Jun 2018 #10
In addition to the one which concerned Kurt Godel so ... eppur_se_muova Jun 2018 #16
We were hyper-partisan from the beginning wonkwest Jun 2018 #19
The glitches I see RandomAccess Jun 2018 #20
They DID "foresee . . . the rise of hyper-partisanship of the sort we are now experiencing." tblue37 Jun 2018 #23

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
1. Actually, the Constitution addresses that.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:37 AM
Jun 2018

It gives Congress final authority over the President, who can be impeached and removed from office. In the end, the people are the ones who have control. Every two years, they get to elect the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. We get to refresh the government on a regular basis.

The biggest problem is the amount of damage a President can do in those two years. Today, things move way faster than they did when the nation was created.

But, the founders did provide a solution for a rogue President. Impeachment and removal has no appeal process. Once the Senate has voted to remove a President, that's it. There's no going back.

Please keep that in mind and GOTV like crazy for the November election. That is what we can do.

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
6. Senators weren't elected by the people until 1914
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:49 AM
Jun 2018

Only role for "the people" in the original constitution was choosing the members of the House. The people have no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for the presidency.

You are missing the point. impeachment requires Congress not to abandon its Constitutional Station. But that is precisely what has happened now. The Congress has abandoned its station in the face of a lawless president out of purely partisan considerations.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
9. Then we must elect a Congress that will do our will.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 12:03 PM
Jun 2018

I understand how the Senate was elected in the past. That is not the case today.

My points still stand. We can elect a Congress that will do as we want it to do. I suggest we work our asses off to do that. There is no alternative. Complaining about the process won't change it. Action will.

bdamomma

(63,877 posts)
21. Great post.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 02:19 PM
Jun 2018

but this stands so true: this caught my attention.

"In the end, the people are the ones who have control".

Damn straight!!

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,735 posts)
2. The writers of the Constitution were men of the Enlightenment,
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:38 AM
Jun 2018

who believed people who were elected to the new government would act rationally and for the good of the people. Also, in those days, only elite, educated landowners - people like them - were likely to become elected officials. The Framers did recognize that it was possible that corrupt or unsuitable presidents or others might be elected, which is why they came up with three equally powerful branches of government that could check each other's excesses. But I think you're right to say that they didn't anticipate this level of partisanship coupled with extreme corruption - coupled with a total disregard for the constitution itself.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
5. "would act rationally and for the good of the people"
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:46 AM
Jun 2018

You can find quote after quote showing they had little trust in that area. They also put things in place, like impeachment, to ward off against such things. As you said, they were enlightened. Nothing enlightenend about thinking the government would simply do good. It's run by people.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,735 posts)
8. I've read the Federalist Papers, so I know where they were coming from.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:51 AM
Jun 2018

But the underlying thinking of people of that time was that people were capable of being rational actors. The system of checks and balances in the Constitution was put there to ensure that would be done. The flaw is that the Framers, being rational actors, assumed the Constitution would not be ignored but that there would be at least some rational actors who would try to enforce it.

BumRushDaShow

(129,118 posts)
14. "the Framers...assumed the Constitution would not be ignored...some...would try to enforce it."
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 12:21 PM
Jun 2018

I.e. (and I have posted this before in other threads), it's all based on the "honor system". As soon as that "honor system" breaks down, we're through.

Right now, that "system" is being tested, and not just by people with criminal intent like under Nixon, but people with criminal intent who are also unhinged.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
4. "The founders did not foresee the rise of hyper-partisanship"
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:44 AM
Jun 2018

The founders and the earliest US politicians were "hyper-partisan".

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,921 posts)
18. No kidding. As much as they wanted to act like they weren't.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 01:59 PM
Jun 2018

Jefferson's hyper-partisanship brought us Marbury vs Madison. And I would have loved to see the look on his face when he realized what that ruling in his favor actually did.

 

Sophia4

(3,515 posts)
7. And why we need to amend the Constitution to end the electoral college.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:49 AM
Jun 2018

Trump was not elected by the majority of the voters.

He was elected by an elite, select bunch selected by the states.

He does not represent the American people. Not at all.

Sorry to have to say that, but it is true.

unblock

(52,253 posts)
11. this is only one part of the electoral problems we have.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 12:10 PM
Jun 2018

the electoral college was only one aspect of the broken election process that gave us our current tyrant.

massive voter disenfranchisement, hackable voting machines, russian manipulation, and huge corporate and foreign money in politics all helped donnie and the republicans as well.

even if we get rid of the electoral college, republicans will still cheat. we have to tighten up all the rules.

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
13. The electoral college makes this all worse
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 12:14 PM
Jun 2018

Because the rewards for a little voter suppression, ballot stuffing, hacking of voting machines, etc. are IMMENSE. tilt a few votes in just the right places, and you can win an election even if you lose the vote by millions and millions of votes.

It's truly perverse. But there is nothing built into the Constitution to safeguard against such things because the constitution did not envision the kind of electoral landscape we have evolved into. Electors were to be chosen not by plebiscites of the people but by the legislatures of the several states.

So there was really no need to build in procedures to "safeguard" the "integrity" of non-existent elections.

unblock

(52,253 posts)
15. If you think about it, it was the states that created the constitution, not the people
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 01:02 PM
Jun 2018

The rhetoric they chose flattered the people in order to win support, but the framers were representatives of their states and it took effect by ratification by the states.

We're lucky they chose to give us a vote at all, even though the idea that power flows from the people seems obvious two centuries later.

In any event, the framers felt that states could handle their own elections, whether or the House of Representatives or for presidential electors (in the event a state chose to hold an election for that).

The states were very independent of each other and didn't want a newly created federal government telling them how to run elections.

bdamomma

(63,877 posts)
22. until we tighten up all the
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 02:22 PM
Jun 2018

rules, the freaking repigs will keep on cheating. We need to speak up very LOUDLY and make our presence known.

 

Civic Justice

(870 posts)
17. Electoral College -is OUTDATED _ Its time for Change!!!
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 01:59 PM
Jun 2018

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. ((( We saw and see that with Trumps Russian Collusion and Republican Voter Suppressions and Gerrymandering Games )))
It was also created to serve the purpose when the West and Northwestern States and upper Midwestern States were Sparsely Populated, as a means to translate the popular vote to have some means of balance.


We are now a people, who can and should elect Presidents based on Popular Vote, which is the DIRECT voice of the people. and Candidates can only use Federal Campaign Funds for Offices that Function on the Federal Level, such as Presidents and U.S. Congressmen. States with the assistance of Federal Funds, should support State Candidates.
We should increase the guidelines for who can be a Candidate.

We must also make possible by the voice of the people to "remove any politician" from any office by the voice and vote of the people.

They are only to serve at the pleasure of the people. Appointment made by the President is to be selected by the advice and consent of the senate. ( We have been made to allow and many willingly accepted us being made into a Nepotocracy (favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit; a system of governance in which importance is given to the relatives of those already in power,)

We should be able to enact not on sanctions against political parties for un-democratic conduct, and failure to carry out the duties they were elected to perform. And we should be able to enact the same type of Rico Styled Convictions against Political parties who do what we have seen Republican do.

Trump should also be charged "for the crime of political extortion in the form of political threat against the people", for the threat he made against Congressional people when they would not vote for the "disrespectful and inhumane health care bill Trump and republicans pushed).

If our system processes its justice as it should, he will receive the penalty for High Treason, in its maximum level. The damages to America, The People and Our Allied Nations done by Trump would have no thinking minded people to mourn if he met the fate of being given the full legal execution of the stiffest penalty for Treason. It would include all who are implicated and aided and assisted in the conduct and activities of high treason.

We would survive enacting the justice our laws make provisions for, and as America and American people who respect America, its systems and its Democracy becomes a better nation for following and carrying out its own laws and penalty. America likely would regain the global respect for being a nation that takes itself and its proclaimed values seriously. We've gone around the globe doing such things to others simply because they would not submit to us, now we have a wanna be dictator in our Presidency trying to make us submit to him, yet, we won't carry out the penalty that is due in this nation upon and against this Administration.

Even smaller nations in their self governing capacity, removed and jailed a President for far less than what Trump has done to America and Our Allied Partners. Every day Trump remains, it signifies less and less respect for America, by nations that know the real truths of how this nations has removed people from governance in a variety of countries. Yet, it won't police itself to do the same.

If America did the right things, All Assets of all connected and associated with Trump and the Trump Administration would be seized, and the assets of all who aids and abets this madness, and then proceed forward with the High Crimes and High Treason against the Nation, enacted upon and against the whole of this Administration.

We should roll back anything and everything Trump has done, back to the levels it was at the end of the Obama Administration, and Install Joe Biden in Office for One Year, pending a New Election, with new guidelines for who can be qualified to run for President, and we can establish such criterion by ensure that we promote and enact Federal Campaign Funding, Therefore, to be eligible to become a candidate one has to qualify, to be worth to use public funds for the purpose of Campaigning.
No Business or Industry or Person of wealthy can contribute any Outside Funds, and no personal funds of any candidate can be used, and any Lobbyist who promote commercials will be prohibited from contacting any elected public official or anyone in their employ or appointment during their full of their term.

unblock

(52,253 posts)
10. in all fairness, the framers would never have dreamed the constitution would last 230 years.
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 12:06 PM
Jun 2018

most, if not all of them, likely assumed it would fail, one way or another, long before such a long amount of time.

they knew tyranny and corruption was something that eventually happened to all governments. they didn't think they had a cure, they just were trying to put up some obstacles.

fundamentally, they understood that any government was only as good as the people in it, and there really is no cure for a critical mass of bad actors in the government. things like impeachment and expulsion and elections and free speech and freedom of the press can help, but (obviously) can't prevent it.

 

wonkwest

(463 posts)
19. We were hyper-partisan from the beginning
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 02:08 PM
Jun 2018

Federalists and Anti-Federalists make our current politics look like bean bag. These were, after all, politicians who would shoot each other - and still get elected. George Washington's Farewell Address warning about it because it concerned him so much.

We complain about our media today, but back then newspapers were unabashedly partisan and would print all kinds of colorful, highly-opinionated, and borderline slanderous articles about the opposition.

There's a temptation to always think of one's own contemporary period as the worst ever. Things are fairly not great at the moment.

But we're not 18th or 19th Century bad. We're a long ways off from that. When we have people shooting each other in the streets over ballot propositions, then maybe.

That all said. I'm not so sure the social media age has been good for us. Now that people can curate their own "facts" by inhabiting vast echo chambers on the net, I foresee partisanship getting much worse before it gets better. In an age where people read headlines instead of articles, it's cringe-worthy how we're seemingly getting more ignorant as more information becomes available. It's almost counter-intuitive. I have my theories about it.

 

RandomAccess

(5,210 posts)
20. The glitches I see
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 02:14 PM
Jun 2018
1. First Amendment and the Press
I think there needs to be some accountability for the press -- not just the important special standing the First Amendment gives them. What do they have to DO to merit it? (Think in terms of Fairness Doctrine, or a necessity for avoiding demonstrable lies, etc. And yes, I realize it's all very problematic to even consider -- but then I doubt our Founding Fathers ever contemplated anything like Fox and Breitbart where abject lies are pumped out as factual truth, resulting in a significant minority of the electorate being so misinformed that they can't see straight.)

2. Accountability of Congress
In the late 1700s, things moved glacially slower than today. Things move fast nowadays, and there's a lot OF them moving too! But not our methods of holding Congress accountable for their actions -- or lack thereof. Recall elections aren't covered in the Constitution., period. That would be one method to get their attention. Or maybe if we could have a system whereby some issues -- NOT any of them human rights -- where our elected Congresspeople would be REQUIRED to vote the way the majority in their state or district wants them to -- say on gun laws. Or maybe there are other ways I haven't thought of to get a little more direct-democracy inserted into our otherwise pretty darned good system of governance.

tblue37

(65,409 posts)
23. They DID "foresee . . . the rise of hyper-partisanship of the sort we are now experiencing."
Mon Jun 4, 2018, 02:23 PM
Jun 2018

They called it "factions" and in The Federalist Papers" warned against such developments. What they didn't foresee and probably could not have foreseen was that the nation would become so geographically large and so populous, and that we would have such easy travel and instantaneous communication, plus pervasive broadcast media.

They hoped that geographical distance and slow, inconvenient travel and communication would serve to block the formation of factions.

Oh, they also did not foresee and probably could not have foreseen the kinds and number of guns their Second Amendment would be used to flood the nation with.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Major Glitch in the Co...