this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
382 points (99.5% liked)

politics

25243 readers
1869 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 80 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I think we need to drop the premise that the Founders were geniuses who's dusty ass opinions count for jack shit.

The secret is that they were just regular politicians from a long time ago.

[–] MichaelScotch@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What exactly is your point in regards to this article?

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's promoting the idea that the opinions of politicians from the 1700s carry any more weight than the opinions of doctors from the 1700s.

Adherence to "what the founding fathers wanted" is a toxic meme. They were historical figures, that's all.

The Supreme Court uses this meme as a totem to excuse motivated reasoning in their decisions and people are simply conditioned to accept the words of 300 year old politicians over the reality of the present.

We can understand the danger of Trump without quoting from old slave owners, pretending that they carry special wisdom.

[–] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

it's especially ironic, considering that the founding fathers themselves did not want this. they created a "living document" because they were smart enough to realize that times change and laws should change with it.

unfortunately, their biggest fans today have completely ignored that part.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Electoral College was put in place, at least in part, exactly to stop the public at large from electing someone like Trump.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago

The purpose of the Electoral College was to guarantee that the president was elected by the states and not the people. So you are half right, the electoral college can interfere if it’s not what the states want. While there are some states that want to always go with the popular vote not all are on board.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

Founders were geniuses [whose] dusty ass opinions count

No, but they were educated, and may have expected that to persist. #NoChildLeftBehind was a great concept executed terribly; and it made things worse. So the founding fathers had that leg up.

Some concepts were sound, and only missed the loophole where corruption took hold in all three branches at the same time. That's a pretty honest assumption that it wouldn't.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 5 months ago

I hate this, lets compare historical figures like they have the knowledge we have now. The US constitution was a massive evolution but also a transformation in how a government would operate in particular in regards to democracy and power coming from the governed. just a written codified document behind a government was a pretty big deal much less the separation of powers and documenting of rights.

[–] EmilyIsTrans@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Delegate John Dickinson asked a rhetorical question: “Will a virtuous and sensible people chuse villains or fools for their officers?”

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the problem is as a group we are neither virtuous or sensible.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We would be very sensible and make good decisions if the media was fair and the schools would be great. Unfortunately we dont live in that society.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

You have more faith than me

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

no amount of constitution is going to help when his party is complicit and is the majority in congress and the courts.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You need a couple of amendments to that constitution then.

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Here's the thing, you don't need to amend the constitution if you don't have anyone enforcing it.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 5 months ago

how? the problem is with the nutters controlling all the levers. an amendment would not be enough. You would at a minimum need another area of power and how do you keep that from being controled by nutters.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

That's NOT true! You can COUNT ON ME, a REPUBLICAN, to ALWAYS Defend the Constitution!* *After an Elementary School Shooting!

[–] Rokin@lemm.ee 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Time to put that second amendment to use.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If it's not used, it will be removed