A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to suspend construction of a $400 million ballroom after it demolished the East Wing of the White House. U.S.
The power of the US president has been growing year after year. In the past sometimes it was constrained by laws, but those laws have been changed over the last 250 years. Other times it was constrained by customs and precedent, but Trump has ignored those. So, now Americans are realizing what it’s like to be ruled by a mad king.
In one possible future, Americans agree this can never be allowed to happen again, and the constitution is dramatically changed.
But, the more likely future is that there’s squabbling over changes to the constitution or laws and nothing happens until there’s either a civil war or an invasion or something to finally put an end to the American experiment.
Ironic that you use a monarchist term to describe one of the oldest countries in the world that has retained their current form of government since inception.
Has it though? At the beginning the US was a loose confederation of states, each with a lot of power and a strong identity. These days the states are much weaker and a lot more authority is held by the mad king. Even if you ignore all the constitutional amendments, the US has changed its form of government a lot since the early days.
There’s been some adjustment within the framework, but we are one of the oldest countries that hasn’t thrown out their framework to start over with a new government ideology. I would agree that some of that adjustment comes extremely close to shattering load bearing beams of the framework, but that hasn’t happened quite yet.
Unlike, for instance, China or Russia, both of which have thrown the framework completely out the window in favor of a new framework twice in the last century.
The question of: if we need a new framework, or need to modify the existing framework to be better for the people and humanity is a discussion for a different thread.
Regardless, “The American Experiment,” is what the British, and what became Germany’s aristocracy referred to us as, until after The Civil War, because they saw us as the death knell of “The Right and Proper God Given Rule of Kings, (and queens,)” and were hoping that The US would fail as an idea and political system. I also suspect that the fact that the US version of democracy being based almost entirely on a system that the local Native Americans had been using successfully for over 15,000 years may have also played into their fears about this.
I’d argue that even though the Americans split from the British because of the power of the British king, in many ways the British system is the same as it was when the US first formed as a country. There’s still a king in charge, there’s still a house of commons, there’s still a house of lords, the courts work the same way. It’s just that gradually the king has receded from being a key decision-maker to a ceremonial figurehead.
Also, I think there’s a lot more in common between the British system and the American system than there is between the American system and any Native American system.
The British system has the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The American system has the same two bodies just renamed to the House of Representatives and Senate. They function in a very similar way to the British system. The British King had close advisors in a cabinet, so did the US president, they just use different terms: “minister” vs “secretary”. The king was the head of the armed forces, the president was commander in chief.
Even elections were effectively the same between Britain and its rebel colony. White men who owned property were allowed to vote, and the method of voting was similar.
I’m not sure where you get the idea it has something to do with how Native Americans did things.
Great Britain is specifically why I only called the US one of the oldest. You guys have barely modified your framework since what, the battle of Hastings or some shit around 1200 when the Magna Carta was written?
Yeah, that shit has lasted far longer than it ever should have to be quite honest. I can only chalk that up to Brits and their stiff upper lip. Y’all don’t seem to like upsetting the tea cart.
If you read The Constitution of the Six Nations, you’ll see why I said they had a bit more influence than The Magna Carta, and Commonwealth Law. After all only 2 of the colonies remained commonwealths to the present day, and only 3 in the last century.
Almost the only thing we didn’t directly rip from their constitution, that is in their constitution, was the concept that “all laws passed must directly benefit all children of the next 7 generations of unborn children.”
If you read The Constitution of the Six Nations, you’ll see why I said they had a bit more influence than The Magna Carta, and Commonwealth Law
I don’t see that at all. This Constitution of the Six Nations has a lot of ceremony in it, but in terms of actual procedures it has things like:
When a unanimous decision shall have been reached by the two bodies of Fire Keepers, Adodarho shall notify Hononwiretonh of the fact when he shall confirm it. He shall refuse to confirm a decision if it is not unanimously agreed upon by both sides of the Fire Keepers
There’s nothing about the US system where unanimity is required.
Then there’s bits about inheriting rights to lordship, exactly the kinds of things the Americans were trying to get away from:
The right of bestowing the title shall be hereditary in the family of the females legally possessing the bunch of shell strings and the strings shall be
the token that the females of the family have the proprietary right to the Lordship title for all time to come, subject to certain restrictions hereinafter mentioned.
Then there’s bits about how people need to inform the lords of their nation if they wish to emigrate. Or how they need to supply a string of shells if they want to be adopted into a clan.
Not sure what you’re seeing in there that had any influence on the US constitution or laws.
True. We rather quickly stopped using the term. Jefferson, and Madison used it a couple times and stopped. No other American president uttered the phrase after that because the experiment was already done. We achieved self sufficiency.
The power of the US president has been growing year after year. In the past sometimes it was constrained by laws, but those laws have been changed over the last 250 years. Other times it was constrained by customs and precedent, but Trump has ignored those. So, now Americans are realizing what it’s like to be ruled by a mad king.
In one possible future, Americans agree this can never be allowed to happen again, and the constitution is dramatically changed.
But, the more likely future is that there’s squabbling over changes to the constitution or laws and nothing happens until there’s either a civil war or an invasion or something to finally put an end to the American experiment.
Ironic that you use a monarchist term to describe one of the oldest countries in the world that has retained their current form of government since inception.
Has it though? At the beginning the US was a loose confederation of states, each with a lot of power and a strong identity. These days the states are much weaker and a lot more authority is held by the mad king. Even if you ignore all the constitutional amendments, the US has changed its form of government a lot since the early days.
There’s been some adjustment within the framework, but we are one of the oldest countries that hasn’t thrown out their framework to start over with a new government ideology. I would agree that some of that adjustment comes extremely close to shattering load bearing beams of the framework, but that hasn’t happened quite yet.
Unlike, for instance, China or Russia, both of which have thrown the framework completely out the window in favor of a new framework twice in the last century.
The question of: if we need a new framework, or need to modify the existing framework to be better for the people and humanity is a discussion for a different thread.
Regardless, “The American Experiment,” is what the British, and what became Germany’s aristocracy referred to us as, until after The Civil War, because they saw us as the death knell of “The Right and Proper God Given Rule of Kings, (and queens,)” and were hoping that The US would fail as an idea and political system. I also suspect that the fact that the US version of democracy being based almost entirely on a system that the local Native Americans had been using successfully for over 15,000 years may have also played into their fears about this.
I’d argue that even though the Americans split from the British because of the power of the British king, in many ways the British system is the same as it was when the US first formed as a country. There’s still a king in charge, there’s still a house of commons, there’s still a house of lords, the courts work the same way. It’s just that gradually the king has receded from being a key decision-maker to a ceremonial figurehead.
Also, I think there’s a lot more in common between the British system and the American system than there is between the American system and any Native American system.
The British system has the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The American system has the same two bodies just renamed to the House of Representatives and Senate. They function in a very similar way to the British system. The British King had close advisors in a cabinet, so did the US president, they just use different terms: “minister” vs “secretary”. The king was the head of the armed forces, the president was commander in chief.
Even elections were effectively the same between Britain and its rebel colony. White men who owned property were allowed to vote, and the method of voting was similar.
I’m not sure where you get the idea it has something to do with how Native Americans did things.
Great Britain is specifically why I only called the US one of the oldest. You guys have barely modified your framework since what, the battle of Hastings or some shit around 1200 when the Magna Carta was written?
Yeah, that shit has lasted far longer than it ever should have to be quite honest. I can only chalk that up to Brits and their stiff upper lip. Y’all don’t seem to like upsetting the tea cart.
If you read The Constitution of the Six Nations, you’ll see why I said they had a bit more influence than The Magna Carta, and Commonwealth Law. After all only 2 of the colonies remained commonwealths to the present day, and only 3 in the last century.
Almost the only thing we didn’t directly rip from their constitution, that is in their constitution, was the concept that “all laws passed must directly benefit all children of the next 7 generations of unborn children.”
I’m not British.
I don’t see that at all. This Constitution of the Six Nations has a lot of ceremony in it, but in terms of actual procedures it has things like:
There’s nothing about the US system where unanimity is required.
Then there’s bits about inheriting rights to lordship, exactly the kinds of things the Americans were trying to get away from:
Then there’s bits about how people need to inform the lords of their nation if they wish to emigrate. Or how they need to supply a string of shells if they want to be adopted into a clan.
Not sure what you’re seeing in there that had any influence on the US constitution or laws.
The founding fathers also referred to the US as an experiment. It’s literally part of George Washington’s first inaugural address.
True. We rather quickly stopped using the term. Jefferson, and Madison used it a couple times and stopped. No other American president uttered the phrase after that because the experiment was already done. We achieved self sufficiency.