Constitutional Flaws

[Stealers Wheel]

I am of the opinion that the past four years have revealed substantial flaws in the U.S. Constitution.

For, example, the Founders inserted the Electoral College as a failsafe measure to prevent a flimflam man from winning the presidency by winning over the hearts and minds of of the unwashed, unsophisticated, uneducated, and illiterate masses. Its function failed miserably.

Concerned that the government would use its power to run roughshod over the small people, the people who had no power to oppose the power of the state, they included the presidential power of the pardon, that one person could save the oppressed from unjust vengeance by the state. Trump has used the pardon power to reward his political allies for their loyalty to him. That is not what the FF had in mind. Nevertheless, what Trump did was perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional.

The impeachment power of Congress was designed to prevent a person from violating their oath of office. It depends on members of Congress to be of high moral and ethical standards and courage to evaluate the conduct of elected officials and when appropriate, hold them accountable for bad behavior. Instead, we saw members of Congress completely ignore the evidence presented, and vote the only way they could in order to save their own political careers. When we needed statesmen, we got sniveling cowards afraid of the political fallout of doing the right thing.

The Constitution puts far too much power in the presidency that one man can simply walk into the Oval Office and start nullifying his predecessor's work through executive orders. (I'm not singling out anyone here) the power of the EO means the president can essentially bypass the will of Congress. The FF expected the executive and legislative branches to work together for the betterment of all Americans. Big constitutional fail. Congress: Here is a bucket of money to spend on the military. Trump: Thanks! I'll use it be build a wall. WTF??

While the Constitution grants the power to confirm or deny presidential nominees, it apparently does not require them to so, as evidenced by the cynical denial of Merrick Garland's nomination hearings to the Supreme Court and the subsequent fast track confirmation of Amy Barrett. The Constitution also apparently does not require senate confirmation if the president does not want one. This is evidenced by Trump firing department heads, and instead of naming a nominee to be confirmed, he simply named an "acting replacement" and the president is able to simply bypass the confirmation process altogether.

Trump declared in 2015 that He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. Most reasonable people interpret that to mean that Trump meant he will not be held accountable for anything he does by his loyal base. That has proven to be true, the Constitution notwithstanding.

I thought that when Trump decided to get into a pissing contest with a Gold Star Family, that would erode his support from military and veterans. I was wrong.

I thought when the Access Hollywood tape became public, the Evangelical Christian Right would abandon Trump. I was wrong.

I thought that when Trump was caught in lie after lie, big and small, it would diminish his popularity among his base. I was wrong.

I thought that when Trump failed to deliver on numerous campaign promises (tax returns, healthcare, etc.) it would lower his poll numbers among his base. I was wrong.

I said this back in 2016: There has never been a less qualified or less prepared candidate for president. Further, Trump has never shown the least interest in actually doing the work of the president. The campaign rally literally went on for four years and his base never tired of it.

Yes, that a carnival barker like Trump could ascend to the presidency and actually remain in office for his entire term reveals major flaws in the FF's expectations of the Constitution.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I also agree that the Constitution is flawed. Plus we are saddled with Supreme Court rulings that serve to harm democracy.

 

[NWRatCon]

The one positive thing that Trump did was highlight the fragility of so many elements of our democracy and how much effort will be required to shore it up. As you noted, EC failed, impeachment failed, Congress failed. The framers were wary, but the safeguards they put in place didn't meet the moments. They didn't anticipate a demagogue being aided by the other branches of government, the utter corruption of one party, or the amalgamation of every conceivable character flaw in one individual completely without a moral compass. We need to build stronger guardrails before we can't, although given the current makeup of the judiciary it will already be an uphill battle.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The one positive thing that Trump did was highlight the fragility of so many elements of our democracy and how much effort will be required to shore it up. As you noted, EC failed, impeachment failed, Congress failed. The framers were wary, but the safeguards they put in place didn't meet the moments. They didn't anticipate a demagogue being aided by the other branches of government, the utter corruption of one party, or the amalgamation of every conceivable character flaw in one individual completely without a moral compass. We need to build stronger guardrails before we can't, although given the current makeup of the judiciary it will already be an uphill battle.

Another huge point was that the FFs never anticipated the federal government being able to (limitlessly?) expand their own powers without constitutional amendment. Obviously, anything can be said to be (at least loosely) related to the powers taxation (revenue is involved), commerce (spending/regulation is involved) or tangentially related to promoting the general welfare. The addition of the 16A and 17A radically altered the powers of the federal government.

 

[NWRatCon]

Another huge point was that the FFs never anticipated the federal government being able to (limitlessly?) expand their own powers without constitutional amendment. Obviously, anything can be said to be (at least loosely) related to the powers taxation (revenue is involved), commerce (spending/regulation is involved) or tangentially related to promoting the general welfare. The addition of the 16A and 17A radically altered the powers of the federal government.

With respect, my friend, you're kind of arguing both sides here. If the framers didn't intend modification/ interpretation of the Constitution, why would they include mechanisms for interpretation (courts)? If the framers didn't intend modification, why would they include an Amendment process? And isn't the adoption of the 16th and 17th Amendments validation of that very process? Yes, they changed our approach to governance, as every amendment has. Isn't that the point?

And, of course the framers specifically anticipated the expansion of the government, which is why they incorporated so much flexibility into the founding document. It's all over the record. They knew the nation was expanding, that technology (as they understood it then) was bringing great change to society, and that interpretation was inevitable. All of those elements were baked into the structure.

But this topic, it seems to me, is about how we fix the flaws that have recently been emphasized. The parameters for change are set in the document (and are much broader than you assert), but we can modify the document to incorporate others, as you have noted. I happen to believe that the structure of the Senate needs to be modified, as well as changing the strictures on the House which has changed the nature of the House to be increasingly UnRepresentative, and allow the size of the House to expand substantially. As it is, the Senators who voted for Trump's impeachment actually represent more voters than the Senators who voted against it, and not by a little. Had the impeachment vote been proportional, conviction would have been assured.

 

[tanj]

I don't think those things are as much flaws as they are instances where Trump simply ticked you off.

the electoral college was to prevent areas with large populations from drowning out the areas with lesser population.
the impeachment process, as used in trumps term, was clearly shown to have been weaponized by one party in order to oust a duly elected president that they thought shouldn't have won because of the electoral college. they abused the impeachment power of the House to such an extent they didn't actually ever produce any real evidence to support their accusations. in the first impeachment, witnesses testified under oath that they did NOT have or know of any evidence to support the charge. In the second impeachment, they dispensed with any attempt at all of having hearings or witnesses in the house and rushed it to the senate before his term ended.

I would accept as a flaw perhaps that the impeachment process in the house is not required to move forward by the same 2/3 vote that the senate is held to for conviction. that would have prevented raw partisan weaponization which is actually one aspect that the framers of the constitution really wanted to prevent.

if you are worried about one president nullifying his predecessors work via executive orders, how do you feel about Biden having done exactly what you are complaining about?

the money for the wall was already appropriated by congress. there were processes already in place for the president to use portions of budgets here and there for the purposes that he did.
unfortunately, Biden will now just simply throw all that money away that has already been spent securing the border that he and his party do not want secured.

the fifth avenue comment was in context of the debate surrounding the indictment of a sitting president.

campaign promises are broken by every president. one cannot say that Trump did not honestly try to keep those promises. except for the taxes, but then they only wanted the taxes to fish for other reasons to investigate and punish him for having the audacity to have won an election.

Biden has also been caught in numerous lies and he's only been in office for little over a month.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I don't think those things are as much flaws as they are instances where Trump simply ticked you off.

the electoral college was to prevent areas with large populations from drowning out the areas with lesser population.
the impeachment process, as used in trumps term, was clearly shown to have been weaponized by one party in order to oust a duly elected president that they thought shouldn't have won because of the electoral college. they abused the impeachment power of the House to such an extent they didn't actually ever produce any real evidence to support their accusations. in the first impeachment, witnesses testified under oath that they did NOT have or know of any evidence to support the charge. In the second impeachment, they dispensed with any attempt at all of having hearings or witnesses in the house and rushed it to the senate before his term ended.

I would accept as a flaw perhaps that the impeachment process in the house is not required to move forward by the same 2/3 vote that the senate is held to for conviction. that would have prevented raw partisan weaponization which is actually one aspect that the framers of the constitution really wanted to prevent.

if you are worried about one president nullifying his predecessors work via executive orders, how do you feel about Biden having done exactly what you are complaining about?

the money for the wall was already appropriated by congress. there were processes already in place for the president to use portions of budgets here and there for the purposes that he did.
unfortunately, Biden will now just simply throw all that money away that has already been spent securing the border that he and his party do not want secured.

the fifth avenue comment was in context of the debate surrounding the indictment of a sitting president.

campaign promises are broken by every president. one cannot say that Trump did not honestly try to keep those promises. except for the taxes, but then they only wanted the taxes to fish for other reasons to investigate and punish him for having the audacity to have won an election.

Biden has also been caught in numerous lies and he's only been in office for little over a month.

Regarding EOs, as I said, I'm not singling out ANYONE here. I think that the presidential EO is bullshit, regardless of whose signature is on it.

You're wrong about the Fifth Avenue remark. Trump meant that his base WILL NOT hold him accountable for ANYTHING. And he is absolutely right. There is nothing, absolutely nothing Trump could do that would cause his base to abandon him. He could declare himself a Democrat tomorrow and his base would switch parties.

If you are aware of U.S. government history, the FF envisioned a U.S. senate populated by men who were selected and sent to Washington by their respective state legislatures. That would contrast them with the House of Representatives whose members are selected by popular vote of the electorate of their respective districts. By this design, the senate was to be insulated from the unruly and uneducated mobs of the population at large. Alas, the state legislatures did not have the intestinal fortitude to select senators, so they abdicated their duty and relegated the responsibility to the state population at large. The result is we have a senate whose members are just as afraid of their state's general electorate as those members in the House.

Think about it. Do you really think Trump would have survived the second impeachment if GOP senators were not afraid of the political backlash? There are only 10 GOP senators who will give you a straight answer.

 

[Vadinho]

All governments rely upon the goodwill and intent of elected officials and respect for the law and tradition in order to operate. Unfortunately, when enough of them neither respect the law or tradition and pursue only power, the current legal system has few if any remedies but the ballot box.

 

[tanj]

All governments rely upon the goodwill and intent of elected officials and respect for the law and tradition in order to operate. Unfortunately, when enough of them neither respect the law or tradition and pursue only power, the current legal system has few if any remedies but the ballot box.

when that disrespect for laws and traditions leads them to circumvent the laws in order to persue power via the ballot box, the ballot box is no longer the remedy.

 

[gooseneck]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing Trump could do that would cause his base to abandon him. He could declare himself a Democrat tomorrow and his base would switch parties.

I would love to see this so much. However, I do not believe he could get the democratic party nomination. Almost all delegates that represent the National Democratic Party or the National Republican Party are people who have served within the party structure for decades. Trump was vulnerable to lose the party nomination in 2016 because the Cruz supporters were well trained, organized, and informed about the way party conventions work. However, it would be sweet if Trump became a Democrat and lead a swamp draining operation by endorsing Pro-Life Pro-Gun Evangelical Christian Democrats in heavily controlled Republican areas. I'd love to see the Democratic Party become more conservative and the Republican Party become obsolete. The goal of the Republican Party is to win elections so that they can win more elections but they do that so they can win more elections because it is all about winning more elections. (Oh I forgot, give fiery speeches about why abortion is evil.) For me that is too dumb. Republicans are never going to pursue their principles. That is why I say they are a worthless party. I registered as a democrat yesterday mostly because of local issues in my area but I think seeing a pro-life pro-gun Democrat run for president would be 100% awesome. As a democrat now I have a say in who is the democratic nominee for president.

 

[Montgomery]

Even a modern Constitution that's based on solid grounds can be interpreted wrongly be interest groups, to make it fatally flawed.
America's is far, far from being a modern constitution that can provide valid answers to important questions.

Americans would be well advised to leave their Constitution lie and start concentrating on real solutions to their faling system that are based on modern and logical thinking.

Make no mistake, the attempted revolution is the beginning of the end for the American way. Regardless of it being nothing more than a dangerous 'joke' for the pretend revolutionaries.

 

[joko104]

I am of the opinion that the past four years have revealed substantial flaws in the U.S. Constitution.

For, example, the Founders inserted the Electoral College as a failsafe measure to prevent a flimflam man from winning the presidency by winning over the hearts and minds of of the unwashed, unsophisticated, uneducated, and illiterate masses. Its function failed miserably.

Concerned that the government would use its power to run roughshod over the small people, the people who had no power to oppose the power of the state, they included the presidential power of the pardon, that one person could save the oppressed from unjust vengeance by the state. Trump has used the pardon power to reward his political allies for their loyalty to him. That is not what the FF had in mind. Nevertheless, what Trump did was perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional.

The impeachment power of Congress was designed to prevent a person from violating their oath of office. It depends on members of Congress to be of high moral and ethical standards and courage to evaluate the conduct of elected officials and when appropriate, hold them accountable for bad behavior. Instead, we saw members of Congress completely ignore the evidence presented, and vote the only way they could in order to save their own political careers. When we needed statesmen, we got sniveling cowards afraid of the political fallout of doing the right thing.

The Constitution puts far too much power in the presidency that one man can simply walk into the Oval Office and start nullifying his predecessor's work through executive orders. (I'm not singling out anyone here) the power of the EO means the president can essentially bypass the will of Congress. The FF expected the executive and legislative branches to work together for the betterment of all Americans. Big constitutional fail. Congress: Here is a bucket of money to spend on the military. Trump: Thanks! I'll use it be build a wall. WTF??

While the Constitution grants the power to confirm or deny presidential nominees, it apparently does not require them to so, as evidenced by the cynical denial of Merrick Garland's nomination hearings to the Supreme Court and the subsequent fast track confirmation of Amy Barrett. The Constitution also apparently does not require senate confirmation if the president does not want one. This is evidenced by Trump firing department heads, and instead of naming a nominee to be confirmed, he simply named an "acting replacement" and the president is able to simply bypass the confirmation process altogether.

Trump declared in 2015 that He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. Most reasonable people interpret that to mean that Trump meant he will not be held accountable for anything he does by his loyal base. That has proven to be true, the Constitution notwithstanding.

I thought that when Trump decided to get into a pissing contest with a Gold Star Family, that would erode his support from military and veterans. I was wrong.

I thought when the Access Hollywood tape became public, the Evangelical Christian Right would abandon Trump. I was wrong.

I thought that when Trump was caught in lie after lie, big and small, it would diminish his popularity among his base. I was wrong.

I thought that when Trump failed to deliver on numerous campaign promises (tax returns, healthcare, etc.) it would lower his poll numbers among his base. I was wrong.

I said this back in 2016: There has never been a less qualified or less prepared candidate for president. Further, Trump has never shown the least interest in actually doing the work of the president. The campaign rally literally went on for four years and his base never tired of it.

Yes, that a carnival barker like Trump could ascend to the presidency and actually remain in office for his entire term reveals major flaws in the FF's expectations of the Constitution.

I agree with you that you are often wrong as again you are.

 

[Logician Man]

I agree with you that you are often wrong as again you are.

irony^

 

[Rich2018]

The Electoral college is the biggest flaw in US democracy. If it didn't exist, an animal like Trump would never have been elected.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The Constitution isn't flawed because one doesn't like something or you can't convince enough people that it should be changed. Complaining without a practical solution is whining.

 

[Rich2018]

The Constitution isn't flawed because one doesn't like something or you can't convince enough people that it should be changed. Complaining without a practical solution is whining.

Who has complained without offering a solution ?

 

[Glitch]

I'm reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said on the signing of the US Constitution during the Constitutional Convention September 17, 1787:

"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

...

Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best."

Are there a few tweaks that could be made to the US Constitution? Absolutely! That was why they included Article V, so that the US Constitution could be kept up-to-date with the changing times. It is by no means a perfect document, but rather a document with which at least three-fourths of the States have agreed. The only way to fix any of the flaws perceived in the US Constitution is to obtain the consensus of 75% of the State legislatures. After 232 years, the overwhelming majority of those flaws have already been worked out through the addition of 27 amendments. There are currently 33 additional amendments being proposed in the current 117th Session of Congress, which just began in January. No doubt more will be added.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said on the signing of the US Constitution during the Constitutional Convention September 17, 1787:

"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Franklin was wrong, the US presidential style of government is flawed - as recent events have shown

It should be replaced by a parliamentary style of government that divorces the offices oh head of state and head of government.

 

[Antiwar]

The US Constitution and the USG has many horrible flaws. Nothing prevents the USG from abusing other countries. The US Constitution was enacted to legalize abusive power more than anything else.

 

[mrjurrs]

I am of the opinion that the past four years have revealed substantial flaws in the U.S. Constitution.

For, example, the Founders inserted the Electoral College as a failsafe measure to prevent a flimflam man from winning the presidency by winning over the hearts and minds of of the unwashed, unsophisticated, uneducated, and illiterate masses. Its function failed miserably.

Concerned that the government would use its power to run roughshod over the small people, the people who had no power to oppose the power of the state, they included the presidential power of the pardon, that one person could save the oppressed from unjust vengeance by the state. Trump has used the pardon power to reward his political allies for their loyalty to him. That is not what the FF had in mind. Nevertheless, what Trump did was perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional.

The impeachment power of Congress was designed to prevent a person from violating their oath of office. It depends on members of Congress to be of high moral and ethical standards and courage to evaluate the conduct of elected officials and when appropriate, hold them accountable for bad behavior. Instead, we saw members of Congress completely ignore the evidence presented, and vote the only way they could in order to save their own political careers. When we needed statesmen, we got sniveling cowards afraid of the political fallout of doing the right thing.

The Constitution puts far too much power in the presidency that one man can simply walk into the Oval Office and start nullifying his predecessor's work through executive orders. (I'm not singling out anyone here) the power of the EO means the president can essentially bypass the will of Congress. The FF expected the executive and legislative branches to work together for the betterment of all Americans. Big constitutional fail. Congress: Here is a bucket of money to spend on the military. Trump: Thanks! I'll use it be build a wall. WTF??

While the Constitution grants the power to confirm or deny presidential nominees, it apparently does not require them to so, as evidenced by the cynical denial of Merrick Garland's nomination hearings to the Supreme Court and the subsequent fast track confirmation of Amy Barrett. The Constitution also apparently does not require senate confirmation if the president does not want one. This is evidenced by Trump firing department heads, and instead of naming a nominee to be confirmed, he simply named an "acting replacement" and the president is able to simply bypass the confirmation process altogether.

Trump declared in 2015 that He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes. Most reasonable people interpret that to mean that Trump meant he will not be held accountable for anything he does by his loyal base. That has proven to be true, the Constitution notwithstanding.

I thought that when Trump decided to get into a pissing contest with a Gold Star Family, that would erode his support from military and veterans. I was wrong.

I thought when the Access Hollywood tape became public, the Evangelical Christian Right would abandon Trump. I was wrong.

I thought that when Trump was caught in lie after lie, big and small, it would diminish his popularity among his base. I was wrong.

I thought that when Trump failed to deliver on numerous campaign promises (tax returns, healthcare, etc.) it would lower his poll numbers among his base. I was wrong.

I said this back in 2016: There has never been a less qualified or less prepared candidate for president. Further, Trump has never shown the least interest in actually doing the work of the president. The campaign rally literally went on for four years and his base never tired of it.

Yes, that a carnival barker like Trump could ascend to the presidency and actually remain in office for his entire term reveals major flaws in the FF's expectations of the Constitution.

That's not a Constitution issue. It is the issue of a political party that puts personal power in front of country.

 

[Rich2018]

That's not a Constitution issue. It is the issue of a political party that puts personal power in front of country.

But the Constitution allows it...so it is a Constitutional issue.

 

[phoenix2020]

No document, much less our Constitution, can fully protect a nation if much of its citizenry is ignorant and gullible.

 

[Rich2018]

No document, much less our Constitution, can fully protect a nation if much of its citizenry is ignorant and gullible.

Yes it can, if the constitution affords a parliamentary system of government.

 

[phoenix2020]

Yes it can, if the constitution affords a parliamentary system of government.

How so? How does having a legislature full of self-serving Ted Cruz types (absolutely possible in a parliamentary system) prevent the appointment of a tyrant? Not arguing, just genuinely curious & trying to understand....

 

[mrjurrs]

But the Constitution allows it...so it is a Constitutional issue.

Semantics. The Constitution allows almost everything...thank goodness. It's strength is in its brevity. The Constitution acts almost like a fence around a field, the parameters are set, what takes place inside is up for discussion.