Re: Which parts of the US Constitution are less important than others or can be ignor
I do see how that works. And now the Democrats, weatlhy elites, want to do away with the Constitution and rule by fiat. See how that works.
:roll:
In case you missed it, the Republican party is also front-loaded with wealthy elites. For decades, their policies have benefitted the wealthy, by cutting their taxes; slashing regulations on their businesses, while passing regulations or tariffs to put their thumbs on the scale for their donors; shielding corporations from liability; putting wealthy cronies in charge of government agencies, and hastening regulatory capture. I could be here all day listing powerful and wealthy donors, ranging from Koch to Adelson to Thiele to....
Bush 43 spent lots of time ignoring and subverting the US Constitution, mostly by ignoring due process (warrantless wiretaps, military tribunals, Guantanamo etc) and the explicit prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. John Yoo, formerly of the Office of Legal Council, basically said that could
legally violate the entire Bill of Rights in the pursuit of counterterrorism efforts. Bush personally held the ability to indefinitely detain a suspect, with no due process and no protections against torture.
Bush 43 also slashed taxes for the wealthy; failed to enact even basic oversight of derivatives or mortgages or banks; deliberately prevented Medicare from haggling with Big Pharma over Medicare Part D prices.... The list goes on.
If you want to see rule by fiat, and to the benefit of the wealthy? Just look at Bush 43.
My views are certainly
not held by the majority of Democrats. Contrary to -- if not invisible to -- the right is that Democrats
routinely cite and point to the Constitution to support their policies. Ironically, my position is influenced by a former darling of the conservatives and a big proponent of liberal democracy, Francis Fukuyama:
The Decay of American Political Institutions - The American Interest
More importantly,
you're setting up a false choice. It is not "we follow the US structure exactly, or are ruled by dictators!" That is exactly the kind of absurdity fostered by ignorant devotion to one specific system. There are alternatives, currently in use
right now, that result in governments that are more effective, equally (or more) accountable, protect more rights, are able to move faster, are less prone to vetocratic blockades, and are not totalitarian in nature. England, Canada, Germany, Ireland, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan come to mind.
What works is the Constitution. We should try it. We should do shocking things such as amending the Consitution is we wish but not pretending it deals with abortion and not simply ignoring it because the Democrat elites have the power.
Again: Your own comments make it very clear that you are conflating your own policy preferences with "what is Constitutional."
We DO largely follow the Constitution. We repeatedly see conflict between the Legislative, Judiciary and Executive branches, which compete against one another for power, and routinely interfere with each other's influence, exactly as the Framers planned. We see how the current incarnation of federalism causes repeated clashes, as the framers expected. We see the Legislature routinely delegates authority to the Executive branch -- something they did not plan, but did not block, and is wholly Constitutional. We see the Judiciary engaged in extensive judicial review and defending the rights of the minority, as the Framers expected. The concept of an executive order is Constitutional, because in almost every case it is merely the Executive exercising powers delegated by the legislature.
We also see how the system has repeatedly failed to achieve its preferred goals. It hasn't stopped factionalism, it doesn't guarantee freedom, it hasn't stopped many of the worst excesses of democratic or elite rule. You're basically insisting that bloodletting is the only possible treatment for blood loss.
The Constitution worked reasonably well for many decades, but even its own authors did not expect it to be unchanged for all eternity. They did not want us enslaved to the political will of a bunch of politicians who have been dead for centuries. Nor could they possibly have predicted every outcome of every political decision. We need to
govern ourselves, according to the structures and policies that we choose, and the values we hold today.
The end result is an inefficient and decaying government, frozen in amber not based on the merits of the structure but out of an ignorant devotion to nostalgia. And no one should want that. Even people who want less government should want it to be efficient and healthy, not exhaling dust.
