• 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    It’s insane how we’ve relied far too long on a sort of gentleman’s agreement around presidents and congress and all. I don’t think the founding fathers could have EVER anticipated the amount of corruption that could occur.

    If the orange turd did one thing, it’s to lay bare how truly exploitable and corruptible the ruling class can be. I mean, we all know it was bad but he truly showed by bad (and open) it could get. And how nothing whatsoever would be done about it…

    • Kalkaline @leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Did you know there’s no law that says a dog can’t be president? You’d have to get it to 35, but technically we could have an Air Bud POTUS.

      The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/#:~:text=The Constitution lists only three,for at least 14 years.

      • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Natural born citizen may be a bit problematic, but there’s precedent with at least one district court recognizing animals as legal persons as of 2021.

        On the dystopian side, perhaps this also means a corporation could become POTUS.

        • manucode@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          On the dystopian side, perhaps this also means a corporation could become POTUS.

          As Musk is not natural born US citizen, making X.com president could be his workaround.

    • zephyr@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      I don’t think the founding fathers could have EVER anticipated the amount of corruption that could occur.

      “I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred 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.”

      Benjamin Franklin.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      It’s insane how we’ve relied far too long on a sort of gentleman’s agreement around presidents and congress and all. I don’t think the founding fathers could have EVER anticipated the amount of corruption that could occur.

      They did. The entire point of the structure of Congress was to ensure that the passions of the people were tempered and “cooled” through the political process. Between competition between the three branches and the structure of government, they did their best to ensure this wouldn’t happen.

      What they didn’t anticipate was that competition would give way to collaboration among so many competing elements. From state legislatures to the federal House and Senate, across to the Supreme Court (intended to be insulated from political generally to focus on the well-being of the nation), and across again to the president. Those stars shouldn’t align all that often. But anti-American authoritarians, the underhanded bastards they are, have made it so that those stars align more often than not for their political goals.

      So, that’s the problem. What do you do when all the elements of the government are working together? Sure, Trump absolutely abused his position, but so what? We’re barely holding any of these anti-Constitutional people responsible for the damage they’ve done to the political process and democracy in general.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Well, they did think of this. George Washington himself wrote about being weary of factions becoming too strong so that exactly this could happen. Madison also wrote about it and so did Jefferson. He actually suggested that this is the entire reason the judiciary needed to not be factionalized.

        I think ultimately their interpretation boils down to that the mechanics needed to take over should have the bar as high as possible for the time. And then as time went on, these protections were eroded. The democracy has in fact been able to reign in really bad presidents before and quiet down large factions. So relying on good will and good duty is a recent thing.

        Things have only gone off the rails entirely in the last 50 or so years. But I’d argue that George Bush did a ton to result in this. Keep in mind, executive orders were not meant to be used this way. They’re currently being abused to hell and that’s a loophole the same way that pardoning yourself as president is a loophole.

        These loopholes are intentional because it’s sort’ve a “if you can’t keep these powers in check as a populace, it’s your fault” type of mechanism.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      It’s like this in many countries. In the UK we’ve never had to deal with people being held in contempt of parliament, but in recent years we’ve seen corruption and a blatant disregard for “rules” that would have made politicians sick a decade ago. It’s at a point where the UK has considered a constitution to ensure that anyone caught being openly corrupt or breaking the rules can be arrested.

      Many right-wing politicians have shown that the rules have been lax for a very long time, and IMO it’s a sign that perhaps we as a society need to seriously look at how we stop the right (and perhaps even the left) from abusing their power without consequence.