This can't be what the founders had in mind, can it?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Sid Schwab / Herald columnist

A while back, optimistic and brave people left a country in which they’d been abused by monarchical power. Later, after years of exploitation from afar, having sacrificed lives and fortune in a successful war of revolution, they set about establishing a new nation — the likes of which the world had never seen — including a constitution designed, among other things, to prevent autocracy from ever gaining foothold. To which end they included specific means to redress executive excess.

This bold country survives, in large part, because its citizens once comprehended the importance of their governing documents, implicitly accepted the demands of citizenship, recognized that laws are only as good as their willingness to follow them, even when some might prefer not to. “Consent of the governed,” some have called it.

Then, unforeseen by the founders, who intended exactly the opposite, a quirk in their mostly brilliant creation leads to the selection of a classic demagogue, an amoral, serial adulterer and abuser, whose prior career is one of lies, baseless braggadocio, shirking responsibility, being punished for breaking laws, failed and scam businesses, propped up by money from his daddy and other disreputable sources. A man who, proudly unread and uninformed in matters of governance, nevertheless recognizes a path to power can be found by exploiting human weakness, by nonstop lying and instilling fear and hatred of “the other.”

What’s horrifying isn’t that such a man exists, or even that the system allowed his “election.” It’s that millions of citizens, laying exclusive claim to love of their exceptional country, cheer like Brazilian soccer fans when that man announces those founding documents are, in fact, crap. Mocks them. Belittles the very idea of constraints on his power; shouts that what had been, till now, a co-equal branch of government charged with keeping the executive in check, has no business fulfilling that obligation. Refuses to comply. Insults those holding him to account. Calls them stupidly childish names.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/schwab-this-cant-be-what-the-founders-had-in-mind-can-it/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=d38029b064-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-d38029b064-228635337

[TreasonousBastard]

1. It isn't, but this is what they warned us of.

[underpants]

2. Really interesting read from earlier today

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212883500

The origins of "Abuse of Power"

Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”


The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

[alwaysinasnit]

3. K&R Excellent posting.

[Karadeniz]

4. Good reading...thanks! Perhaps you should forward it to Alan Dershowitz who seems puzzled

At what abuse of power can comprise.

[treestar]

5. Citizens don't participate

They are the ones mocking the Founders, who thought, after monarchy, that it would be such a great thing to be self-government. So the People elect a Dotard, have no idea who their senator or congressperson is, know zero about more local politicians, think the President "runs the country" which is exactly what the Founders did not intend. Then they act superior and above it all for not participating in what they view as a circus.