This seems like such a short-sighted design by our founding fathers and subsequent leaders when we look at it with today’s lens. I know they likely would have assumed that people would riot with pitchforks and torches of anyone engaged in corruption during their era, including having the support of the VP. I know the 25th amendment was a more recent addition (1967), but I’m surprised there weren’t more catching points for this written into the foundation.
I guess they hoped we would never allow things to get this shitty.
By modern standards, absolutely not. By the standards of the time, they were pretty radical. Part of why France was a major ally during the revolutionary war.
Unlike all the modern gooch sniffers who treat the founding fathers as infallible and the last word on everything. Including modern issues they could have never imagined. The founding fathers knew their constitution and laws were never perfect. And would likely need updating every 20 to 50 years. They didn’t fail us. We failed them in many ways however. We allowed those who amassed power to only amass more power. And put up roadblocks to any meaningful change in most instances. Which is why it was so hard to get things like civil rights or women’s suffrage. Nearly impossible to get anything at all today. Because it does not serve the entrenched wealthy and Powerful. And your average man is so uninformed that you really don’t know what’s going on or who the actual enemy is.
Bear in mind that in the early years of the USA, the vice president was generally the person who was running against the sitting President for the seat. It was another built in check to power, though unfortunately not codified. The idea of just picking a VP candidate came much later.
On the contrary, they assumed that grossly unfit morons would have mass appeal and that’s why the constitution has so many provisions to make sure that popular will is not reflected at the ballot box.
They hoped that the rich would not elect a grossly unfit traitor, which all of history shows is a laughably stupid assumption.
“We The People” only referred to white land owning men. Even with the expansions of reconstruction, women’s suffrage, and civil rights (all won by working class organization and opposition) our entire representative democracy has been designed to the benefit of capital owners. Neoliberalism just shifted that into overdrive.
I mean, if the VP doesn’t want to take over, it doesn’t make sense to force the VP to take over, since if they weren’t willing to go against the president and use the 25th, it means they’d be doing the same thing as the president, so its pointless.
The 25th was put in to prevent the situation that occurred with Woodrow Wilson, who had a stroke and couldn’t govern but who was not removed from office.
The remedies for grossly unfit traitors were meant to be impeachment, or revolution.
The design seems to be to prevent a single person going rogue and doing whatever. Not designed for when someone has won elections and start damaging the country.
All the nonsense of “Republic is not a democracy because democracy is mob rule and not good for minorities” seems to no longer work.
This seems like such a short-sighted design by our founding fathers and subsequent leaders when we look at it with today’s lens. I know they likely would have assumed that people would riot with pitchforks and torches of anyone engaged in corruption during their era, including having the support of the VP. I know the 25th amendment was a more recent addition (1967), but I’m surprised there weren’t more catching points for this written into the foundation.
I guess they hoped we would never allow things to get this shitty.
The 25th wasn’t intended for illegal actions. It was for when the president has a stroke and goes comatose, or other forms of incapacitation.
Impeachment is the constitution’s main way to get rid of a corrupt president.
The corruption was a feature, not a bug. The founders of the US were not good dudes.
By modern standards, absolutely not. By the standards of the time, they were pretty radical. Part of why France was a major ally during the revolutionary war.
Unlike all the modern gooch sniffers who treat the founding fathers as infallible and the last word on everything. Including modern issues they could have never imagined. The founding fathers knew their constitution and laws were never perfect. And would likely need updating every 20 to 50 years. They didn’t fail us. We failed them in many ways however. We allowed those who amassed power to only amass more power. And put up roadblocks to any meaningful change in most instances. Which is why it was so hard to get things like civil rights or women’s suffrage. Nearly impossible to get anything at all today. Because it does not serve the entrenched wealthy and Powerful. And your average man is so uninformed that you really don’t know what’s going on or who the actual enemy is.
Bear in mind that in the early years of the USA, the vice president was generally the person who was running against the sitting President for the seat. It was another built in check to power, though unfortunately not codified. The idea of just picking a VP candidate came much later.
The 25th Amendment was ratified long after the 12th Amendment which changed how the VP got into office.
Not that much later. Jefferson was the third president, he’s the one who decided voters be damned he’s picking the VP.
Having a VP in opposition was a design flaw and a source of instability. It made sense to change it.
Do you really want a system where, if a faction dislikes the president, all they have to do is assassinate him?
You can think it’s better. But the fact is he decided to just ignore voters. Sound familiar?
Our whole system was hanging on the hope that We the People would identify and not elect a power-hungry egomaniac.
On the contrary, they assumed that grossly unfit morons would have mass appeal and that’s why the constitution has so many provisions to make sure that popular will is not reflected at the ballot box.
They hoped that the rich would not elect a grossly unfit traitor, which all of history shows is a laughably stupid assumption.
“We The People” only referred to white land owning men. Even with the expansions of reconstruction, women’s suffrage, and civil rights (all won by working class organization and opposition) our entire representative democracy has been designed to the benefit of capital owners. Neoliberalism just shifted that into overdrive.
The franchise has vastly expanded since then. There are other reasons for the current dysfunction.
I mean, if the VP doesn’t want to take over, it doesn’t make sense to force the VP to take over, since if they weren’t willing to go against the president and use the 25th, it means they’d be doing the same thing as the president, so its pointless.
The founders didn’t consider it at all, the 25th wasn’t added until 1967. Pre-Nixon even.
The 25th was put in to prevent the situation that occurred with Woodrow Wilson, who had a stroke and couldn’t govern but who was not removed from office.
The remedies for grossly unfit traitors were meant to be impeachment, or revolution.
The design seems to be to prevent a single person going rogue and doing whatever. Not designed for when someone has won elections and start damaging the country.
All the nonsense of “Republic is not a democracy because democracy is mob rule and not good for minorities” seems to no longer work.