As opposed to, say, 9 unelected people who wear funny black robes? Or hundreds of legislators, half of whom are disloyal to our country?
The only SAFE repository of power is the People themselves. But we have learned through history (there's that word again!) that people will naturally invest their power in a single individual, then in a council, then in a parliament, and finally go back to either anarchy for a time or a dictator.
We are naturally prone to give away our most precious birthright for a bowl of pottage. (See: Isaac vs. Esau.)
Our Founding Fathers knew full well how stupid people are, and in order to protect us from ourselves, designed a system whereby, when rights are threatened one way or the other, there is a solution.
And the solution today is investing a whole lot of power in one man who has proven himself worthy to wield such a power.
Julius Caesar is one of the most misunderstood people from history. His error was getting killed. Had he lived, we would celebrate him the same way we celebrate Oliver Cromwell and George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. These men all did similar things. Only AFTER they did what they did, did we try to invent fictions about why what they did was right and lawful and just. These men, however, had only the passion in their heart that even though they knew they were breaking laws and traditions, they were doing it for the right reasons and there truly was no other way.
There is a time for dictatorship, just like there is a time for deliberation and democracy. Anarchy has its place as well. All must be balanced and set at odds with each other, only able to overpower the others when they fight for individual rights. Had CONGRESS been leading the charge in taking on voter fraud, we would be with them. Had the COURTS done it, we would have been for them. As it is, Trump is in position to gain supreme leadership of the American people, at least for a time, for the simple fact that he and he alone stands to protect our rights.
The Founding Fathers were expecting us to get in the exact sort of problem we are in, and are expecting Trump to declare martial law, even summoning up the militia, and putting down the rebellion of those who are threatening and violating our most basic rights. AS HE SHOULD.
If the courts fail, if President Trump fails to do so, we are left with anarchy as the people will do it themselves. No one wants that. But we will gladly choose it over the alternative: SLAVERY.
The constitutional powers given to the president are nowhere near the 2020 president's powers. By now, the president has far too much power (along with the whole government). However I agree with many of your points. There are times in history that call for different kinds of government, different kinds of solutions. I'm glad right now that it's Trump in there because I do trust him. But we are playing with fire if the government isn't majorly stripped down, very soon.
She was already in the Whitehouse and was responsible for selling us out to China. We've been in a constant state of emergency since the 70's. The Bush's were even worse with the wars they waged to line the pockets if the military industrial complex. And Obama was worse than any of them with his drones and turning the Federal government into tyrants so ruthless it would make the gestapo blush.
Yeah I agree, before Trump we had at least 3 AWFUL presidents in a row who completely abused their power. That is exactly my argument, the executive is too strong. If you go back to a strict constitutional interpretation, the executive can't do 90% of what they're doing today. There wouldn't be an Obama level of power back in 1800.
It's a legislative issue. Congress passed too many terrible laws. Point is, you're not going to solve anything by tying your hands behind your back while your subordinates steal the country for China.
It's just a big government issue, but to the core it's a fiat money issue. If we were still on the gold standard it would be impossible for the government to fund itself through taxation. They'd have to actually tax the citizens, and there's no way citizens would be able to fund this large of a government. Return to gold standard ='s the government automatically shrinks and loses power.
Well what if this were Hillary in there with those powers, would you feel the same?
That's why she is not president.
Stacking too much power in the executive is bound to come bite and bite you in the ass. It's only a matter of when, IMO.
As opposed to, say, 9 unelected people who wear funny black robes? Or hundreds of legislators, half of whom are disloyal to our country?
The only SAFE repository of power is the People themselves. But we have learned through history (there's that word again!) that people will naturally invest their power in a single individual, then in a council, then in a parliament, and finally go back to either anarchy for a time or a dictator.
We are naturally prone to give away our most precious birthright for a bowl of pottage. (See: Isaac vs. Esau.)
Our Founding Fathers knew full well how stupid people are, and in order to protect us from ourselves, designed a system whereby, when rights are threatened one way or the other, there is a solution.
And the solution today is investing a whole lot of power in one man who has proven himself worthy to wield such a power.
Julius Caesar is one of the most misunderstood people from history. His error was getting killed. Had he lived, we would celebrate him the same way we celebrate Oliver Cromwell and George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. These men all did similar things. Only AFTER they did what they did, did we try to invent fictions about why what they did was right and lawful and just. These men, however, had only the passion in their heart that even though they knew they were breaking laws and traditions, they were doing it for the right reasons and there truly was no other way.
There is a time for dictatorship, just like there is a time for deliberation and democracy. Anarchy has its place as well. All must be balanced and set at odds with each other, only able to overpower the others when they fight for individual rights. Had CONGRESS been leading the charge in taking on voter fraud, we would be with them. Had the COURTS done it, we would have been for them. As it is, Trump is in position to gain supreme leadership of the American people, at least for a time, for the simple fact that he and he alone stands to protect our rights.
The Founding Fathers were expecting us to get in the exact sort of problem we are in, and are expecting Trump to declare martial law, even summoning up the militia, and putting down the rebellion of those who are threatening and violating our most basic rights. AS HE SHOULD.
If the courts fail, if President Trump fails to do so, we are left with anarchy as the people will do it themselves. No one wants that. But we will gladly choose it over the alternative: SLAVERY.
The constitutional powers given to the president are nowhere near the 2020 president's powers. By now, the president has far too much power (along with the whole government). However I agree with many of your points. There are times in history that call for different kinds of government, different kinds of solutions. I'm glad right now that it's Trump in there because I do trust him. But we are playing with fire if the government isn't majorly stripped down, very soon.
Well said, Pede
She was already in the Whitehouse and was responsible for selling us out to China. We've been in a constant state of emergency since the 70's. The Bush's were even worse with the wars they waged to line the pockets if the military industrial complex. And Obama was worse than any of them with his drones and turning the Federal government into tyrants so ruthless it would make the gestapo blush.
Yeah I agree, before Trump we had at least 3 AWFUL presidents in a row who completely abused their power. That is exactly my argument, the executive is too strong. If you go back to a strict constitutional interpretation, the executive can't do 90% of what they're doing today. There wouldn't be an Obama level of power back in 1800.
It's a legislative issue. Congress passed too many terrible laws. Point is, you're not going to solve anything by tying your hands behind your back while your subordinates steal the country for China.
It's just a big government issue, but to the core it's a fiat money issue. If we were still on the gold standard it would be impossible for the government to fund itself through taxation. They'd have to actually tax the citizens, and there's no way citizens would be able to fund this large of a government. Return to gold standard ='s the government automatically shrinks and loses power.