Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Feral Finster's avatar

It is obvious that the West in general and the United States in particular, are governed by individuals whose behavior is indistinguishable from that of high-functioning sociopaths.

What do people propose to do about it?

Expand full comment
Jeffrey Harrison's avatar

An exchange that is probably apocryphal has Benjamin Franklin telling a woman that, indeed, she has her republic, if she can keep it. Clearly, we have been unable to do so.

I blame the people.

Granted the government is actually the proximate cause but the people are supposed to be in control of the government except, of course, we know that we're not. The real problem is the lawyers most of whom should be required to get a real job. But how, really, did some of our problems come about?

At the turn of the last century, a bunch of women got together and got a constitutional amendment passed outlawing alcohol. That was spectacularly stupid and should have barred women from ever voting. While that's a great aside, that's not my point. The constitution doesn't grant the US government the power to control something like alcohol. Hence the need for a constitutional amendment. Which necessitated another amendment to undo the first. But in the meantime, the evil lawyers had been at work and congress passed the pure food and drug act. Suddenly the US can ban anything, including alcohol. Not in the constitution? No problem! Just write a law and give yourself the authority! Not the process described in the constitution? No problem! Just ignore it.

Another wonderous invention that is subverting our democracy – imaginative interpretations of apparently mundane constitutional clauses. Did you know that the Civil Rights act's constitutional authority is the Interstate Commerce Clause? Somehow, I find that morally repugnant. To make matters worse, the ICC has been the basis for a lot of law since the great depression.

Another thing that subverts our democracy – judicial activism. Back in the '50s some widows sued the government when their civilian husbands were killed in an aircraft accident in a B-29. They alleged that this document laid everything out and they wanted to enter it into the case. The government claimed it was classified and putting it in the case would compromise national security. The SC created the national security exception to the 6th amendment to the constitution. If the government declares national security, they no longer have to prove their case, they just win. It wouldn't be too bad if instead of proving their case they essentially agreed to lose. To make matters worse, when the document was finally declassified a few years back, it was discovered that (a) it said what the widows said it said, and (b) the paragraph they were interested in was unclassified.

And that's for openers.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts