Founded by Geniuses; Run by Idiots

[Phatscotty]

Given that we are talking about the USA here,in cases where the OP does not specify we can safely assume this,can I ask one question?By what criteria can it be said the USA was founded by geniuses,and if this is so,how did so many geniuses come to be concentrated in one place at the same time?

I think it was the times and the opportunity more than the people that many of us consider geniuses. They had a reason to study governments of the past, why they did work and why they didn't. They had a reason to study equality and the words of Plato and ancient Greeks and to study the Roman empire and the Byzantine. They had a reason to study religions and religious persecution and move the cause of religious freedom forward. After winning the war they had an opportunity to found a nation and try to get it right, and I believe they got it right, and that it was a nation built on Freedom and Liberty for the right reasons, and the reason why we did not seat a King like most other countries. They grew up as a free people. There was not a central education system dedicated to teaching them what to think. They were allowed to develop for themselves in their own ways the ability to think, and they thought for us even to this day.

When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Bill Clinton said, amongst appointing all his cabinet members and having them all together in one room, "There hasn't been this concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.”

Benjamin Franklin - certified genius. I'm grateful it was his son who remained loyal to the British.

[chang50]

Given that we are talking about the USA here,in cases where the OP does not specify we can safely assume this,can I ask one question?By what criteria can it be said the USA was founded by geniuses,and if this is so,how did so many geniuses come to be concentrated in one place at the same time?

I think it was the times and the opportunity more than the people that many of us consider geniuses. They had a reason to study governments of the past, why they did work and why they didn't. They had a reason to study equality and the words of Plato and ancient Greeks and to study the Roman empire and the Byzantine. They had a reason to study religions and religious persecution and move the cause of religious freedom forward. After winning the war they had an opportunity to found a nation and try to get it right, and I believe they got it right, and that it was a nation built on Freedom and Liberty for the right reasons, and the reason why we did not seat a King like most other countries. They grew up as a free people. There was not a central education system dedicated to teaching them what to think. They were allowed to develop for themselves in their own ways the ability to think, and they thought for us even to this day.

When told by the American artist Benjamin West that Washington was going to resign, King George III of England said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Bill Clinton said, amongst appointing all his cabinet members and having them all together in one room, "There hasn't been this concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone.”

Benjamin Franklin - certified genius. I'm grateful it was his son who remained loyal to the British.

I can agree there were many great,and several exceptional people involved who seized the zeitgeist and created something novel and unprecedented.However it has not been an unqualified success story and other models of government have evolved that are just as admirable,but less prone to self praise and absurd flag-waving.The average Brit would be embarassed by regarding their country as exceptional and the elevation of their historical/political figures to geniushood.What I'm trying to say,and please do not take this as an insult as opposed to an honest opinion, is your country has never been as special as you and many others seem to think.

[Phatscotty]

I understand, I don't totally disagree. Your bit about flag waving...hey, we won WW1 and WW2, that's gonna happen. I don't think there isn't something bigger going on either, like the education system pumping kids full of our founding and winning the big wars, and then a bunch of Liberalism from 1950's to current, and I think a reason for that may be our individual "self esteem" is part of some bigger organized goal, as it's true our self esteem is through the roof in some areas where young people will just say we are #1 at everything without thinking about it.

I don't think you are talking about me though, because not being #1 is what drives me, and returning to the fundamental principles geared towards Liberty that helped us be #1 in the past is what I'm pushin

[Lootifer]

You wouldnt find this kind of silly rhetoric on a wonderful channel like ABC!

[chang50]

I understand, I don't totally disagree. Your bit about flag waving...hey, we won WW1 and WW2, that's gonna happen. I don't think there isn't something bigger going on either, like the education system pumping kids full of our founding and winning the big wars, and then a bunch of Liberalism from 1950's to current, and I think a reason for that may be our individual "self esteem" is part of some bigger organized goal, as it's true our self esteem is through the roof in some areas where young people will just say we are #1 at everything without thinking about it.

I don't think you are talking about me though, because not being #1 is what drives me, and returning to the fundamental principles geared towards Liberty that helped us be #1 in the past is what I'm pushin

So we do share some common ground,who'd have thought it?

[warmonger1981]

What I meant was words are just that. Words. They mean one thing one day and something completely different the next. Constitutional is one of those words now. It says we live in a republic but people think we live in a democracy. Constitution or not does it feel like we live in one. Patriot Act ruined that. Just words.

[AndyDufresne]

What I meant was words are just that. Words. They mean one thing one day and something completely different the next. Constitutional is one of those words now. It says we live in a republic but people think we live in a democracy. Constitution or not does it feel like we live in one. Patriot Act ruined that. Just words.

Words are indeed just words, and really change definitions daily. For instance, today I might say:

"I'm really looking forward to my afternoon jaunt around the neighborhood. Maybe I'll pickup some ice cream."

While tomorrow, those same words may have different definitions, like:

Jaunt --> prowl
Ice cream --> street hookers


--Andy

[Symmetry]

Or indeed that the founding father's didn't consider the words republic and democracy interchangeable. What a shame this right wing anti democracy myth has taken such a firm hold.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's unconstitutional.

[saxitoxin]

I understand Robert Welch's basic idea. He probably saw the term "constitutional monarchy" (a monarchy in which the throne has chosen to exercise its power under the limits of a constitution instead of by whim) and thought he could create a corollary term "constitutional republic." His theory is that, because the U.S. was not what he called "a pure democracy" it requires a different term. But it doesn't really make sense because every republic on Earth meets his definition of a "constitutional republic" as far back as Rome.

This is kind-of what happens when someone who is not qualified to create new terminology decides to try his hand at it. Nonsensical phrases result.

Welch could start declaring that the sun is a "fire sphere" but academia still refers to it as a "star."

Welch could start declaring that the U.S. is a "constitutional republic" but academia still refers to it as a "federal democratic republic" along with Germany; or France as a "unitary democratic republic," or Canada and Malaysia "federal constitutional monarchies" and so forth.

"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy but the constitutional republic crowd use a very odd version of it in that the authority they're appealing to for their understanding of U.S. constitutional history is the inventor of Junior Mints (which, admittedly, are delicious).

[DoomYoshi]

I live and breathe academia and rub shoulders with, and consider myself, a genius.

I can assure you that geniuses are morally repugnant beings, who only interact with the unwashed masses in order to manipulate them. In that regard, Obama qualifies as a genius, as do the bankers in charge of the USA.

[tzor]

I have to respectfully disagree with tzor on this point. The term "constitutional republic" is not a real term.

The notion that the government was a republic came directly from the mouth of Ben Franklin at the end of the Constitutional Convention.

Thus it was a Republic and it had a Constitution. I don't care what you want to call it (A Federal Government governed by a Constitution that guaranteed a Republican form of Government to the States) but it was not and never has been a "Democracy."

[saxitoxin]

I have to respectfully disagree with tzor on this point. The term "constitutional republic" is not a real term.

The notion that the government was a republic came directly from the mouth of Ben Franklin at the end of the Constitutional Convention.

The word "republic" or phrase "constitutional republic" doesn't appear in Franklin's final speech at the constitutional convention (which he submitted in writing since he was dying and too ill to speak [in contrast to what the History Channel likes to show of a Santa Claus-esque Franklin prancing about, making bawdy jokes]), nor in the Federalist Papers, Constitution, Articles of Confederation or Declaration of Independence. Franklin's speech is concerned with the fact he thinks the constitution is awful but it's the best they've got and needs to be pushed-through ASAP to stop the developing national emergency.

There's no record of the term "constitutional republic" existing prior to the inventor of the Junior Mint creating it in the 1950s. Fortunately, the American founders anticipated a certifiable loon like Robert Welch coming along eventually ...



Mr. KING suggested that the Journals of the Convention should be either destroyed, or deposited in the custody of the President.

Mr. WILSON prefered the second expedient, he had at one time liked the first best; but as false suggestions may be propagated it should not be made impossible to contradict them.

Thus it was a Republic and it had a Constitution. I don't care what you want to call it (A Federal Government governed by a Constitution that guaranteed a Republican form of Government to the States) but it was not and never has been a "Democracy."

Republicanism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. That's like saying "my LaForza SUV is a four-wheel drive, it is not a car." My LaForza is a car with four-wheel drive. The U.S. is a republic with a democratic government. France is a republic with a democratic government. Iran is a republic with a theocratic government. Canada is a monarchy with a democratic government.

[Phatscotty]

Democratic Republic, moving towards pure Democracy

[saxitoxin]

Democratic Republic, moving towards pure Democracy

I don't think that's a real thing. Democracy will always exist either within the structure of a Republic or a Monarchy. "Republic" defines the source of authority. "Democracy" defines the source of power. e.g.:

In Canada, the Queen of Canada wields power provided by the people via parliament (Democratic Monarchy, or more accurately, Constitutional Monarchy). In the U.S., the President wields power provided by the people via the Congress of states (Democratic Republic). In renaissance Venice, the Doge wielded power provided by the landowners (Aristocratic Republic).

In any state larger than 2 people, people cannot be both the source of power and authority.

Interestingly, Akhil Amar at Yale Law has made the argument that the American founding fathers actually believed that the entire U.S. constitution could be abolished at any time by a majority vote in a referendum. According to him, Gen. Wilson, Gen. Washington's first appointee to the Supreme Court, said:

As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. As to the people, however, in whom sovereign power resides … [f]rom their authority the constitution originates: for their safety and felicity it is established; in their hands it is clay in the hands of the potter: they have the right to mold, to preserve, to improve, to refine, and to finish as they please. If so; can it be doubted, that they have the right likewise to change it? A majority of the society is sufficient for this purpose.

In any case, I think you may unknowingly support a different form of government than that which the American founders actually created; which is okay and perfectly fine. I might even agree with you, in fact, on some days, depending on the weather.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think that's a real thing. Democracy will always exist either within the structure of a Republic or a Monarchy.

Ahem... Athenian/Greek democracy?

[BigBallinStalin]

Democratic Republic, moving towards pure Democracy

I don't think that's a real thing. Democracy will always exist either within the structure of a Republic or a Monarchy. "Republic" defines the source of authority. "Democracy" defines the source of power. e.g.:

In Canada, the Queen of Canada wields power provided by the people via parliament (Democratic Monarchy, or more accurately, Constitutional Monarchy). In the U.S., the President wields power provided by the people via the Congress of states (Democratic Republic). In renaissance Venice, the Doge wielded power provided by the landowners (Aristocratic Republic).

In any state larger than 2 people, people cannot be both the source of power and authority.

Interestingly, Akhil Amar at Yale Law has made the argument that the American founding fathers actually believed that the entire U.S. constitution could be abolished at any time by a majority vote in a referendum. According to him, Gen. Wilson, Gen. Washington's first appointee to the Supreme Court, said:

As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. As to the people, however, in whom sovereign power resides … [f]rom their authority the constitution originates: for their safety and felicity it is established; in their hands it is clay in the hands of the potter: they have the right to mold, to preserve, to improve, to refine, and to finish as they please. If so; can it be doubted, that they have the right likewise to change it? A majority of the society is sufficient for this purpose.

In any case, I think you may unknowingly support a different form of government than that which the American founders actually created; which is okay and perfectly fine. I might even agree with you, in fact, on some days, depending on the weather.

(1) IIRC, wasn't Tommy J in favor of a constitutional redo--every 20 years or so?

(2) "In any state larger than 2 people, people cannot be both the source of power and authority. "

So, how would you describe the political structure of pre-2011 Libya? How about Saudi Arabia? The DDR? And the Soviet Union under our good man, Stalin?

[saxitoxin]

I don't think that's a real thing. Democracy will always exist either within the structure of a Republic or a Monarchy.

Ahem... Athenian/Greek democracy?

THIS IS A FAMILY FRIENDLY THREAD - KEEP THAT FILTH OUTTA HERE

[Phatscotty]

What I think some here are trying to say, is that there are rules (used to be) that prevent things from being decided by a simple majority, like how something used to need 60 votes in the Senate, not just 51, and how 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify the Constitution, not just 26 states, or how the electoral college decides the presidency, not who gets the most votes.

Whatever you call that. I can see how it's viewed as a Constitutional Republic, because it's the Constitution that prevents us from being a pure Democracy. Democratic Republic is more accurate...and sorry if I missed it, but what is the correct term Saxi?

[patches70]

but what is the correct term Saxi?

Oligarchy. Maybe Kleptocracy. At least how we find ourselves today.....

[saxitoxin]

What I think some here are trying to say, is that there are rules (used to be) that prevent things from being decided by a simple majority, like how something used to need 60 votes in the Senate, not just 51, and how 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify the Constitution, not just 26 states, or how the electoral college decides the presidency, not who gets the most votes.

Whatever you call that. I can see how it's viewed as a Constitutional Republic, because it's the Constitution that prevents us from being a pure Democracy. Democratic Republic is more accurate...and sorry if I missed it, but what is the correct term Saxi?

First, I can't name a single republic on the planet Earth that doesn't have restraints against majoritarianism (maybe there are and I just can't think of any).

Second, When someone says "the U.S is a democracy" and one responds by saying "no, the correct term is constitutional republic," you're 110% wrong. The U.S. is not a "constitutional republic" because that is a term that simply doesn't exist. It would be like me saying "Pluto is a planet" and someone responding "no, it's actually a Purple Jub-Jub Beast." Pluto may not be a planet, but the person who calls it one is less wrong than someone who refers to it as a Purple Jub-Jub Beast. "Planet" is actually a term that means something. "Purple Jub-Jub Beast" and "constitutional republic" are make-believe terms that mean nothing.

This isn't just a matter of pedantic phrasing. In the "constitutional republic" theory of Robert Welch, the U.S. constitution has some aspect of structural uniqueness about it that is non-existent anywhere else at any point in history. This charming and inoffensive, though technically incorrect, notion is used to move the potential convert along a gradual progression of ensuing craziness. Once you buy-on to it, you're then introduced to the idea that the gold fringe on a U.S. flag in a court indicates it's actually an Admirality Court. Once you've signed onto that then you're introduced to the idea that the President of the day is a communist sleeper agent (in the case of Welch it was Eisenhower and Nixon), etc.

The U.S. is a Federal Democratic Republic, exactly like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Germany, India, Switzerland, etc. There is no such thing as a "constitutional republic" and there is no special category of governments occupied by the U.S. alone.

[Phatscotty]

Yeah I know I'm following you on all that, I'm just asking then....Is it just a regular old Democracy, just a variation, or what should it be called, what has it historically (and technically) been called, etc

oh, okay, I see your answer. not sure if it was there before or not, thanks

[Phatscotty]

but what is the correct term Saxi?

Oligarchy. Maybe Kleptocracy. At least how we find ourselves today.....

Oligarichal collectivism?

I like the way this secret paper I am reading defines it as " the XYZ society, a secret group of Leftist international financiers and one-world intellectuals"

[saxitoxin]

Yeah I know I'm following you on all that, I'm just asking then....Is it just a regular old Democracy, just a variation, or what should it be called, what has it historically (and technically) been called, etc

The U.S. is a Federal Democratic Republic. (1) Federal because the states have a political personality independent of the center. (2) Democratic because popular elections are used to fill most public offices. (3) Republic because every single thing that isn't a monarchy is a republic.

Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland are also Federal Democratic Republics

Texas and France are both Unitary Democratic Republics. The counties of Texas and departments of France are creations of the central government.

[Phatscotty]

The U.S. is a Federal Democratic Republic, exactly like Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Germany, India, Switzerland, etc. There is no such thing as a "constitutional republic" and there is no special category of governments occupied by the U.S. alone.

The USA is a Democratic Republic"

I WAS CLOSE!