455
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
455 points (99.1% liked)
politics
21970 readers
4161 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Not that much later. Jefferson was the third president, he's the one who decided voters be damned he's picking the VP.
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.
The founders didn't consider it at all, the 25th wasn't added until 1967. Pre-Nixon even.
Our whole system was hanging on the hope that We the People would identify and not elect a power-hungry egomaniac.
"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.
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.
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.