←back to thread

258 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.285s | source
Show context
jleyank ◴[] No.44611189[source]
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.

As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

replies(20): >>44611243 #>>44611251 #>>44611274 #>>44611292 #>>44611294 #>>44611300 #>>44611372 #>>44611468 #>>44612747 #>>44612970 #>>44613048 #>>44613100 #>>44613128 #>>44613243 #>>44613469 #>>44613869 #>>44615093 #>>44616024 #>>44616939 #>>44617655 #
asperous ◴[] No.44613048[source]
The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

replies(6): >>44613331 #>>44613351 #>>44613478 #>>44613773 #>>44614498 #>>44615357 #
insane_dreamer ◴[] No.44613331[source]
The Founders would never have approved of Citizens United.
replies(3): >>44613353 #>>44613485 #>>44615424 #
tzs ◴[] No.44615424[source]
Yes they would have, for many of the same reasons the ACLU did [1].

[1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united

replies(1): >>44616227 #
1. techjamie ◴[] No.44616227[source]
I'm probably being cynical, but I take their reasoning for opposition with a grain of salt when they themselves partake in lobbying. Removing it would hurt them, too.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-un...