---------------------------
I am attempting an explanation as to why the constitution and its system of checks and balances was perverted so quickly. Certainly, TJ and Madison never envisioned the supreme court becoming virtually absolute with no real check on power, and yet...it has become just that.
[No, it hasn't, but granted, its rarely tested.]
Why? The political philosophy of the founders was based on French liberalism, which made the individual conscience the sovereign judge of truth--religious and otherwise. Thier philosophy was formulated by atheists, agnostics and deists, who rejected moral absolutes. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters and that political authority comes from the people themselves who should be free to overthrow the government--by violence if necessary--and set up new governments based on the will of the majority, as interpreted and guided by "intellectual" leaders. This stuff sparked the French revolution. Here in America Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry, who were familiar with the writings of the French philosophers, adopted much of their philosophy and applied it to the American situation. So...was the breakdown of our constitutional system the ramifications of liberalism? I think so. I am never popular for stating this opinion around here, but I would remind folks that all authority comes from God and if authority isn't exercised in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.
-----------------------------
-- Whew! That's a near indecipherable lecture, imo. Sorry. ------ So, you seem to advocate some sort of 'God' amendment? -- Care to frame a sample of one?
----------------------------
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
----------------------------
Understood. But if the people were allowed to have a vote on abortion, and voted to allow all forms, the majority will have spoken. Doesn't make it right, which is why I mentioned the moral values of citizens and its leaders. Any system is only as good as the people who live under it. Also, one can acknowlede a divine creator without establishing a religion. And why do you think the constitutional system corrupted so quickly? Please don't say "Abe Lincoln!"
You write 'understood', -- but then go on, and on, - making it quite clear that you haven't. -- Again, sorry I asked.
I thought it was a fairly concise description of where the founders got their political ideals from. It wasn't a condemnation of the system itself--just that it leaves God out of the equation, which then leaves questions of morality open for speculation. In fact, just about anything can be justified if its declared constitutional [i.e roe vs. wade]. That, imho, is a serious flaw. I would have preferred a little except acknowledging that the source of all authority rests with a supreme creator followed by a paragraph concerning natural law.
The framers specified in the constitution a republican form of government, not majority rule. -- And they also specified that congress shall make no [divine] law respecting an establishment of religion, -- .
Acknowledging God is a far cry from establishing a religion a la Henry VIII.
You write 'understood', -- but then go on, and on, - making it quite clear that you haven't. -- Again, sorry I asked.
I gave you an example of how the majority can vote just about anything in as constitutional. I know you understand what I am getting at. Don't be sorry. I enjoy the challenge. I undesrtand you disagree. So, what is your opinion on why the system corrpted so quickly?