you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Amazing that the founding fathers didn't contemplate the possibility of a felon under active lawsuits becoming speaker

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In defense of the founding fathers, they were all traitors to the crown and enemies of the state when they wrote that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Possibly they were young and drunk too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The founding fathers were amazingly shit at game theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Considering no one would formalize game theory for 150 years it's not particularly surprising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    You don't need to necessarily formalize game theory to consider things like: hey, we just gave the president the authority to pardon. Couldn't they abuse that? What if they pardon someone who was doing something illegal that they ordered? What if they commit a crime and pardon themselves?

    I mean, that's the most obvious one that you don't really need formal game theory to know could be a problem. Then there are all the other problems. Checks and balances are good, but when a powerful faction uses its power to put loyalists into the thing that's supposed to balance them, the system seems to unravel.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They didn't even contemplate the House Speaker being in the Presidential line of succession. Which is the reason they want to put Trump there. Not that it would work; they'd have to remove both the President and Vice President at the same time, and the Senate ain't going to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments