• ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    I feel like if controlling all three branches is enough to undo the whole constitution, it wasnt that good. If they wanted to prevent a tyrant, they shouldve thought to ask “what if that tyrant is popular”

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I mean… A popular tyrant will win no matter the political system, because who’s gonna do anything about them?

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      If they wanted to prevent a tyrant, they shouldve thought to ask “what if that tyrant is popular”

      They did dude. What do you think the 2nd amendment is for.

      Also, you say that like controlling all 3 branches is a small thing. It means you control the whole government…

      • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The weakness with the Second Amendment is that it effectively relies on a minority winning if it gets to that point. I hope I don’t have to point out that wars that come down to numbers rarely end well