• clutchmatic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Varixable@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They probably didn’t contemplate having an active child Diddler be speaker from 1987-2007 either, but Republicans sure love their historic firsts.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.