Its incredibly robust. Its lasted over two hundred years through several constitutional crises. Its possible it might even survive this. Whats happening now required complacency of a majority of both houses of congress, a large swath of the judiciary, plus the executive. Thats pretty damn robust. Its like saying a bridge is not robust even though its stayed up when some of its supports got destroyed but once over half of them were taken out it finally started to crack.
It didn’t last over two hundred years. It failed utterly in 1861 and wasn’t restored until 1865. That was only 160 years ago.
It probably would’ve failed again in the 1930s but the Roosevelt Democrats were able to take control of both the legislative and executive branches and make them irrelevant, and then the rest of the world bombed itself into the dirt, allowing America to become fat and rich enough that you didn’t notice the rot.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
“Watches an orange buffoon turn the government into a authoritarian regime.”
Its incredibly robust!
Same time, “the American experiment”, “a young country”, “27 constitutional ammendments”, etc.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
You’re missing the whole point. If majority are shitty people, that’s what you get.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
Youre missing the point, government was suppose to be designed to fend off shitty people destroying it.
HubertManne@piefed.social 7 hours ago
fend off some shitty people from destroying it. Not a majority of elected positions. Again your expectations of robust go beyond anything that is feasible. With a monarchy one monarch can bring it down. Despite the orange buffoon he would not be able to do it without all the congress collaborators. His first term was actually a constitutional crises we got passed. Barely.