Assassinating the president has little to do with denying him the power of the presidency, and more to do with what he is a symbol of.
Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers
Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers
That is the issue, the foundational principle of the United States was that we were a federalist system with a weak and narrowly defined federal government. The office of Presidency should be inconsequential to the Everyday citizen of either the US or the world.
The fact that we continually shift more power from Local / State government, then from Congress to the Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power"
>Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office workers
Again the theory of Distribution apply here to building as well. World Trade Center was attacked because NYC is seen as the Central Place for world finance.
NYC has become too powerful and that power should be distributed.
This is all rank and dubious speculation wrt your general rule about POTUS needing a dedicated security team.
Hell, Duane Johnson needs a dedicated security team.
If you are positing a federal government so weak that POTUS is not widely known within the U.S. population, you're political views are more radical than you're letting on.
The US Navy is the only constitutional branch of the DoD. How is that for being radical.
> Arising from or going to a root or source; basic.
>Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme or drastic.
> Relating to or advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.
> designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue
> of or relating to the origin
> favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
> Favoring fundamental change, or change at the root cause of a matter.
It seems today however we have allowed the federal government to simply ignore it because it is "too hard" to pass an amendment. Sorry if it important enough to expand the power of the federal government is should be important enough to put in the work to amend the constitution, and if you can not pass it then clearly the nation agree's it is not in scope of the federal government.
And by "nation" I do not mean a "democratic vote where by 51% of the population tells the 49% what do to" which seems to be common in the "Protect our democracy" crowd.
What you're not seeing with your point is that the federal government actually hasn't really expanded their power, it's just that more and more things have been "capitalism-ified" to where doing business purely within one state is uneconomical. More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines, and thus the federal government is governing more of the everyday person's life than they were 100 years ago.
The same Interstate Commerce Clause that in Wickard v. Filburn the federal judiciary interpreted as giving the federal legislature the authority to regulate intrastate non-commerce; and in turn relied upon in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has the authority to regulate the growing and use of cannabis for medical purposes by one man acting within one state and according to that state's laws for his own person.
> More and more of society has transition to conducting business over state and national lines
This is true, but the above examples show that the federal government is intruding in people's personal actions with no commercial purpose that stays confined to one state, on the basis that those actions might exert a force, however minute, on interstate commerce. The federal government may as well say that they can regulate everyone since people breathe air which crosses state lines and therefore is under federal jurisdiction.
You have to be kidding me. I did not think anyone would honestly make that case. Many argue about how the federal government needed to expand their power but I have never seen anyone claim they have not expanded their power at all
That is new one for me, and not supported at all by the historical record, which for example was clear there needed to be a amendment passed to ban alcohol but then magically due to some very bad court rulings (like wickard) they could ban whole classes of drugs without a constitutional amendment
History is VERY, VERY clear that FDR massively expanded the size, and scope of government and held the supreme court hostage forcing them rule his way after striking down many of his laws originally as unconstitutional
No one that has studied American History can say with the strait face the Federal Government has not expanded its powers
This is the nation that hosts the davos summit, is the hub of FIFA and red cross, plus several other high profile multinationals, NGOs, and wotld bodies, and is also the only core european country not parricipating in thr EU zone agreement.
Surely if you know the PM of Spain, Norway or Poland you ought to know switzerland right?
The would be assassins are as backwards about the symbols as the sycophants. They don’t see symbols as a byproduct, a shelved trophy of societal achievement, rather than its cause. It is understandable that a religious person would invert cause and effect, as if the shine of wet streets made rain. It is a bad thing for the US to become a cargo cult of itself.
The formerly-enslaved workers in the American South would like a word about Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865 and his replacement as president by the (Union-loyal) southerner and states-rights advocate Andrew Johnson, who had very different ideas about Reconstruction and the rights of Blacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Reconstruction
EDIT: Recall as well the 1914 assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian nationalist: That one murder started the dominos falling for a 30-year, continent-wide war (with a 20-year intermission) in which tens of millions of soldiers and civilians died — with millions of those being systematically murdered. Moreover, that new Thirty Years War (Churchill's term) destroyed the fairly-prosperous international commercial system of the early 1900s; devastated most of Europe's physical- and economic infrastructure; and catapulted Russia and the U.S. to the status of global hegemons.
So yeah: Assassinations can indeed be quite a bit more than just personal tragedies ....