Protesting For More Democracy

Today, "No Kings" demonstration day, is a big day for me, and for millions of other Americans. And, I dare say, it would be an equally big day for America's founders, by and large, were they here to witness it. They would probably take part in it.The stated intention of the event is to express opposition to the monarchial form of government, opposition to authoritarian government, opposition to Trump. The Trump administation is seen by many, mostly but not all progressive people, as being border line authoritarian, an unfit man who wants to exercise dictatorial powers supported in his aspirations by his substantial following, in and out of Congress. But there is yet hope. Indications are that even the Republicans in Congress are not happy that Trump has begun starting wars all oer God's green Earth without so much as sendinga memo to Congress of his intent to do so, of his having done so.Only Congress can declare war, but our modern imperial presidents seem to ahve usurped that authority, going as far back as the earliest American involvement in Viet Nam in teh nineteen fifties, and indeed before. A careful reading of the constitution reveals that the founder intended that the American president be a rather weak political figure,checked and balanced by Congress and the Supreme Court both. it was a question of extreme importance at the constututional convention, just exacty how powerful to make the American head of state, and how limited in power. As one might imagine, there were proponents of all points of view on the spectrum. Some, including Alexander Hamilton, wanted a very strong chief executive, with exxentially the powers of a king, to ensure stable government over a new and unmanageably large country, geographically. Others, including Jefferson, wanted a relatively weak central government generally, with much and most powers reserved to the various states. The compromise they reached has been and continues to be recognized as among the most brilliant intellectual achievements in human history; the forging of a functional representative democracy to replace hundreds of years of monarchy. Despite its demonstrated durability, its main author, James Madison, never inended it to be permanent, or even long lived. Like Jefferson, he believed that with the obvious and inevitable societal evolution of the future, it would be necessary for all future generatiosn to reinvent their government with a new constitution to match the changing times. Jefferson said that the United States would probably require a new constitution about once every generation. They would almost certainly be shocked and horrifed, if perhaps a bit flattered, to know that we noy only still sue it in the twenty first century, but that we cling tenaciously to their very imperfect and rather hastily written document like some sacred revelation from God, Indeed, we in today's America are far more likely to ascribe our constitution to divine providence than its authors would ever have imagined possible. Perhaps they would find our attitude a bit humorous, and perhaps somewhat sad. Indisputably, teh American constitution is not the workd of God, is far from perfect, and we modern Americans could write a much much better one,more suited to ourselves and our world. Hell, maybe it would be best to turn the project over to Artificial Intelligence! I'm only hqlf joking. The "No Kings" nationwide protest will probably accuse the Trump administration of violating the constitution. All good and well. But maybe we should do more; maybe we should advocate for a better form of government, of democratic government, one with, for example, more actual democracy.