Trump's Axios interview

[Dill]

(08-08-2020, 01:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: dill: No, the Framers did not want gridlock and "ideological stability" of the sort here referenced, which keeps one party in enough control of legislation to make sure that nothing gets done--i.e., prevents good governance. If you think they did, I'd like to know to whom you are referring and in what you call evidence.

Yes, they absolutely did for two reasons.  One it would prevent hastily enacted legislation and two it would encourage compromise.  If the parties cannot compromise that is not indicative of the flaws of the framers design but that of the two current parties. 

Madison describes a system institutions set up to check, balance and prevent "factions" from dominating and using the government for sectarian interests, as he articulates in the Federalist Papers Nos 10 and 51. That's a far cry from Gingrich, Boehner, and McConnell taking how few bills are passed as a measure of good governance, and stacking up blocked appointees for when their party gets control of the Exec. 

You may be confusing gridlock with concept of systemic checks. Gridlock prevents ANY legislation. It is created by the refusal of compromise. The Founders certainly did not want that. If you think they did then I ask again--what are your sources? 

And gridlock doesn't have to be the "flaw" of both parties when one party's representatives have regularly campaigned on hatred of compromise and government itself.