The Founders warned of several ways that America could be turned into a Dictatorship. Washington warned against political parties, calling them a form of despotism, which would, if left unchecked, lead to a worst form of despotism.
John Adams warned of the people voting to gain "wanton pleasures, the capricious will" and how that would cause a decay into anarchy.
As far as contradiction goes, there a a few areas that the Constitution is rather vague. The place that comes to mind is the conditions under which a President can suspend Habeas Corpus. Does Congress need to declare a national emergency first? Or can the President do this himself? The Constitution does not provide much guidance on the federal courts. This is also an area where we must be vigilant- to ensure that activist judges don't take over our country.
Other than a few areas of vagueness coupled with the fact that freedom requires a virtuous and moral people (Washington and Adams), who are ever vigilant in the defense of freedom, I don't know of any outright contradictions in the Constitution. I suppose that is why it is part of the reason for it being amendable- so that future generations can give further guidance to their servants in government. (Which, in itself, could lead our nation into despotism).
Anyone who thinks that America could never turn into a dictatorship is fooling themselves, and would be wise to remain vigilant for freedoms sake.
Valid point as that is, I don't think thats what Godel was talking about. I am trying to work through tthe constitution. I think the source of dictatorial authority will be either Article 1 section 2 clause 1 and Article 2 section 1 clause 2 (along with some other pripheral ones) or through the judiciary using Article 3 but this needs a lot more work on my part. Its a nice pet project.
As I mentioned, Article 3 is one of the most likely. I don't know how the other two references you cited could be a problem. If you'd like to email me (jlv at ensigntech.com) I'd be most interested in your theories.
John Adams warned of the people voting to gain "wanton pleasures, the capricious will" and how that would cause a decay into anarchy.
As far as contradiction goes, there a a few areas that the Constitution is rather vague. The place that comes to mind is the conditions under which a President can suspend Habeas Corpus. Does Congress need to declare a national emergency first? Or can the President do this himself? The Constitution does not provide much guidance on the federal courts. This is also an area where we must be vigilant- to ensure that activist judges don't take over our country.
Other than a few areas of vagueness coupled with the fact that freedom requires a virtuous and moral people (Washington and Adams), who are ever vigilant in the defense of freedom, I don't know of any outright contradictions in the Constitution. I suppose that is why it is part of the reason for it being amendable- so that future generations can give further guidance to their servants in government. (Which, in itself, could lead our nation into despotism).
Anyone who thinks that America could never turn into a dictatorship is fooling themselves, and would be wise to remain vigilant for freedoms sake.