Why do American Atheists Believe in the Constitution?

[Secular Heckler]

My primary argument is that the Three-part Separation Theory was underdeveloped and, inevitably, inaccurately deployed throughout the American charter system.

The starting point for understanding the perpetually cycling problems of the three-branch governing system is that all of the executive power is in the executive branch, and the subsequent security departments lack an orderly organization of that power – just about every president reorganizes the branch to accommodate their agendas. The partisan problem is because the legislative assemblies are generally commissioned, publicly elected, and unsupervised. The judicial problem is because the administrative powers are distributed among the three branches, and the political contest in the legislatures stabilized into its erroneous duopoly; ultimately, disseminating partisanship into society, including the judicial servants.

The absolute truth is that a three-branch government only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. The inconvenient truth is that neither the separation nor the formulation of checks on power prevents corruption or controls the quality of the inevitable oligarchy formed by the principal officials in the government. The problem is not because the establishment of justice is a balanced altruistic design that is vulnerable to nefarious politicians, bureaucrats, pundits, and activists. The problem is that the checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government, and that adversely affects everything. It is the proverbial box of rules that forms our understanding of the system of justice. There is no calibration standard for measuring or comprehending the balance of government powers. “Power grab,” is the scholars’ unwitting confirmation of this inadequacy and, “Co-equal branches,” is another patronizing ideal that hides the fact that they have never properly critiqued the Three-part Separation Theory. 

Over two hundred years of operations, and the checks and balances that are supposed to prevent corruption or lead to corrective amendments, still yield waste, fraud, and abuse, accumulating a national debt of tens of trillions of dollars.                                       

[Thumpalumpacus]

As with any organizational framework, its success depends upon good-faith actors executing it. When everyone in government is working in good faith to the furtherance of the Constitution, it works. The last 60 years have shown us that when the people in government are placing self or party above the precepts of the Constitution, constitutional government starts to break down.

Thus, we are at this point now.

[Secular Heckler]

The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that!

Just ask any civics teacher!

The question is whether the three-branch government is reliable?

[Secular Heckler]

The evolution of the deployment of the three-branch government yields an obvious political strategy to populate the branches with politically aligned personnel to control the checks on power, and the erroneous system is not going to auto-correct itself, or publish an error code. The political parties are clearly in a civil war to control all three branches at all three levels of the government. That is what the simple three-branch government causes the politicians to do to fulfill the citizens' anticipation of political order and justice.

[Nanny]

tl;dr and the huge text is annoying. Ignored.

[arewethereyet]

The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that!

Just ask any civics teacher!

The question is whether the three-branch government is reliable?

The question is the title of the thread.

And, slow your roll.

I believe in the Constitution because it fucking exists.

Your question, title, doesn't ask anything else.

[The Grand Nudger]

Preventing a dictatorship is something. It was kind of the point of the thing, in context. Additionally, I think we can lay aside the debt, which isn't actually the product of waste, fraud, and abuse. Still, a fun question. I'd probably start by saying that I don't believe in the constitution. I believe in us, and insomuch as a constitutional system with checks and balances gives us the space to work out how we want things to go, without the floor falling out from under us in that deliberation, it's not the worst way to organize our government.

I doubt the issues it brings would be solved by having a four-branch or two-branch system. Give us some alternatives to consider?

[Secular Heckler]

The question is the title of the thread.

And, slow your roll.

I believe in the Constitution because it fucking exists.

Your question, title, doesn't ask anything else.

The term "believe" is a synonym for "support." Contrary to popular atheist conventional wisdom, believing is not a unique cognitive exercise. So, my title is reworded with more detail in the poll question: Is the three-branch separation of government reliable? Reliability in the Constitution is what you "believe in," or not.

Give us some alternatives to consider?

Law is what is used to convert the will of the people into government powers. The production of law is the dependent variable that is practically controlled by the integrated system of independent variables of institutional missions, election qualifications of the representatives, appointment rules for delegated security offices, and promulgation rules, formulated for the construction of government powers.

The Demarcation of Law Separation Theory suggests that the powers of government are supposed to be demarcated by sections of law, and then those partitions are subdivided into the familiar three processing entities. Although there are many sections of law, there are just a handful of sections that are generally significant to government powers, and the remaining sections fall under those in an orderly formulation to fulfill the missions of the partitions and the subsequent checks and balances of the executive and administrative powers.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Secular Heckler

The term "believe" is a synonym for "support”.

Psst … it’s not.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an awfully long winded way to describe the separation of powers - but I'm not seeing an alternative to compare our system to. Reliable for what, and compared to what?

It's kept us from tumbling into a dictatorship for awhile now, but that might soon end. I guess a constitution with a separation of powers is less reliable than, say...a gun, in the business of getting rid of kings?