• TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Right. I didn’t address this in my comment because I wanted to focus on Trump himself. Whatever Trump does, he’ll likely use this plan to destroy our democracy.

      If Trump gets into office again, our best hope would be that 1) the institutions can survive Project 2025 and 2) Trump and Co are too incompetent to enact their plans. I wouldn’t want to bet my life on either of these, though. A better hope is to work to keep Trump (and anyone else like him) away from any position of power all the way from President to city councilman.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Seems like a good reason for the party to adapt in order to secure as much participation from as many likeminded voters as possible.

      “Not Trump” is not as universally convincing as I fear the party is assuming. It’s sufficient for you and I, to be sure.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Reagan started to get in to ideas of unitary executive theory and Bush was another proponent. The founders often debated, famously Hamilton, what the “executive” role actually meant for the office, and it was left vague as a lot of their ideas were. In the context of the time you had landowners being allowed to vote, the whole point of the government was basically to ensure no states had power over any other, then over time the executive branch developed and expanded and presidents had to see what that meant testing limits over time. I don’t think this plan would be successful and if it were it would probably be bad by virtue of who would be in power.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Landowning was never a requirement on the federal level in the US. It was allowed to be a requirement for the states for a little while, few states bothered and the ones that did gave it up.

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Look in to the men’s suffrage movement, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky were the only three states to have full adult suffrage for white males before 1800.

          18th century property qualifications:

          Connecticut: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or £40 of personal property

          Delaware: fifty acres of land (twelve under cultivation) or £40 of personal property

          Georgia: fifty acres of land

          Maryland: fifty acres of land and £40 personal property

          Massachusetts Bay: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or £40 of personal property

          New Hampshire: £50 of personal property

          New Jersey: one-hundred acres of land, or real estate or personal property £50

          New York: £40 of personal property or ownership of land

          North Carolina: fifty acres of land

          Pennsylvania: fifty acres of land or £50 of personal property

          Rhode Island and Providence Plantations: personal property worth £40 or yielding 50 shillings annually

          South Carolina: one-hundred acres of land on which taxes were paid; or a town house or lot worth £60 on which taxes were paid; or payment of 10 shillings in taxes

          Virginia: fifty acres of vacant land, twenty-fives acres of cultivated land, and a house twelve feet by twelve feet; or a town lot and a house twelve feet by twelve