One of the problems with modern society is that we have raised several generations of people who no longer believe that there are consequences for what is done. They have been taught that there is always a way out, that there always is something that can and will magically swoop down and save them from their own actions. It doesn't happen that way, but the discovery of reality can be really painful, or fatal.
What makes things work for a long time is pre-planning and redundant systems that are designed to correct flaws before they become fatal. Which implies that those doing that planning have both knowledge and a historical perspective. The historical perspective is important because humans may have a lot of ideals, but in practice mankind has been venal, self-centered, and deeply desirous of enslaving their fellow humans.
Our country started out 245 years ago with the Declaration of Independence. It was able to do so because we had developed a political class that was raised studying the works of the Enlightenment, and because the British were incredibly stupid. Aside from the imbecility of trying to treat free Americans as less than Englishmen, the impossibility of supplying an occupying army in a hostile country from across the Atlantic never entered the British minds.
Mind you starting a country and fighting for its freedom is not everything. That last may be something y'all want to remember for later usage. Because holding on to that free country is a separate task. We beat the British, sent the Tories to Britain or Canada, and formed something that was called the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, but was anything but a united country.
So in 1787, those who had led the Revolution gathered under the authority of the Articles of Confederation and began drafting a Constitution. In 1788, the required number of states ratified the new Constitution and it began operating on March 4, 1789.
Those Founding Fathers were a crafty lot, knew history, and knew human frailties. They made a government where in theory if it became too crooked or too tyrannical then the various branches could stymie the tyrants by canceling their actions.
The consent of the governed was assured by having House elected by the people, and later the Senate was added to that election process. The actions of the Executive Branch were restricted by the detail that only popularly elected Congress could appropriate money to pay for things. And to make sure that everything was on the level, it evolved that the Supreme Court and subsidiary courts could judicially review and cancel things not allowed by the Constitution.
Over time things changed. The states used to have a great deal more autonomy and independence. Before the Civil War, the statement was “the United States are.” After, the Civil War. it was “the United States is” because the power of the central government now subsumed that of the states. That same Civil War ended slavery in the former Confederacy (the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states in rebellion) and led to the passage and ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments that ended American slavery forever. Later, the 19th Amendment was passed to give women the right to vote.
But it was not just the formal actions that changed the Constitution and how it was applied. Social, fiscal and political changes made us a different country than that envisaged by the Founding Fathers. We have had 232 years where we were kinda-sorta following the plan laid out at the beginning of the country. We cannot say that anymore.
We had a presidential election that was openly stolen. With late ballots, ballots printed and delivered in bulk, more votes than registered voters in a number of jurisdictions, and no ID required on voters; there is no way this represents consent of the governed. When masses of votes were coming in late or spoiled, the courts would not have a hearing on the merits with evidence presented, because they said it was too soon. When the State of Texas sued states committing because of the causes listed and because a fraudulent vote count would violate the civil rights of the citizens of Texas, despite the clear words Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution stating that in all cases where a state is party to a suit that the Supreme Court was the court of original jurisdiction; the Supreme Court said that Texas had no standing to sue.
Once a fraudulent count was released, it was claimed that no one could sue because there was too short a period between the election and the formal count of electoral votes in Congress. Throughout that “too short” period a number of Republicans in both Houses loudly claimed that they would raise objections to the count as has been done in other presidential elections. Specifically, the Tilden-Hayes election of 1876.
Key for every single conservative to remember is that not one single Republican who so claimed, or any other Republican, raised one single objection to the fraud. They endorsed it through inaction.
Finally, after the election and Inauguration, the Supreme Court agreed to look at the case. They did not look at any of the evidence, just the case. And they said last Monday, Feb. 22 (three days ago) that the case was moot because it should have been heard earlier. When they were the reason that it was not heard.
A central concept left us by the Founding Fathers being that the impartial enforcement of the laws made under the consent of the governed is the best way for a society and culture to peacefully resolve the inevitable disputes that arise between people.
We now see that laws are only applied based on political standing. Voting is useless because it is those who count the votes who hold the power. Further that the Executive under the Democrats is above the law. The Legislative branch is as useless as the Roman Senate after the rise of the Roman Empire. And the courts have neither loyalty to nor obedience to the law or the Constitution.
Sure looks like we are out of boxes.