Washington refused kingship.
They wanted a democratic - not an aristocratic or absolutist - form of government. They were trying to avoid the historical pitfalls of such forms.
Actually, they often appealed to "reason".
Rhetoric is an ancient skill, always highly valued.
It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.
And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?
But you said they were trying to create a "stable government." The above belies that statement.
> Actually, they often appealed to "reason".
Rhetoric is an ancient skill, always highly valued.
Ladies and gentlemen, come see the amazing Non-Sequitor Man. He can say things that bear no relevance to anything else, but will insist that they do! Come one! Come all!
> It has the same effect as it means that unconstitutional laws will not be enforced.
And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?
Nobody . . . and everybody. It's just that the USSC decides which laws are enforcable in the courts. Wait. Never mind. It's a subtle concept. No sense in confusing you. You are right. Never mind.