tin-pot dictator

tin-pot dictator


See also: tinpot dictator
English
WOTD – 12 June 2024
Etymology
From tin-pot (“of inferior quality, shoddy; insignificant or minor, especially in an amusing and petty manner”) +; dictator, referring to the cheapness and poor quality of pots made from tin or tin plate.[1][2]

Pronunciation
(Received Pronunciation) IPA(key): /;t;np;t d;k;te;t;/
Audio (Southern England):
Duration: 2 seconds.0:02
(General American) IPA(key): /;t;n;p;t ;d;k;te;t;;/, [-;;;]
Rhymes: -e;t;(;)
Hyphenation: tin-pot dic;ta;tor
Noun
tin-pot dictator (plural tin-pot dictators)

(derogatory) An autocratic ruler with little political credibility, typically having delusions of grandeur.
Alternative forms
tinpot dictator, tin pot dictator
 TIN - HORN DICTATOR
Derived terms
tin-pot dictatorship
Translations
±autocratic ruler with little political credibility
References
^ Compare “tin-pot, n.”, in OED Online Paid subscription required;, Oxford: Oxford University Press, July 2023.
^ Compare “tin-pot, adj.”, in Dictionary.com Unabridged, Dictionary.com, LLC, 1995–present.
Further reading
 dictator on Wikipedia.


***
Structure is Destiny: Scalia’s Safeguard Against Tyranny
image description
Publius
Posted
Course: History of Law
Share

Explore Justice Scalia's belief that America's freedom stems not from individual rights, but from the Constitution's careful distribution of power. Learn why Scalia argued that federalism, separation of powers, bicameralism, and other structural elements—not just the Bill of Rights—are the true safeguards against tyranny. Whether you're interested in originalist interpretation or studying competing theories of constitutional law, this video offers valuable insights into how structural considerations continue to shape American jurisprudence today. Publius, your humble host for No. 86. My name comes from the pen name Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay used when they wrote 85 publicly printed letters now known as the Federalist Papers. I am a student curious to learn more about our government, institutions, and legal system. I will be your representative as I ask questions, interview experts, and offer insights in our videos and podcasts. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y6euKj-v-Ys

Transcript
"Structure is destiny." These aren’t the words of an architect or engineer but of a former Supreme Court justice. For Antonin Scalia, these words encapsulated a constitutional philosophy that challenged decades of legal thought. But what did Scalia mean? And why does it matter for the future of American law? In 1787, as the Founders debated in Philadelphia, they weren't primarily focused on individual rights. Instead, they grappled with a more fundamental question: How should power be distributed in a free society? This focus on governmental structure, not a list of rights, was what Scalia believed set the U.S. Constitution apart. In a 2013 speech, he provocatively stated: "Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights. That's not what makes us free. What has made us free is our Constitution. Think of the word 'constitution;' it means structure." Scalia's view challenged the prevailing legal orthodoxy. Since the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court had increasingly focused on expanding individual rights, often beyond their original scope. Scalia argued this approach missed the forest for the trees. For Scalia, the key to American liberty wasn't in broad interpretations of rights, but in the careful balance of power between different


***
Scalia Defends Citizens United Decision, Reflects on Term in Rare TV Appearance
By Matt Vasilogambros, Sarah Mimms, and National Journal

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia participates at the third annual Washington Ideas Forum at the Newseum in Washington Thursday Oct. 6, 2011. The Atlantic, the Aspen Institute, and the Newseum presented the third Annual Washington Ideas Forum, which drew together more than 60 policy makers, business leaders, and top journalists for a series of conversations and in-depth interviews about the direction of the country. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)   (National Journal)
July 18, 2012



In a rare television appearance, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended the Court's controversial decision in Citizens United, calling political donations a form of speech.

Justices don't traditionally comment on cases that are pending or the Court just ruled on, leaving the high court's decisions on the Obama administration health care law and Arizona's immigration law off the table. Scalia, the court's longest-serving justice, was not afraid to discuss Citizens United, one of the Court's most controversial decisions in recent years. He said money in the form of political contributions is speech, and therefore should not be limited.


"I think Thomas Jefferson would have said, ";The more speech, the better.' That's what the First Amendment is all about, so long as the people know where the speech is coming from,"; he said on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight. "You can't separate the speech from the money that facilities the speech.";

To separate speech and money, he said, was "utterly impossible."; "Can you tell newspaper publishers you can only spend so much money in the publication of your newspaper? Would they not say this is abridging my speech?";


By calling political donations a form of speech Justice Antonin Scalia helped
to create a tinhorn dictator Trump ... "