How and in what ways did political polarization cause the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 and demonstrate ‘faction’ as described in Federalist 10?

Washington (CNN)Federal authorities are piecing together a chilling picture of the January 6 insurrection that reveals major security and intelligence failures, underscores profound fissures in American society and hints at the political challenges ahead for President-elect Joe Biden, even as they race to ensure the safety of US leaders and next week's inauguration.

Emerging details paint an even grimmer picture than the shocking images of violence broadcast live around the world last week. Evidence suggests planning by the insurrectionists, and there are concerns that they may have received support from some Capitol Police, current and former members of the military, and even some members of Congress.

As rioters broke into the Capitol building and some chanted "hang Mike Pence," the seditious mob ripped through the "thin blue line" many claim to revere, kicking and beating police with their own batons, spraying them with chemical irritants, threatening to kill them. One policeman and four others died that day.

Once inside the building, The Washington Post reports the insurrectionists came within minutes of reaching the vice president, who was whisked to safety with his wife and daughter. Some had driven to the Capitol days earlier, others had filled their vehicles with guns, ammunition, crossbows, machetes and, in one case, a note listing a congressman by name.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

hello,

what started the norman conquest?

profound political, administrative, and social changes in the british isles. last line of my information: )