Re-shaping the future

[Southtown]

K. To the chase both of you: Government by the people, or no?

[C1ay]

Government by the people, or no?

Yes, government by the people. That does not mean mob rule though nor does it mean direct government by the people is required. Government by elected representatives of the people or by those appointed by representatives of the people is still government by the people.

[Buffy]

Yes, government by the people. That does not mean mob rule though nor does it mean direct government by the people is required. Government by elected representatives of the people or by those appointed by representatives of the people is still government by the people.

South: C1ay and I are of somewhat different political stripes and we both agree here: Our country is based on the notion of representative government--now replicated around the world--and its a good thing. What you seem to hint at it advocacy of direct democracy which has its Pros and Cons (this link has a much more expansive definition of the term than is traditional, so take with salt). The only situations where this really is considered successful is when it is hybridized with the representative form (e.g. California's referendum and recall, which is pretty darn messy and as Ahnold is finding out these days :shrug: ).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[CraigD]

I agree that being a minority religion can be tough if the majority is flaunting their religion. But what is good about religious diversity is that religious holidays do not always overlap. This gives everyone time to express and experience our human diversity. The problem often stems from the parents more than the kids. Kids like to make friends and enjoy learning about each others culture and religion, unless they are taught otherwise. Let the children choose, they would find room for everyone.

This is a beautiful sentiment, which I wish I could share. However, experience has taught me that children have a capacity for religious intolerance as great as adults.

 

When my daughter was 12 years old, she told some of her western West Virginia public school classmates (in an obnoxious, confrontational, and unwise manner) that she was not a Christian, but was, in fact, a goddess-worshiping Wicca. Later that day, she was attacked in a stairwell by about 6 children, and beaten badly enough to require overnight hospitalization. Though her memory of events is hazy, she recalls being told something about “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (EX 21:18, KJV)

 

Although she suffered no lasting injury, fearing for her physical safety and mental health, we were compelled to remove her from the school. The response of the school principal to the situation was, although violence is not to be tolerated (several children were suspended and otherwise punished for the attack), unless she renounced her heathen ways and joined the True Faith, she should prepare herself for more of the same treatment.

 

Religious intolerance doesn’t exist just in politics or Middle-eastern theocracies – it’s can be as close as you next-door neighbor. It’s ugly and frightening.

[Southtown]

Yes, government by the people. That does not mean mob rule though nor does it mean direct government by the people is required. Government by elected representatives of the people or by those appointed by representatives of the people is still government by the people.

Are SC justices elected?

[Buffy]

Are SC justices elected?

They are appointed by the Executive, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate (although the current administration likes to think that's just "advisory" and not "approval") They can be impeached for all the same offenses that presidents can be...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[C1ay]

Are SC justices elected?

Government by elected representatives of the people or by those appointed by representatives of the people is still government by the people.

I guess you must have missed that the first time. Do you know and understand why the justices are not elected and why they should not be?

[Southtown]

Though her memory of events is hazy, she recalls being told something about “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (EX 21:18, KJV)

That's horrible. Nobody should act like that. And the principle is an idiot.

 

It just shows that people will use miniscule pieces of the bible to excuse immoral actions and aren't really interested in its overarching theme of unity.

 

P.S. correct verse is Ex 22:18 (looked it up)

[Southtown]

with the "advice and consent" of the Senate (although the current administration likes to think that's just "advisory" and not "approval")

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

I guess you must have missed that the first time. Do you know and understand why the justices are not elected and why they should not be?

Whoops, sorry. LOL Yeah I did. And yeah I do. They should be term-limited, then. And they should also be accountable to someone other than themselves. (I can't see impeachment actually happening, our government increasingly acts like an engine with no oil.)

[C1ay]

And they should also be accountable to someone other than themselves. (I can't see impeachment actually happening, our government increasingly acts like an engine with no oil.)

They are and impeachment does happen. Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon. I support the current system without term limits for judges. Why fix what isn't broke?

[Southtown]

I support the current system without term limits for judges. Why fix what isn't broke?

Because other humans grow old and scenile and are often considered unfit for rudimentary duties much less a job like imposing one's own subjective interpretation of a "living" document (funny, doesn't seem to change all by itself) on the rest of "free" society. Life terms were given to SCJ's to sheild them from political pressure, but all that is needed is appointment rather than election. Length of term is actually irrelevant to political pressure.

[C1ay]

Because other humans grow old and scenile and are often considered unfit for rudimentary duties much less a job like imposing one's own subjective interpretation of a "living" document (funny, doesn't seem to change all by itself) on the rest of "free" society. Life terms were given to SCJ's to sheild them from political pressure, but all that is needed is appointment rather than election. Length of term is actually irrelevant to political pressure.

First, I do not particularly agree that the Constitution is a living document. I do not feel it should be interpretted with the times. If parts of it become obsolete with the times then those parts should be changed by amendment. It is not the job of the judiciary to write law through judicial fiat, it is the job of congress to write law. It is solely the job of the judiciary to interpret law and that interpretation should not change with time.

 

As to the many reasons life tenure was selected for justices I recommend you review Federalist Papers 78 and 79.

[McGyver]

President Bush's "narrowly defined" vision, agenda, and integrity should go under the microscope regarding any nominations to the Supreme Court. He is in a position, and has vocalized such intentions to create, perhaps for the 1st time in the history of the U.S., a one-dimentional Supreme Court. The Court is supposed to be part of the judiciary - but it appears Bush (and others) want it to act in the capacity of a legislative body, as is Congress' role.

 

We are facing unprecidented issues in the leadership of this country. If two conservative judges were put on the bench, we'd have an ultraconservative Supreme Court, White House, Senate, and House of Representatives. Can anyone think of a period where one (extreme wing of) party had this kind of control over the U.S.

 

I would urge all Americans to demand detailed answers to Bush's intentions and agenda, including unanswered questions on pre-Iraq war planning, the Terri Schiavo matter, and his continued appointment of "political persons" to fill positions of management, and now the judiciary.

[Buffy]

Unlike C1ay, I'm a Loose Constructionist, but I still don't agree with your points and I don't think that what's in the Constitution can be ignored simply because it doesn't make sense: there's still a requirement to go through the amendment process, and if you want to try to start a movement to term limit judges via a new Constitutional amendment, more power to ya. I will say though that the most important and most ignored dictum in politics is the Law of Unintended Consequences, and term limits have in my view been disasterous (with our legislature in California being one heck of an experiment in it), basically ensuring that there is no institutional memory, no accountability ("I don't care what the long term consequences of my idiotic law are because I won't be around to have to deal with them!"), and increasingly, issues being run and forced by basically unaccountable party machinery, who now manage the funding for all campaigns, annoit the most faithful candidates, and ensure that they toe the line on the issues the machine decides is important. Its back to Tammany Hall here in CA...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

First, I do not particularly agree that the Constitution is a living document. I do not feel it should be interpretted with the times. If parts of it become obsolete with the times then those parts should be changed by amendment. It is not the job of the judiciary to write law through judicial fiat, it is the job of congress to write law. It is solely the job of the judiciary to interpret law and that interpretation should not change with time.

Well we agree completely there. I'll check out the links a little later, thanks.

[Southtown]

...and term limits have in my view been disasterous (with our legislature in California being one heck of an experiment in it), basically ensuring that there is no institutional memory, no accountability ("I don't care what the long term consequences of my idiotic law are because I won't be around to have to deal with them!")...

You also have a very good point. Maybe term limits are not the way to go.

 

I still think judges should be limited to cross-verifying constitutionality of new legislation (and not by guesswork, "well the founders would have wanted..."). By contrast, the judges continuously, at all levels, only ratify new policies with the gavel, instead of deciding cases based on existing law as they should.

[Buffy]

I still think judges should be limited to cross-verifying constitutionality of new legislation (and not by guesswork, "well the founders would have wanted...").

Note that Clarence Thomas is a major proponent of "Original Intent", which is just as "creative" as Loose Constructionism, but relies on non-Constitutional sources. It just goes to show you that this divide is *not* Conservative/Liberal, and your earlier posts kinda show that! Loose is fine if it gets you your results right? :hihi:

 

Cheers,

Buffy