Oh, ok, now I understand "democracy" and "justice"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drjones

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,803
I just figured it out:

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, exercising their legal and constitutionally protected right to remove a politician from office is a slap in the face of democracy and the electoral system. It goes against everything America was founded upon and is a blow to the pillars of our legal and electoral system.

A VERY INCOMPLETE panel of THREE judges (who happen to be the most overturned judges in the COUNTRY) halting the recall effort is democracy at its finest.

Once again, THREE PEOPLE interfering with the wishes of MILLIONS of citizens is democratic, just and fair, MILLIONS OF CITIZENS getting what they want is NOT democratic, just nor fair.

Did I get it right?
 
Although

Although I disagree with the decision on many levels, I think it's wrong to apply law based on public opinion rather than on the constitutional merits presented.
 
Yup that's what's happening.

Judges are supposed to interpret the law not write it from the bench, but unfortunately it has become a viable way for the "condemned" to save face and secure a position. Aside from it being doen via the 9th Circuit Court this is not unlike the way things were handled in the USSR.

So what's next for the courts? Perhaps passing a law making a person they like President for life??? What the courts are doing is unethical, unconstitutional and unconscionable. Something needs to be done! The courts need to be told, punished or forced to stay within the perameters set for them by the constitution in no uncertain terms. They have become an "All Powerful" organization of sorts and it has to be stopped!

Sorry for the soapbox but good lord I'm sick of all the insanity going on as of late.

DRC
 
I Agree

I agree, the decision is detestable. I also agree that something must be done to fix the current situation with the judicial taking over our voting rights and rewriting election law.

I just don't think that just because millions of people hold a certiain opinion, the courts should rule in their favor. The cases should be judged on the constitutional merits alone, without regard to public opinion. These three judges clearly failed, but not because they balked public opinion.
 
Something marvelous is happening in California.

Every single state in the US and I'll wager every community in every state has felt to effect of a court decision which flies in the face of what people generally support. Combine the court's tendency to meddle where it shouldn't with a very small group of organizations that feed the court and you've got the makin's of a rebellion.

Fires are started in unpredictable ways. Perhaps California is the place and now is the time where judicial over-reach is finally outted. . . . just in time for the next election. I know in my small circle of friends awareness of judicial abuse is topic one. "How can the court stop a constitutiionally proper election?"
 
A lot of the Big Issues are springing forth in bold relief.

This is one. Another is illegal immigration. There are others, all
familiar to the people on this forum but not so familiar to the
polity at large perhaps.

Yes, people are coming awake and finally talking.

But now the question arises: Do we have the will to do anything
about the problems? Are we willing to risk our lives, our fortunes,
our sacred honor? Are we willing to take the streets, to raise our
voices?

A lot of people are betting we won't, that cable tv and the mall and
a paycheck is plenty for us.

I think we have a fairly small window of opportunity to say Hell No.
If we don't we may well be swept under by a tide of MTV-indoctrinated
Rapublicans.
 
Bad decision... probably. But they've ruled in their same liberal way about firearms policy in the recent past, and nobody's complained that they should bow to public opinion on that issue, only that they're wrong.

Public opinion does not run everything in this country. Thankfully.
 
Drjones

Did I get it right?
Weeeeellll, not quite.

Republic: "a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
-- Websters Unabridged Dictionary

Democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
-- U.S. Army Training Manual

We live in a Representative Republic -- not a Democracy. What you describe would be a pure democracy on its face and, for three people to overrule the fifty-percent-plus-one that denotes a democracy, would, indeed, be wrong.

The problem is that this is not our form of government; and thank your lucky stars it isn't.

We elect singular persons to represent the many and, when we do, we are saying, with a single mark upon a ballot, that we trust that person's ability to make decisions for those s/he represents. We also are saying that we trust them to make the correct decision when it comes to the people s/he appoints to various offices. Some of those appointees are placed in their positions for as long as they exhibit "good behavior". The problem is that noone has ever taken the time to define what "good behavior" is. Certainly, the behahior exhibited by the three judge panel recently is far from "good behavior"; but that is just our opinion since no standard has been set.

The failing of the system is that we have slowly motivated toward becoming a democracy. This has occurred through many outlets, the greatest being our elected leaders constantly reminding us that "We live in a Democracy". The ratification of the fifteenth amendment was another.

The fifteenth amendment gave everyone the vote for the same reason that the decision was made the other day -- the "disenfranchisement" of some people. The problem with that was, under our form of government, some people were supposed to be disenfranchised.

The people who were to vote were the people who were landowners. The way to get to vote was to earn yourself a little piece of America you could call your own. Now, you would have a vested interest in the furtherance and preservation of the republic.

Then the bleeding hearts came along and, realizing they had a great untapped resource for gaining unbridled power, decided they would lobby for everyone to vote. Mistake. Bad, bad mistake.

The result was that those who were now allowed to vote -- yes, I said "allowed" because, due to the wording of the fifteenth amendment, specifically Section 2, voting is not a right -- had no vested interest in anything but themselves.

The best way of illustrating why I say that would be to peruse the following quote by 18th century historian/economist Alexander Tyler written in 1778:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.

These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
I personally believe that we, as a nation, are now somewhere between complacency and apathy.

So, no, you didn't get it right; but, if things continue to progress in the direction they have been for the past several decades, someday you will. By then, it will be too late and the mobs will rule the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top