Arab democracy?

[Z16Monte]

Originally Posted by James

What's the sense in elections then? Those people are elected to represent US.

True, they also take an oath of office that requires them to uphold the Constitution. Ignoring it or unilaterally changing it's meaning is not upholding it. They are free, however, to work within it's framework, or work to amend it properly. if they can't sell the amendment to the states, it doen't stand.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by James

What's the sense in elections then? Those people are elected to represent US.

We vote to choose our electors, the way the Constitution says we will.

Originally Posted by BigD

Good question. "Those people" stopped representing "US" a long time ago.

Why do we give 545 (thereabouts) people that much control over "US"? Why do we allow these "elitists" the opportunity to lifetime control (Senators and Representatives) over "US"?

And the "Supremes" are NOT elected. They are appointed. In the case of a democratic, liberal administration, that means appointed by an administration I didn't vote for with views completely opposed to my own. By default, that means appointed judges opposed to me.

Those elitists have that much power because that's how a republic works.

Considering the length of tenure for a "Supreme", it is highly unlikely that all justices would ever be appointed by the same administration. Ideally, for checks and balances, some would be appointed during R administrations and some during D administrations. The odd number of justices not only protects against a "tie" decision, but also serves to keep a slight imbalance of R and D justices (not by design but it tends to work that way most of the time). I'm pretty sure it is not the "default" that all justices must oppose BigD. Really, big head much?

Originally Posted by baggerman11

he's talking about the USA. what's it gonna look like in 6 months. remember, the majority is a minority now.

I think our country has been so subdivided that there is no "majority" anymore.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

Those elitists have that much power because that's how a republic works.

Actually, the design of the republic was such that gentlemen farmers would go to Washington for a couple of years, serve (the operative word) and return to their farms to do their work. It wasn't envisioned as a career opportunity.

The career thing, IMHO, is the problem.

Originally Posted by <G Man>

Considering the length of tenure for a "Supreme", it is highly unlikely that all justices would ever be appointed by the same administration.

Not all, but the effect is not as unlikely as you would think. If the current administration gets to pick two more justices, as is suspected, then the appointees that ARE liberal, together with the justices that act as liberals, will sway the court in a liberal direction. Also keep in mind that by appointing young justices, a particular administration can "load" the court and that can have a profound long-term effect.

On a side note, I think one must consider that such a court may likely reverse itself on issues such as the recent ruling on the 2nd amendment. I think the notion of a SC reversing the decision of the previous SC is a whole other can of worms we shouldn't debate at the moment.

Originally Posted by <G Man>

I'm pretty sure it is not the "default" that all justices must oppose BigD. Really, big head much?

I didn't intend for that to apply to only me, but like minded individuals. I am a solid fiscal conservative and social moderate. I have very little in common with liberals. That doesn't mean we can't be friends; we just avoid things like politics. Sex with female liberals is good though. They're usually pretty kinky!

Originally Posted by <G Man>

I think our country has been so subdivided that there is no "majority" anymore.

I think there is the majority of the entitled

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by BigD

Actually, the design of the republic was such that gentlemen farmers would go to Washington for a couple of years, serve (the operative word) and return to their farms to do their work. It wasn't envisioned as a career opportunity.

The career thing, IMHO, is the problem.

Originally Posted by BigD

Not all, but the effect is not as unlikely as you would think. If the current administration gets to pick two more justices, as is suspected, then the appointees that ARE liberal, together with the justices that act as liberals, will sway the court in a liberal direction. Also keep in mind that by appointing young justices, a particular administration can "load" the court and that can have a profound long-term effect.

On a side note, I think one must consider that such a court may likely reverse itself on issues such as the recent ruling on the 2nd amendment. I think the notion of a SC reversing the decision of the previous SC is a whole other can of worms we shouldn't debate at the moment.

It certainly is not a perfect system, but its the one we have.

Originally Posted by BigD

I didn't intend for that to apply to only me, but like minded individuals. I am a solid fiscal conservative and social moderate. I have very little in common with liberals. That doesn't mean we can't be friends; we just avoid things like politics. Sex with female liberals is good though. They're usually pretty kinky!

..............................damn! I got nothin'

Originally Posted by BigD

I think there is the majority of the entitled

They only THINK they are entitled.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by James

How to you feel about amendments to the Constitution? Do you feel the government should be allowed to make those amendments?

Originally Posted by Z16Monte

As long as the process laid out in the Constitution is followed, any amendment passedand approved by the states, is the law, whether I agree with it or not

I have no faith in the Supreme Court to protect the rights of the individual against the Federal Government, it's a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court is just another branch of the same Federal Government that they're supposed to protect us from.

The power in the House of Representatives is the power of the people. The Senate is supposed to be the power of the States. The Executive is supposed to be only be the enforcement of those powers. The Judicial is supposed to only be the arbiter between those powers within the context of the Constitution.

It seldom works out that way. The Judicial has taken on the role of legislators, the Senate is controlled by the Parties, the people's house is dominated by career politicians...and everybody thinks the President runs the Country. - No wonder we're in such a fargin' mess.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

It certainly is not a perfect system, but its the one we have.

And a whole lot better than most!

Originally Posted by <G Man>

They only THINK they are entitled.

No, they think... I mean, they know... I mean, think they know!

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by DJW

I have no faith in the Supreme Court to protect the rights of the individual against the Federal Government, it's a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court is just another branch of the same Federal Government that they're supposed to protect us from.

The power in the House of Representatives is the power of the people. The Senate is supposed to be the power of the States. The Executive is supposed to be only be the enforcement of those powers. The Judicial is supposed to only be the arbiter between those powers within the context of the Constitution.

It seldom works out that way. The Judicial has taken on the role of legislators, the Senate is controlled by the Parties, the people's house is dominated by career politicians...and everybody thinks the President runs the Country. - No wonder we're in such a fargin' mess.

That pretty well sums it up.