Democracy first, Republic second

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is the central argument above all others. Democracy is by definition a government in which the majority of citizens of a nation hold the power.

 

The USA of America was founded on a strong belief in democracy first & the need to be a republic second. The need to be a republic had to do mostly with the fact that the majority of citizens were uneducated. Thus certain inalienable rights had to be established to prevent these uneducated mobs from enforcing mob rules. This was also the basis for the judicial branch.

 

Today America is by & large an educated majority where there are many more persons qualified to serve in the judicial branch. If you believe in democracy first then you should support the notion that members of the judicial branch should no longer serve life terms & should be elected like other politicians. What those terms should be should be defined by the social science of law & not someone's personal agenda. The biggest hinderance on American democracy today is a judicial branch which is largely appointed by elected officials to serve life terms long after those officials have been voted out of office. Where is the logic in such a policy in a nation with an educated majority?

[BrandoFan]

Long live activist judges and judgettes!

 

In fact, there should be a holiday honoring our paragons of virtue and dispensers of justice, our favorite wo/men in black.....'Judgement Day' has just the right ring and bluster to it.

[EvilMonkey]

By voting in judges, you will also leave things open for the possability of mob rule. Say you have a shooting in a minority neighborhood. The shooter is a whiter cop, the victim a black man. Tensions are already high in the neighborhood, and the local clergey and leaders are calling for the head of the cop. But it turns out, the cop did the right thing. He was shot at first, or something. The judge lets him go, the crowd gets pissed at the judge, and votes him out when his term is up. The judge followed the law, and loses, because the 'mob' didn't like his vote. I am all for not having judges serving life terms, but maybe very long terms, say 10-15 years. Then they don't have to be afraid that every verdict they make will cost them their job in the next year. Or maybe make them 20 year terms, with no renewal, then reelection isn't a concern at all.

 

You are right about the biggest hinderance being the judicial branch. All too often, judges of both parties let their personal feelings, connections, etc. get in the way of following the letter of the law. The judicial branch is supposed to interpret the law and judges accordingly, not legislate from the bench.

 

And on another note, since we do elect judges in Illinois (well, some of them), does anyone know if/when 'letem go' Leo Holt is up for retention? I think all Sox fans should make it a point to get him removed, regardless of which district he is in, for his handling of the Liguie case.

[Goldmember]

dictatorships are sooo underrated...

[JUGGERNAUT]

By voting in judges, you will also leave things open for the possability of mob rule.

I disagree with that. The federal & state judges would be elected by citizens of the state & not the neighborhood. With respect to a neighborhood the Federal constitution doesn't apply as much as the state constitution. It's highly unlikely that in this day & age a single neighborhood or even a few neighborhoods could influence greatly the election of a state judge.

[EvilMonkey]

Yeah, depending on how large an area the votes come from, things could be ok. That would be something to be considered if it were to ever become a reality. Too small of an area could be bad.

[southsider2k5]

This is a stupid poll. All Americans want to pay no taxes and have every single service possible. You want to tell me how long this government would last? This country would be killing minorities in short, and have their borders sealed and everything. Majority rule in a pure form does not work.

[mmmmmbeeer]

The USA of America was founded on a strong belief in democracy first & the need to be a republic second.  The need to be a republic had to do mostly with the fact that the majority of citizens were uneducated.  Thus certain inalienable rights had to be established to prevent these uneducated mobs from enforcing mob rules.  This was also the basis for the judicial branch. 

This is dead wrong. Franklin, Jefferson, etc., including Madison, the author of the constitution, warned us of the evils of a democracy, thus our democratic republic was born.

 

Here's one quote of several from Madison, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

 

As far as the actual point of your post goes, what exactly would sway you to vote for one candidate over another? How do the candidates go about campaigning? Would there be judicial parties? Let me give you my answer...it's a ridiculous idea. Judges SHOULD only have 1 thing to answer to, the constitution. The only reason you feel like you do is because of judges across the nation who have decided to start legislating and recognizing international decisions instead of answering only to the constitution. I'll agree with you on that atleast, I'm fed up with many of the members of our judicial system. I would agree that there should be term limits. Although, I'd rather see term limits put in place on the Congress first.

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is dead wrong.  Franklin, Jefferson, etc., including Madison, the author of the constitution, warned us of the evils of a democracy, thus our democratic republic was born. 

 

Here's one quote of several from Madison, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

 

As far as the actual point of your post goes, what exactly would sway you to vote for one candidate over another?  How do the candidates go about campaigning?  Would there be judicial parties?  Let me give you my answer...it's a ridiculous idea.  Judges SHOULD only have 1 thing to answer to, the constitution.  The only reason you feel like you do is because of judges across the nation who have decided to start legislating and recognizing international decisions instead of answering only to the constitution.  I'll agree with you on that atleast, I'm fed up with many of the members of our judicial system.  I would agree that there should be term limits.  Although, I'd rather see term limits put in place on the Congress first.

First of your wrong. The meaning behind democratic republic is that no 1 state can monopolize the direction of the nation. Thus we pattern a true democracy at a state level but pattern a democracy of states at the federal level. That's what's meant by a republic. That is also why there is an electoral college to elect a president. Every branch of federal government is elected except for the judicial. There's simply no reason to keep it that way in an educated nation.

 

We don't live in a land of an uneducated majority any more. Get over your own greatness. There are more legal professionals in this country today than there are law enforcers. That's a fact. Many of you need to stop living in the past. The modern world is one where the majority is influenced by media & today there are more media sources with the internet than at any time in history. The old phobias simply are ridiculous to fear any more.

 

Implementing this is pretty easy. There is no campaigning & there is no general election. Nominations would come solely from state bar associations. From the list of nominees the congressional bodies of each state would then vote on the nominees. The ones with highest votes would be appointed judges. This allows for both the credence of the bar associations & the democracy of the voters to weigh in on the makeup of the judicial branch. This process should be repeated every 8 years & impeachment possible for judges who abuse the power of their role.

 

It's ridiculous in this day & age for judges to be the only body of power exempt from the power of democracy. Even in the corp world executives have to answer to a board of directors & the board has to answer to stock holders.

[JUGGERNAUT]

We don't live in 1776 any more where the uneducated outnumbered the educated a 1000 to 1. We live in 2004 where the educated outnumber the uneducated & that gap is widening. It's time to evolve with progress.

[Rex Kickass]

Personally, I say WinoDJ - President for Life!

 

Gorditas for everyone!

Ribbie Rubarb the official US mascots!

[mmmmmbeeer]

First of your wrong.  The meaning behind democratic republic is that no 1 state can monopolize the direction of the nation. Thus we pattern a true democracy at a state level but pattern a democracy of states at the federal level.  That's what's meant by a republic.  That is also why there is an electoral college to elect a president. Every branch of federal government is elected except for the judicial.  There's simply no reason to keep it that way in an educated nation.

 

We don't live in a land of an uneducated majority any more.  Get over your own greatness.  There are more legal professionals in this country today than there are law enforcers. That's a fact. Many of you need to stop living in the past. The modern world is one where the majority is influenced by media & today there are more media sources with the internet than at any time in history. The old phobias simply are ridiculous to fear any more.

 

Implementing this is pretty easy. There is no campaigning & there is no general election.  Nominations would come solely from state bar associations.  From the list of nominees the congressional bodies of each state would then vote on the nominees.  The ones with highest votes would be appointed judges.  This allows for both the credence of the  bar associations & the democracy of the voters to weigh in on the makeup of the judicial branch. This process should be repeated every 8 years & impeachment possible for judges who abuse the power of their role.

 

It's ridiculous in this day & age for judges to be the only body of power exempt from the power of democracy.  Even in the corp world executives have to answer to a board of directors & the board has to answer to stock holders.

You're initial post stated that the USA was founded on a democracy first and a republic second. That is incorrect, you said so yourself in your follow up. We aren't a republican democracy, we're a democratic republic.

 

State governments are not pure democracies either. They are representative democracies. That's why there is a state legislature. Georgia probably wouldn't enjoy Atlanta voters deciding every piece of law that is presented.

 

Local governments are not pure democracies either. They are also representative democracies. That's why there are city councils, alderman, etc. The rich areas of Chicago probably wouldn't enjoy all the poor people deciding every piece of law that is presented.

 

The only forms of pure democracy that you'll find in this nation are in the form of either referendums or the election of certain elected positions within each state.

 

Judges are elected on the federal and state levels, kind of. They are nominated by an elected official and confirmed by elected officials. They can be impeached by elected officials as well. There are checks and balances. If you aren't happy with a particular judge then write your representative in DC or, if it's a state judge, write your state rep.

 

As I said earlier, I agree with you to an extent but think that there are much larger threats to our constitution, liberties, and freedoms.

[YASNY]

Two sentences in this exchange caught my attention.

 

The modern world is one where the majority is influenced by media & today there are more media sources with the internet than at any time in history.

 

 

Judges SHOULD only have 1 thing to answer to, the constitution.

 

Both of which are reasons why higher level judges should continue to be appointed.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Two sentences in this exchange caught my attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both of which are reasons why higher level judges should continue to be appointed.

I'm not entirely against judges being appointed but I am against their term exceeding that of the elected official who appointed them. I think with the large volume of qualified legal persons in this country today this is long out-dated practice. I think that should apply at every level.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I can't go a F'g month in this country without those damn F'g judges wrecking America!

 

Read the US Constitution with respect to the judicial branch of government.

Turn your F'g brain on when you do. There is a clear underlying theme in it.

DON'T LEGISLATE FROM THE F'g BENCH!

 

The bench is suppose to serve for a balance against GROSS & OBVIOUS violations

of the US Constitution by Congress. The Child Protection Act & the right to treat Terrorists different than drug dealers DO NOT CONSTITUTE GROSS & OBVIOUS violations. They represent laws that the MAJORITY of Americans are in favor of!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Juggs, your terrorist query. The US Constitution affords all people in the US due process under the law. So take it up with the framers if you don't like it.

 

I'm not keen with having secret tribunals where one does not get a defense lawyer and they can administer the death penalty without telling anybody. It's like a secret gulag. And if the VICTORY Act passes in Congress, cops will have subpoena power and you when arrested you can be put into a tribunal because the VICTORY Act greatly opens up the number of crimes that tribunals can apply. You could, theoretically be picked up, arrested, shipped off to a camp, tribunal, and killed without anybody knowing what happened to you.

 

As for the "majority wants this!"...the majority didn't want integration in the 1950s and 1960s. The majority is not always right and the design of the US government is to protect minority rights from the insane ramblings of the majority because often times the majority is a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The majority is not always right and the design of the US government is to protect minority rights from the insane ramblings of the majority because often times the majority is a bunch of knee jerk reactionaries.

The majority is always right. When you learn that then you can debate democracy.

 

There is no universal definition of right & wrong. What is right & what is wrong is ultimately defined by the behavior of the majority & that behavior is always in a state of flux. Like most other macro systems it maintains itself over time.

[southsider2k5]

The majority is always right. When you learn that then you can debate democracy.

 

There is no universal definition of right & wrong. What is right & what is wrong is ultimately defined by the behavior of the majority & that behavior is always in a state of flux.  Like most other macro systems it maintains itself over time.

That right there saids it all. So I guess if we all decide that we want to get together to kick your ass, it is OK, and you should just wait where we tell you to, until we get there? As long as we vote on it and decide with a democratic process it is A-OK.

 

OK, who votes for kicking Juggs ass?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Juggs, the majority did not want integration. The majority did not want the war of revolution in 1776 (even Adams said that an optimistic assumption was that it was 1/3 of the population). The majority did not want an end to slavery. The majority wanted the genocide of Native Americans for "manifest destiny."

 

Clearly, the majority is not always right. And numbnuts, we don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic in the US.

[JUGGERNAUT]

That right there saids it all.  So I guess if we all decide that we want to get together to kick your ass, it is OK, and you should just wait where we tell you to, until we get there?  As long as we vote on it and decide with a democratic process it is A-OK.

 

OK, who votes for kicking Juggs ass?

You can try. The majority is not determined by law but by strength in numbers.

Or in this case the ability to bring a can of whoop ass to the event.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Juggs, the majority did not want integration.  The majority did not want the war of revolution in 1776 (even Adams said that an optimistic assumption was that it was 1/3 of the population).  The majority did not want an end to slavery.  The majority wanted the genocide of Native Americans for "manifest destiny."

 

Clearly, the majority is not always right.  And numbnuts, we don't have a democracy.  We have a representative republic in the US.

Speaking for the majority are we? Typical liberal move.

You're wrong on all accounts & history has proven that to be the case.

 

Apparently the term "the majority is always in a state of flux" is beyond your comprehension.

[Steff]

OK, who votes for kicking Juggs ass?

Can we nominate others..?

 

 

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Wait wait wait momo, I can't speak for the majority but you can? Who the f*** pontificated your ass to be their mouthpiece?

 

I'm not wrong on all accounts as you say. The majority has been wrong before and continues to be wrong quite often. The fact that you can show no instances to prove my assertions only strengthens my case.

[Queen Prawn]

Who the f*** pontificated your ass to be their mouthpiece?

LMAO!

[southsider2k5]

Can we nominate others..? 

 

 

 

apparently, as long as the majority of us vote for it, it is all good!