Post by BertramStantrous on Nov 6, 2003 1:58:22 GMT -5
I'm reposting this from a different thread (because Francos asked me to, as the other thread was intended for a more specific subject). Further posting on this thread is encouraged.
That is incorrect as Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the members of the US Senate, which members are elected by the people, and who don't hesitate to block objectional nominations.
Again, the people are merely electing someone to elect someone. They have input on who they elect into the Senate, but not on who they elect into the Supreme Court.
Just another problem with the US's outdated electoral college.
The electoral college is actually under great debate right now, which is why I bring it up. Of course, it is useful for our leaders to make certain decisions in the government without the consent of the people, otherwise we'd be going to the voting booths every day. But electing people to elect our leaders?
The reason I say this is outdated is because the idea was formed back when most of the people in the country were concentrated in the Eastern part of the US. None of the interests of the Western half were getting noticed, because there weren't enough people there to make their votes count. The electoral college was formed so that votes were dedicated to states, not the people. Oregon would have the same voting power as New York, for instance.
Now, while this was all well and good at the time, it is outdated now, because no longer is the country divided in the same way as it was before. This is what I meant.
By the way, if you find it important to continue this conversation, please post it in another thread instead of cluttering this one up. The Senate will appreciate it.
Representative democracy is the underpinning of a balanced and sensible society governed by checks and balances. The US's fore-fathers saw this long before the problem arised. Many feared true democracy and called it mob-ocracy. Representative democracy not only permits for the will of the majority, but protects the minority from the tramplings of the majority. Checks and balances are crucial to prevent government from becoming tyranny or disorganized chaos.
If you are looking for a lesson in failed representative government, look no further than California. A state that has turned to public referendum instead of checked and balanced legislation has descended into chaos - debt, stagnant educational system, slow economic growth. This list goes on and on.
The United States' government has been so effective in the past because it ensures that the majority of the nation can support legislated policies that remain true to democratic principles.
When you say that people elect people, but have no say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court, you are, in one way, right and another wrong. The people elect the President, who must consult with the legislature. Both are representatives of the people. The Supreme Court's purpose, even in its nature, is not to cater to either other branch of government, but to ensure that each does not exceed its power. It is the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. If anything, the Supreme Court is the guard of representative government, not a failing of it.
Actually, representitive democracy didn't emerge in the United States until around the time Andrew Jackson was elected president (mainly because the Western favorite, Taylor, didn't get elected).
on Oct 30th, 2003, 2:14pm, Abysseria wrote:If you are looking for a lesson in failed representative government, look no further than California. A state that has turned to public referendum instead of checked and balanced legislation has descended into chaos - debt, stagnant educational system, slow economic growth. This list goes on and on.
The United States' government has been so effective in the past because it ensures that the majority of the nation can support legislated policies that remain true to democratic principles.
Sure, if by "majority of the nation" you mean "The United States Government."
on Oct 30th, 2003, 2:14pm, Abysseria wrote:When you say that people elect people, but have no say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court, you are, in one way, right and another wrong. The people elect the President, who must consult with the legislature. Both are representatives of the people. The Supreme Court's purpose, even in its nature, is not to cater to either other branch of government, but to ensure that each does not exceed its power. It is the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. If anything, the Supreme Court is the guard of representative government, not a failing of it.
Ahem. The people elect the president? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but we elect people to elect the president, who then elects the Supreme Court. We elect someone to elect someone to elect someone.
Sugar said:
"In the US, they appoint Supreme Court Justices without any input from the people, and they are the pinnicle of democracy." That is incorrect as Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the members of the US Senate, which members are elected by the people, and who don't hesitate to block objectional nominations.
BertramStantrous said:
Again, the people are merely electing someone to elect someone. They have input on who they elect into the Senate, but not on who they elect into the Supreme Court.
Just another problem with the US's outdated electoral college.
Megnoman said:
If you don't like it Bertram, move to China....BertramStantrous said:
Well, thank you for your blunt and insulting post, Megnoman, but you seem to be forgetting what America is all about. Part of what makes America so great is its flexibility. If we don't like something about the country, we change it, instead of "moving to China," as you so intelligently put it. Besides, your statement doesn't make sense in the first place, as China is a communist country that doesn't even allow elections, but I won't go on.The electoral college is actually under great debate right now, which is why I bring it up. Of course, it is useful for our leaders to make certain decisions in the government without the consent of the people, otherwise we'd be going to the voting booths every day. But electing people to elect our leaders?
The reason I say this is outdated is because the idea was formed back when most of the people in the country were concentrated in the Eastern part of the US. None of the interests of the Western half were getting noticed, because there weren't enough people there to make their votes count. The electoral college was formed so that votes were dedicated to states, not the people. Oregon would have the same voting power as New York, for instance.
Now, while this was all well and good at the time, it is outdated now, because no longer is the country divided in the same way as it was before. This is what I meant.
By the way, if you find it important to continue this conversation, please post it in another thread instead of cluttering this one up. The Senate will appreciate it.
Abysseria said:
Representative democracy is the underpinning of a balanced and sensible society governed by checks and balances. The US's fore-fathers saw this long before the problem arised. Many feared true democracy and called it mob-ocracy. Representative democracy not only permits for the will of the majority, but protects the minority from the tramplings of the majority. Checks and balances are crucial to prevent government from becoming tyranny or disorganized chaos.
If you are looking for a lesson in failed representative government, look no further than California. A state that has turned to public referendum instead of checked and balanced legislation has descended into chaos - debt, stagnant educational system, slow economic growth. This list goes on and on.
The United States' government has been so effective in the past because it ensures that the majority of the nation can support legislated policies that remain true to democratic principles.
When you say that people elect people, but have no say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court, you are, in one way, right and another wrong. The people elect the President, who must consult with the legislature. Both are representatives of the people. The Supreme Court's purpose, even in its nature, is not to cater to either other branch of government, but to ensure that each does not exceed its power. It is the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. If anything, the Supreme Court is the guard of representative government, not a failing of it.
BertramStantrous said:
on Oct 30th, 2003, 2:14pm, Abysseria wrote:Representative democracy is the underpinning of a balanced and sensible society governed by checks and balances. The US's fore-fathers saw this long before the problem arised. Many feared true democracy and called it mob-ocracy. Representative democracy not only permits for the will of the majority, but protects the minority from the tramplings of the majority. Checks and balances are crucial to prevent government from becoming tyranny or disorganized chaos. Actually, representitive democracy didn't emerge in the United States until around the time Andrew Jackson was elected president (mainly because the Western favorite, Taylor, didn't get elected).
on Oct 30th, 2003, 2:14pm, Abysseria wrote:If you are looking for a lesson in failed representative government, look no further than California. A state that has turned to public referendum instead of checked and balanced legislation has descended into chaos - debt, stagnant educational system, slow economic growth. This list goes on and on.
The United States' government has been so effective in the past because it ensures that the majority of the nation can support legislated policies that remain true to democratic principles.
Sure, if by "majority of the nation" you mean "The United States Government."
on Oct 30th, 2003, 2:14pm, Abysseria wrote:When you say that people elect people, but have no say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court, you are, in one way, right and another wrong. The people elect the President, who must consult with the legislature. Both are representatives of the people. The Supreme Court's purpose, even in its nature, is not to cater to either other branch of government, but to ensure that each does not exceed its power. It is the ultimate check on executive and legislative power. If anything, the Supreme Court is the guard of representative government, not a failing of it.
Ahem. The people elect the president? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but we elect people to elect the president, who then elects the Supreme Court. We elect someone to elect someone to elect someone.