[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
How does the addition of a second Supreme Court destroy the system any more than the current one?
The legislative branch is a constitutional actor co-equal to other branches, not subordinate to. A “second Supreme Court” that determines, in advance, the constitutionality of legislation prior to the incident of a “case or controversy” - which is the only way a court can opine and determine a law’s validity - directly infringes on the constitutional prerogative of the legislature.[/quote]
And this doesn’t happen between the legislative and executive today? Presidents have often vetoed legislation on the ground that they find it unconstitutional. Besides, I still fail to see how a second court would be staffed any differently than the first. [quote]
The legislature already has it vetting of constitutional legislation - during the act of passing the law. That is its constitutional duty.
[/quote]
True, and history has proven the legislature deficient in that duty. [quote]
What you propose is an unelected overseer to the legislative process - veto power with no democratic accountability. No thanks - we have enough of that problem today.[/quote]
Again, how is that different than the current supreme court? They aren’t exactly elected either. And for that matter, when did I infer that they couldn’t be elected? I’m talking about some rather serious structural changes here and you cannot assume old ideas would govern the new structure.[quote]
You have the problem exactly backwards - you’ll make worse the problem of overactive judiciaries who routinely invade the province of the legislature.[/quote]
Perhaps. All I know is that as it stands now, unconstitutional laws pass and get rubber stamped then we go back to American Idol. The second court would certainly be more political. It would be important to consider how they would be selected. But wouldn’t you rather the lawmaking process be slowed down by politics than sped up by a lack of proper oversight?[quote]
Separation of powers was no historical accident - and your proposal tears does nothing to protect that important principle.
Why? As I see it, rural areas would receive MORE representation in congress. Granted I’m here in Idaho, but Boise elects one of our reps and CDA gets the other. The people not in the city have no voice. This way farmers can throw their vote into someone supporting rural ideas in Texas or Nevada. And who cares if there are 100 wacky urban MC’s with 1 vote when there are 5 rural MC’s with 20 votes? At least most every citizen would get a voice. In a democracy such as ours if you lose the election you don’t really have a representative do you? This way we can all vote our conscience.
So, the basic voter will have a list of thousands of candidates to choose from - no boundaries on the vote. Further, your change doesn’t do much of anything - it is a change, but does it make anything better? Are you giving a voice where there isn’t one?
You say that if your candidate loses, you don’t really have a representative - that would be no different under your proposal.
I don’t see it - seems like you are creating a solution in search of a problem.
[/quote]
Actually, I’d prefer it was more of a write-in scenario. If you don’t know the name of the guy you’re voting for then you really have no business voting. And sure, if your candidate doesn’t gather enough votes then you can always throw in with another. You’re thinking too simply here. This isn’t a matter of voting for the choices placed in front of you. Rather you are picking your representative. Perhaps we can simply cap the House of Reps at its current size and still open the vote for any of them, allowing their votes to be weighted. What I do know is that no one here in Idaho adaquetly represents me and I cannot choose someone who does.
What you end up with is representatives that are for the most part caricatures of their respective parties and us having to choose among them. With my proposal a more varied group of MC’s would exist. True, the Westboro Baptist Church might never get their choice representative, but they will be able to pick someone a little closer to what they believe in.
I repeat, even in this sense, the guy you’re talking about already has 3 votes. He’s got his one, plus the house that comes with his middle class status, and he’ll pass the test of who the VP is. I think you’re getting a little butt hurt about this college thing. As I said earlier, I’d have to figure a way to show the equivalent to a college ed before accepting that. I know exactly how bad college is…I’m studying history in college. Don’t get me started on how shitty college is. I could write books about it.[quote]
The extra vote criteria are loose examples. I don’t know what they’ll be for sure yet. But it’s the idea of merit and intelligence weighing your vote that I’m most interested in.
Merit is fine in certain contexts, but in trying to tether merit to what is understood as a right to self-government leads to, in my mind, absurd results.
Rest assured, I have no interest in mobocracy or “tyranny of the masses”, as the much-abused and often overstated phrase is understood. But we have a republic, and the carefully constructed legislative branch - no accident that its complicated mechanics is one of the most dense parts of the Constitution - strikes the necessary balance just fine.[/quote]
We have a republic…but it’s a frayed republic in peril. Our legislative branch was much less a carefully constructed piece than simply a compromise. It has worked, but that doesn’t mean we should close our eyes and assume perfection. [quote]
Most of the time, anytime anyone invokes the “tyranny of the masses”, usually they are just complaining because the legislature happens to not be going their way on policy. The majority - I hope you are sitting down - actually has rights, and passing laws you happen not to like isn’t “tyranny”. [/quote]
I won’t argue with you there. I agree. I also think that if our republic were properly restrained we needn’t fear the masses. But the Constitution has become a paper tiger. [quote]
Just out of morbid curiousity what did you figure my ideal platform would be?
Most libertarian types are all about “rights, rights, and more rights” and are largely uninterested in trying to attach any concept of rights to any kind of behavior. In this particular case, I think you have it wrong to try and attach a merit-based program to the right to participate in self-government - but otherwise, I think it is an important idea in other contexts.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” -Benjamin Franklin[/quote]
Oh, I believe in rights. I also believe in the equality of man in flesh and in dignity, though not in product. Let he who produces have the loudest voice. In a properly restrained government the minority needn’t fear anything, then perhaps democracy can work to its full potential.
mike