"If you want change, win an election!"

Some of the Founders foresaw the problem of a judiciary unaccountable to the electorate, overuling the will of the electorate, and being able to issue rulings on whimsy.

Which founders would those be exactly? With the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jesfferson, neither or whom had much to do with writing the Constitution, Franklin being marginal and Jefferson being in Paris, The Founders (a fetishized group widely cited but generally unidentified, as is your main fault over and over again here) were a bunch of aristocratic wannabees who wrote a document designed to establish the rule of law and to marginalize the people of the country, especially the small group who constituted the voting population by making sure that the only branch of government that was directly elected by the people were the elected representatives in the House. Madison, who is widely credited with writing the Constitution in it's unamended form, had little regard for the masses or their ability to judge the quality of their leaders or to be trusted to elect them, that is why every other branch of government is appointed in the original document. In fact, with the various property qualifications and other provisions that restricted voting in the early years of the republic few could actually vote. The number of people who voted during the ratification process was less than 10 percent of the population, some have estimated that it was as low as 7 percent. So stop fetishizing your particular twisted version of history and realize that the founders were mostly excessively wealthy slave owners whose sole purpose was protecting their property in slaves and their ability to control the power in the government they were erecting. They weren't the damn saints that most of you teabaggers wish they were and they certainly had no respect for "the people" and Madison himself in his later life admitted that the Federalist Papers which most of you have also erected shrines to were written to sell the Constitution to a skeptical population.
If you want to learn what some people thought during the debate on the Constitution put down the Federalist Papers and pick up a copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Then read some history of the Constitution and the men who wrote it.
 
/grins...he's from England.....even their conservatives are liberal.....

Not really. What you have shown is that the terms conservative and liberal are relative, and as such nearly meaningless; and in America they are even more meaningless, because this country is so far right now, that the term liberal identifies someone like Obama who is far to the right of Nixon on some issues and certainly about as pro-business, banking interest and stock market as any liberal has ever been. But people like you and your ilk like to claim that Obama is a communist or a Marxist or a socialist, three terms that remain as mysterious in their particulars as the people who constitute that mysterious group widely referred to as the Founders in the teabagger lexicon of revisionist history. It's too bad you can't give as much attention to particulars as you do to generalities. Your writing might be worth reading if you did. But maybe not!
 
if you think that a member of the judiciary has overstepped his or her constitutional authority, impeach them. if not, stfu.

If you think that a conservative member of the House has overstepped his or her constitutional authority, impeach them. if not, stfu.
 
I do when I see them


Like the FACT that the SCOTUS agrees the republican party has to have special rules to follow to keep them from cheating.


That is been the case for DECADES and they still always try to cheat anyway.

That is why the special rules remain in place and the SCOTUS decided to LEAVE it like that
 
http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm



What is Democracy?



Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies

January 21, 2004





Democracy consists of four basic elements:



I want to begin with an overview of what democracy is. We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:


1.A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.



2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.



3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens.



4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
 
Which founders would those be exactly?

Obviously those aligned behind the losing side in Marbury v. Madison.

The Founders (a fetishized group widely cited but generally unidentified, as is your main fault over and over again here) were a bunch of aristocratic wannabees who wrote a document designed to establish the rule of law and to marginalize the people of the country,

You would be hard-pressed to find a ruling class in the history of the human race up until that point, that bestowed more freedoms upon the people and less in their own hands.

And now, the obligatory liberal "ZOMG! Slavery!"

I assume that concludes the discussion?
 
we are a capital "R" republic that uses small "d" democracy as one of its principal processes for governance. We can be a democracy AND a republic.... i.e. a democratic republic. It's not either/or.
 
and two times in a row, the people have spoken and decided that the ideas and platform and candidate of the democratic party are more to their liking than those of the republican party. If republicans want to win a national election, they need to put forth ideas, and a platform and a candidate that appeals nationally. They don't seem to know how to do that anymore and, with the rise of the strident tea party faction and the force that faction can apply to the primary process, it seems as they will be unsuccessful at that for a while.
 
and two times in a row, the people have spoken and decided that the ideas and platform and candidate of the democratic party are more to their liking than those of the republican party.

except within one of the houses of Congress.....which is the only one you choose to believe is not democratically elected.....
 
except within one of the houses of Congress.....which is the only one you choose to believe is not democratically elected.....

I never said that the republican party was not a powerful force in many regions of the country. Their NATIONWIDE appeal is dwindling, however. It is interesting to note the power of gerrymandering on the house races however. More Americans voted for democratic house congressional candidates last election than voted for republican candidates. hmmmmm.
 
except within one of the houses of Congress.....which is the only one you choose to believe is not democratically elected.....

But a majority of the House voted to open the government WITHOUT CONDITIONS the instant they were given the opportunity.
 
Back
Top