Text 6960, 120 rader
Skriven 2010-04-12 19:53:00 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
   Kommentar till text 6816 av Michiel Van Der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Hello Michiel,

>RB>The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, i.e. are not
>RB>subject to any political pressure (or can ignore it at will).

>MV>So the guardians of democracy are not elected and they are not
>MV>accountable to anyone. That raises the question of "who guards the
>MV>guardians?"

>RB>The constitution. You may remnember the States has one.

MVDV>The constitution is a "what" , not a "who".

Once upon a time, a state legislator threw a copy of the state
constitution at Huey P. Long, telling him to read it.  Long replied -

"From now on, I am the constitution!" - Huey P. Long

As you can see, the constitution is a living, breathing thing.
Especially when in the hands of a dictator.

"I am the decider!" - George W. Bush

The constitution be damned!  George W. Bush was the Decider,
the constitution being "just a goddamn piece of paper!"

The fact of the matter is, George W. Bush was right.  The constitution
is meaningless.  Totally meaningless.  The only thing that matters is
what the decider/dictator says, does or wants.  Did the constitution
stop Huey P. Long from doing what he wanted to do?  Did the constitution
stop George W. Bush from doing what he wanted to do?  No indeed!  They
did whatever they wanted to do, irregardless of what any constitution
stated or what others wanted.

MVDV>So I ask again: "who guards the guardians?".

Presumably the legislature/congress/parliament.  However, this
was Louisiana and Huey P. Long was Dictator.  In 1929, a group of
legislators moved to impeach Long on a variety of charges, and
found out the hard way what happens when one crosses the Kingfish.

Fifteen days into the trial, a group of legislators signed a
document saying the charges were unconstitutional, and that even
if proved they would not vote for impeachment.  These legislators
were not stupid.  They signed their names in a circle so that no
one would know who signed first.

Anyway, to make a long story short, Long was able to exonerate
himself by getting rid of those who wanted to remove him from power,
and in 1935 a doctor permanently removed Long from power by shooting
him dead in a hallway at the state capital.  The police guarding Long
then shot the doctor dead, with a lot more bullets than the doctor
pumped into Long.

George W. Bush wanted to be King, not Dictator.  Bush did not care
what others said about him.  As long as he got his way, he was happy.

Barack Obama is a horse of a different color.  Obama wants to be
Dictator, to be loved and adored by all.  A Messiah.  A Savior.

That is the difference between a King and a Dictator.  A King does
not care if he is loved or hated.  A Dictator wants to be loved by all.
A King will not jail or imprison those who hate him.  A Dictator will.

>RB>And who controls parliament?

>RB>[No answer, as ususal...]

MVDV>I gave you an answer; the people. But that is not what you
MVDV>wanted to hear.

The people do not control parliament or any other legislative body.
They might be led to believe that, but that is not the same thing.

>MV>Who controls the US Supreme Court?

>RB>The constitution. And you might note that there are _nine_ judges on
>RB>the Supreme Court. That was intentional, to prevent ties. And the nin
>RB>Justices are _never_ a single political block, since they are
>RB>individually proposed and appointed, generally by different president
>RB>and congresses. That keeps the court nicely balanced over time.

MVDV>All very well, but that does not answer the question of who
MVDV>guards the guardians.

Huey P. Long controlled all branches of government - executive,
legislative, and judicial.  He was de facto Dictator.  Who guards
the guardians?  In Huey P. Long's case, a doctor, who shot him dead.

MVDV>That there are nine and that the are never all
MVDV>appointed by the same president is no guarantee that they
MVDV>will never go awry. As I understand it, their rulings do
MVDV>not have to be unanimous. A simple majority will do. So
MVDV>what if 5 out of the 9 go bananas?

A majority of those voting, not necessarily a majority of the court.

In any event, a president who has control of both houses of congress
could nominate (with easy confirmation) as many justices to the court
as he/she desires (there is no limitation as to how many justices
the US Supreme Court is to consist of).  This would give the president
total control of all branches of government - executive, legislative,
and judicial.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound.  After all, what we have
in office today is a black Huey P. Long.  An extremely gifted speaker
who fires people up.  Just like the Huey P. Long whose populist message
appealed to so many.  A black demagogue rather than a white demagogue.
Only much more civil (Huey P. Long had a potty mouth, and was rarely
civil in anything he did).  And like Huey P. Long, this president has
a Share the Wealth program, where everything will be free.  Don't you
love it?

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * All wiyht.  Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Not the Eastern Star feedcutting centre (3:800/432)