Posted on 09/09/2010 7:54:59 AM PDT by Publius
LOL!!!!
You’re talking about Democracy vs. Republicanism. I’m talking about Republicanism and how to apply it to judges. The question is, should our Judicial branch be filtered through the executive branch. The fact is that filter has it’s downsides which you have not addressed. Neither have commented on whether states that elect there judges find themselves in a better or worse situation. Those are the questions that I have. Not for you specifically but the ones I am looking into. Believe me I have a fair grasp of the theory behind Republicanism and the discovery of truth through discourse.
The question I do have for you is, what natural rights exist and are recognized by the Ninth Amendment that are not enumerated in the other amendments?
I do think there is a fair compromise on the extreme that the 17th Amendment took. I think we could Amend the 17th amendment to include a provision for removing Senators by an act of the state legislature. Senators could be popularly elected but they would still be beholden to the interests of the states as separate governments.
I’m talking about Republicanism and how to apply it to judges. - - Through popular vote, the "republican" tag fails to apply.
The question is, should our Judicial branch be filtered through the executive branch. The fact is that filter has it’s downsides which you have not addressed. --- No, I admit the downsides, which were not in our original Constitution.
Neither have commented on whether states that elect there [sic] judges find themselves in a better or worse situation. - - Straw man argument; State Governments are far different from the design of the Fed Government.
Believe me I have a fair grasp of the theory behind Republicanism and the discovery of truth through discourse. - - but you want popular control over the most important part of our republic, as it is over the other two. I firmly disagree with your premise and your conclusion.
The question I do have for you is, what natural rights exist and are recognized by the Ninth Amendment that are not enumerated in the other amendments? - - - What a strange question. The very presence of Amendment IX was to not have the government defining rights not enumerated. What's more, you are talking about "natural rights" instead of constitutional rights. The question is very strange, bordering on the metaphysical.
I'm sorry but I could not let this pass as it is just plain wrong.
There are under our Constitution three coequal branches of government. The problem we currently have is due to the fact that the legislative and executive branches have failed to assert their powers to check the judicial branch.
I strongly suggest that you take the time to listen to the information at the link below!
http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?page_id=2#video
you are advocating popular control = democracy.
No not at all. I’m not sure you know what the word democracy means. Popular election of representatives, or judges in this case, isn’t democracy. That is Republicanism. In a Republic one elects Representatives to decide things for the whole. Democracy would be if we had the people directly vote on Supreme Court decisions. Maybe you just got off on an idea and are defending it no matter what. Moving on.…
The very presence of Amendment IX was to not have the government defining rights not enumerated.
I’m sorry but you’re off on this one too. The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to make it clear that natural rights not otherwise enumerated in the Constitution were still to be recognized. One problem we have today is that the USSC has decided the Ninth Amendment defending natural rights is almost powerless in the face of the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution. Most scholars agree, between the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause, the USSC has all the justification it needs to let the government force us to buy health care. Our constitutional problem is that the USSC is made up of people defer to the other two branches, Scalia and Kagan both for instance.
Madison and the founders strived to NOT give the popular voice substantial powers in the government.
I’m sorry but I can’t let this one go either.
Madison was primary proponent of the Virginia Plan, which had a strong Bicameral Legislature. Both Camerals (ha! Camerals!) of which were to have proportional representation. If you’re arguing against a Republic via proportional representation, you’re arguing against Madison.
I agree, they should all be checking each other. When they don’t, individuals lose.
I certainly think that would be an improvement over the current situation but I’m going to have to think it through before I fully endorse the idea.
I wrote that the House/Senate and Executive are decided by vote; the Judicial by appointment.
How is that “just plain wrong?”
You have me laughing; at what point does a form of government shrink from a republic to a democracy? Obviously, our opinions differ, but I’m not going to go ad hominem on you.
For clarification: The republican form of government I set as a baseline is the one that our Founders provided. After the 17th Amendment the States lost their influence in the legislative powers and, with that, the judicial appointment processes. It was then no longer a republic.
I won’t wait for the people to vote on our president’s cabinet members, or judicial decisions, to call a government a democracy. It crossed the line long before that; and I will not defend those changes as republican in character.
Your assertion was true, until Madison changed his mind and opted for the Connecticut Compromise on the Senate. He wrote well of the resulting Senate design in the Federalist.
He did write well and made a persuasive argument for the Great Compromise. I’m not sure if he changed his mind though. The nationalists in the convention made the argument that even without proportional representation, national power would naturally flow to the rich and powerful states. They said that if the constitution didn’t recognize this natural course of power, its foundation was weak.
I can see one of three justifications for Madison’s Federalist Paper arguments,
1- He thought state representation in the Senate would be an enduring bad idea but it was the best that could be done given the fact that the constitution would be ratified by the states and not the people. It would one day have to be eliminated over the objections of the small states.
2- He thought it would be a bad idea but that the Senate would diminish over time through a series of incremental changes in tradition (my view), similar to what has happened with the British House of Lords.
3- He changed his mind completely and thought it was a fantabulous idea.
I think the 17th Amendment is some mixture of 1 and 2.
I quoted the part I considered to be wrong in my post to you.
No one of the three branches of government is “over the other two”. At least that’s how the founders saw it,. In fact the judicial branch was thought by them to be the least dangerous because their job was simply to interpret the law and not make it as they have been doing now for years!
but you want popular control over the most important part of our republic, as it ["it" being "popular control"] is over the other two.
I was not stating that the Judiciary is over the House and Senate.
OK! Good!
Thanks for the clarification as to what you meant to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.