Not as much as you think. Since popular will is not always for the best, in fact it's directly opposite many times, it is therefore an illegitimate foundation for any government.
However, the problem with this is that there is no such thing as an omniscient human being or group of human beings. Since your standard, apparently, is that a legitimate foundation of government must always be "for the best", it naturally follows that there is
no legitimate foundation of government that can be created by human beings. There is another problem with your standard. "For the best" is an incredibly vague term, and does not take into account that different groups of people have disparate interests.
The reason that popular will is the foundation of government is not because the citizen is virtuous or because he is omniscient. It is because a majority of the people have it within their power (though they do not often realize it and hardly ever use it) to topple any existing government and put another in its place. The NS equivalent is moving out of a region
en masse and founding another one, which seems particularly appropriate since that was how Taijitu was founded in the first place.
Where did I mention an elite force? The fact remains that "open debate meant to educate the public" doesn't always work. People, as a group, are easily manipulated, and often turn to fire-eaters at the expense of those trying to further debate. Why? Because the public, as a group, doesn't have the attention span for honest debate to have a lasting effect.
I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no warrant for that sort of statement, and such a generalization is impeachable anyway. Not all "publics" are the same, and you must take into account that the Taijitan public, due to the peculiar sort of person that NS attracts, is in general articulate and intellecutally interested (though one's typing or expository skills might not keep pace with these qualities). Many of us are in college or in the latter years of high school. You're transplanting the statements of eighteenth century elites for whom the public was generally illiterate and undereducated, to a place where exactly the opposite is the case.
Simply put, the popular will of the people is not always for the best, and many times they support unfair or counter-productive ideals because they are easily manipulated.
No one's calling for an end of honest, open, debate. No one's pushing for the creation of an elite class.
All I'm saying is "the Senate is the will of the people" excuse is no reason not to check the power of the Senate.
And what's the alternative? Instead of the mass of uninformed, illiterate, drooling lepers that apparantly constitutes the Taijitan public, you would elevate from that mass one person, no better or worse than the rest, to check it? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.
Yes, absolutely. If you were elected Delegate then that would tell me that a majority of Taijituans believe in your vision of how the region should be run.
I'm not outright supporting giving the Delegate a veto. We're examining all possible ways for the Delegate to check the power of the Senate, with the veto being the front-runner.
If, however, you were elected after a point where a veto was given to the Delegate as a check against the Senate, then I would support your right to use the veto, even if I disagreed with what it was you were vetoing.
YOU WANT TO GIVE COMMIES THE POWER TO DEFEAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! YOU'RE A COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZER AND SHALL BE BLACKLISTED!!!!!!1111one!1eleven. Ah, irony.
They aren't excluding themselves from anything. If you choose to enter the courts, you're effecting the running of Taijitu through the court. If you become a Minister then you now effect how the region works through the executive branch. You're still allowed to contribute to the Taijituan government any way you wish.
In the interest of keeping the branches separate, however, you shouldn't be allowed to hold positions in two branches. That not only would give one branch an advantage over an other, but it would also create a conflict of interest.
For the sake of balance and responsible government, you shouldn't be allowed to theoretically hold posts in all three branches of government.
Of course, the problem with this is that Ministers and Justices are appointed. Yes, people have the right to refuse appointments or to resign, but it would seem to me that most people don't want to give up their say in the lawmaking process of the region. Even the past Delegate wasn't fine with being shut out of the Senate simply because he had chosen to run for an office, and it seems to me very unlikely that people would simply accept being shut out of the Senate because
someone else thought they'd be good for a particular position. There is also the possiblity that, under your system, the Delegate would appoint a person for a random unimportant deputy Ministry simply to remove that person from the Senate.
Also, for your information, one is not allowed to serve in all three branches of the government. The Constitution specifically says that the Delegate cannot at the same time be a Justice, and while the case hasn't come up to the court yet, I would interpret as saying that one cannot be a Minister and also a Justice (I don't know how the other three would vote, though).
Furthermore, I don't see how, for example, Justices being allowed in the Senate creates a conflict of interest. If a Justice thinks a bill is unconstitutional, the Justice is likely to argue and vote against it in the Senate, and should it come before the bench, the opinions would likely be unchanged. Also, allowing a Justice to express his opinion in the Senate means its less likely that when it comes time for the Court to make a decision, the Justice will find their views less tainted by political opinion and will be able to rule solely on Constitutional interpretation. I know this from experience.
Again, calm down. You've responded in a very angry manner, for no other reason then I disagree with you. So calm down, and realize that I have every right to my opinions, and the CPT has every right to exist as the TCP does.
You're being very defensive for some reason. I did not challenge the right of the CPT to exist, nor did I tell you to shut up. All I said was that your statement did not conform to the facts of how the Court is run.
As for your statement....
It would be within the Court's power, during the next possible hearing, to change their interpretation of the judicial review to better carry out the check they have against the Senate. I'm not trying to persuade the court, or influence them.
While technically you are right, the other Justices, most notably Eluvatar, hold the principle of
stare decisis in far higher regard than I do, and would be unlikely to change a past ruling unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
I'm just saying that your initial reasoning is flawed, as it's a simple issue the Court could fix if they decided such a change was necessary.
However, the Court doesn't think it needs fixing. The Court is perfectly fine with the current state of affairs.
Furthermore, even in the current state of affairs, the regulations concerning judicial review give the court tremendous power. Every SC in the western world needs to wait for a case concerning a piece of legislation to be brought before them in the form of a case before they can strike it down as unconstitutional.
Again your reasoning is contradicted by actual legal practice. If an unconstitutional law does no material harm to somebody, it cannot be challenged in Court. The power of judicial review is thus dependant upon the people, who, by your own reasoning are incapable of just government or even recognizing their interests, to call the attention of the Court to a particular issue.
I'm afraid that your concerns of a powerless court under the system I'm proposing are unfounded.
Perhaps the better question would be "why do you support a system where the Executive is castrated of any meaningful power?"
To determine the appropriate level of power for the Delegate, we must first ask "what is the role of the Delegate?" To my mind, the role of the Delegate is to represent Taijitu to other regions and the UN, and to organize the military of the region. The Delegate currently has ample power to fulfill these functions, and therefore doesn't really need any more.
The purpose of the Delegate is not to govern Taijitu internally, nor to have any say beyond that of an individual Senator over what goes on on our forums.
I knew this would come up. It always does. The habit of the oligarchy of the Senate to scream "tyranny!" any time a discussion for true separation of powers comes up.
Increasing the power of the Delegate at the expense of the Senate? Only so much as to balance the scale of power. As it stands now the Senate has to much power, while the Delegate doesn't have enough. So some power from the Senate must be removed and given to the Delegate to balance the scales.
First, as to your
ad hominem attack. I consider myself first a Taijitan, then a Justice, then lastly as a Senator. I consider my duty to the Constitution and the principles of justice that it is meant to embody higher than my duty to create statutes as part of the Senate. So don't try to label me part of "the oligarchy." It is a claim that you can't back up and that does absolutely nothing to advance the debate.
I would challenge your notion that each of the three branches of government has to have exactly the same amount of power. Rather, each branch should be apportioned exactly the amount of power necessary to function in its assigned duty. The duty of the Delegate is enumerated above. The duty of the Court is to uphold and interpret the Constitution. The duty of the Senate is to embody the community and enact sensible laws to promote the continued existence and vibrancy of that community.
I find it funny you accuse me of being a fascist who wants to strip the Senate of all power, when one of the key points I've been pushing is barring the Delegate's Minister from the Senate. I'm advocating that so that the Delegate can't exert his or her influence over the Senate.
You, sir, are putting words in my mouth. I did not use the word "fascist," nor did I imply that you ever intended to grab absolute power for yourself. I would argue, and I expect that a majority of my colleagues on the Court, who are supposed to bend their minds to this sort of Constitutional argument, would agree, that it is the right of every Citizen to have a place, if he or she desires, in the Senate. The rights of Citizenship do not end when one takes a post in the Executive or Judicial branch, that was confirmed when the Delegate was granted a vote in the Senate based on his having citizenship in the region.
Look, you asked me six good questions, questions which I answered truthfully. You didn't like what I was saying, and you got a little nasty.
If you want to continue to discuss the platform of the Myro/I-S ticket, I'll be more then happy to join. If you're just going to yell at me for having opinions different then your own, however, I won't have anything to do with it.
You're making me out to be far more shrill than I'm being, and at no point did I try to communicate that I was "yelling". I don't think I was nasty, rather, I found several points in your program, philosophy, and logic either flawed or inapplicable and took pains to point them out. I attribute this bit of miscommunication to the inherant flaw of the Internet, that it can't show emotion. But if you think that I'm not going to express my real and profound disagreement with your program, or that I will do it in such a way that will limit the scope or extent of my critique, then you have another think coming.
