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.
That's the thing though, there is no perfect government, because no government is omniscient. Rather, we have to strive for the best we can do, we have to look to history and take what works and abandon what doesn't work.
Mob rule simply doesn't work. The more often then not, the majority wants the choice contrary to the popular good.
See Nazi Germany. See the American south during the 1960's. There would still be segregation in the American south had the issue been decided based on the will of the majority.
Even today, look at the stance on gay marriage in the States. Again, popular will runs contrary to what is actually right. Now I'm not saying with adopt a totalitarian dictatorship either. I'm saying the best is a balance between mob rule and authoritarianism. We must have free elections, the right of self-determination. Yet we must also place checks to guard the power of the mob.
Remember, the first priority of democracy is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
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.
First of all, the general statement that people, in a group, are easily manipulated is just as true now as when it was first spoken. Nice attempt though.
Yes, it's true that Taijitu, being a NS community, attracts people who you, as you said, are "general articulate and intellectually interested."
One would think this would protect Taijitu from the mob rule. Sadly, that's not the case. When you get people grouped together, regardless of their intellect, mob rule will become a reality.
Case in point; Germany, a nation that produced some of the world's greatest musicians and scientists, gave birth to the most evil tyrant who ever lived.
Mob rule is human instinct, something that very few are born without, something almost everyone, regardless of intellect, is susceptible to.
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.
I'm saying that trusting the region to simply the "will of the people" is dangerous, even in principal. That power needs to be checked by an elected executive. A person isn't as susceptible as a mass of people is.
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals (thank you
Men in Black).
An exaggeration, to be sure, but the general point is there.
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.
Pardon? I believe I've been very consistent on this point.
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.
You said it yourself; they don't have to accept the nomination. If a person feels they would be better off serving the region in the Senate as opposed to a Ministry or seat in the SC, they're free to turn down the nomination.
Also, no one is being denied any of their rights. As soon as they leave their seat on the Court, or their Ministry, they're free to resume life back in the Senate. Their rights as Taijiutuans would not be violated, they would just have to understand that for the sake of the sovereignty of the separate branches of government, they can't have their cake and eat it to while they're serving as a Minister or Justice.
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.
Every system has room for corruption.
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.
No, I know how the Court is run. You're not getting what I'm trying to say.
Oh, your actions elsewhere indicate you feel differently about the CPT.
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.
Then there's no problem. If they Court is happy with its current level of power and influence, then they should just keep on doing what they're doing.
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.
See above.
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.
No, you're confusing a person with the mob. As I said before, a single person is more capable of acting in their best interest then a mob is. Likewise a person is less susceptible then a mob is. So I would completely trust a person to bring a charge against a law to the Court.
Like I said concerning how the Court can declare something unconstitutional; If they're happy with the way the system currently works, great. Stay with it. If, however, the Court wanted to expand its powers, they have many ways to do so that are well within their power. So simply, stop complaining about how the Court can *only* strike a law down if a case is brought to them if you're happy with the way that system works.
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....
Yes, in your mind. Since when did we agree whatever you thought would become law?
The Constitution names the Delegate as the Executive branch of the government, correct?
As such he/she is entitled to all the rights and privileges a head-of-state has, including the right to govern internally.
....nor to have any say beyond that of an individual Senator over what goes on on our forums.
Really? Then why did the Senate feel the need to stick its nose in the RR issue? By your own reasoning, what PoD did regarding the RR was completely within his power as Delegate. Yet I remember the Senate calling for his head....
So it seems the Senate wants to strip the Delegate of powers that even they agree he rightfully has.
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."
Celine Dion considers herself French first and Canadian second, that doesn't make it true.
IMO if you fight for the Senate to continue to hold onto the vast amount of power at the expense of truly balanced and responsible government, then yes, you are part of the oligarchy.
It is a claim that you can't back up and that does absolutely nothing to advance the debate.
See above. You're fighting tooth and nail to keep true power invested in the Senate at the expense of the two other branches.
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.
So now you're telling me what to think. Nice....
I think all three branches of government should hold equal power, you don't. We're not going to change each other's minds, so lets agree to disagree there. Its a matter of opinion, neither one of us is more "right."
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.
Elsewhere, in Myro's campaign thread, you've painted the picture that this ticket is power hungry and authoritarian in nature. I'm insulted by that. Read the program. We want balance between the three branches of government. You're free to think that's a bad idea, but there's nothing authoritarian about it.
Again, just because we want to give the Delegate enough power to actually be effective as a head-of-state doesn't mean we want to turn this place into Nazi Germany.
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.
Probably. Could this board use more smilies, perhaps to better convey emotions and tones? Yes.
Yet I interpreted your previous response as overly aggressive and nasty. I'm glad to know that wasn't the case, but I'm not going to apologize for defending myself and my point of view when at the time I felt they were under attack.
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.
No one's asking you to. I know all to well you and I will disagree on many sociological, historical, political, and economic topics.
Above all though, I hope you recognize that the problems you see in the program I'm advocating are mostly there due to your own personal preferences, as in they're just your opinions.
Likewise the strengths I see in my program are a result of my opinions.
What I see as a fundamental flaw in your line of thinking, isn't a flaw at all, it's just my opinion. I try to recognize this.
The reason I was getting defencive was because I felt you were taking your opinion and presenting it as a fact.
