Comments on: Questioning Direct Democracy

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:20:57 +0000

Only if the Federalist Papers can be considered hyperbole:
“It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. …”

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_41.html

As for the SCOTUS protecting the constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._B...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Rel...

“Living” constitution:
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eamc_04/ea...

And the way that FDR (for much of these) bullied the courts into ignoring the constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorgani...

By: Ethos

Ethos — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:01:42 +0000

Such arguments are easy to introduce, but if you ask four people what "original intent" is on a particular amendment and how it applies to a particular issue, you're going to get four different answers. Generally speaking when someone wants to talk about a constructionist viewpoint, what they really mean is they vehemently disagree with some SOCTUS decisions and are looking for a way to oppose them on principle without having the background knowledge necessary to oppose them on a factual basis.

Constitutional protections are hardly a thin hair. The SCOTUS has been applying them for two centuries and they will continue to do so, proving there is nothing "unlimited" about our government.

All you've got here is hyperbole, nothing more or less.

Ethos

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:09:11 +0000

Fair enough, I'll revise if from now on: mostly unlimited. Or maybe practically unlimited. How about effectively unlimited. Oh, better yet, limited only by what the SCOTUS feels like … today.

If a hair this thin makes you comfortable, I guess that's your choice. I would prefer that all officials be able to take their vows to obey the constitution (which would imply that they obey it as written and intended) seriously. I have little respect for those who expect us to follow all the rules that they make for us, but carelessly pick and chose among the rules that are made for them.

By: Ethos

Ethos — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:32:42 +0000

So it's unlimited, except when SCOTUS said it isn't due to the Constitution…

Believe it or not, when you have an exception to something that is “unlimited,” it isn't really unlimited.

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:17:19 +0000

It's unlimited in that the constitution really doesn't restrict it (although the SCOTUS has upheld certain parts of the bill of rights), so we're back to the point where the only real restriction is public opinion. That's unlimited Democracy.

By: Ethos

Ethos — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:03:18 +0000

Not at all. Unlimited government? I guess if you're ignorant, paranoid, or just out of it, you may think we live in one. I've read comments from people who like to think we have "state-run media" or other such nonsense.

It's really quite silly and does nothing to further a viable discussion.

Ethos

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:22:30 +0000

… you are being sarcastic, right?

By: Ethos

Ethos — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:43:58 +0000

Good thing we don't have an unlimited government to deal with then.

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:05:14 +0000

Regardless of the structure and time period, an unlimited government is always destructive, and far more nuttier.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:33:07 +0000

“I personally wish we'd return to the Constitutional idea about this.”

Me, too, but too many have an interest instead on continuing the trend toward a de facto unitary nation.

By: Ethos

Ethos — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:23:53 +0000

A return to observation of the 10th Amendment is nutty idealism. The concept originated in a country with almost 1/4 of the states we have now and in a time when travel between them could take days or weeks.

Fifty states with fifty different sets of laws on most conceivable issues in a society where people can travel from one end of the country to the other in less than a day isn't remotely feasible.

By: JeffersonDavis

JeffersonDavis — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:12:22 +0000

I personally wish we'd return to the Constitutional idea about this.
Give it ALL to the states. We have trended toward Federalism. Let the states decide what they want. THEN the Federal Government can have what's left – as the Constitution plainly states.

By: Pete Abel

Pete Abel — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:39:19 +0000

Austin — Of course it is. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps it wasn't. I amended the copy to make it unmistakingly obvious. Thanks.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:27:54 +0000

What you are describing is a Republic.

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:26:11 +0000

Better than direct democracy and representative democracy is limited democracy. Almost everyone agrees that there should be limits, but we can't agree on what should be limited. Many of the commentators here, for instance, point out constitutional limits, but few are willing to defend the constitution when it doesn't support what they want.