this ain't no democracy, and thank the founders for that tomorrow

[acroyear]

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Dave's Solo Performance, Act 2:

And that document [The Constitution] is, in many ways, anti-democratic. Where democracy and liberty are in conflict, the Constitution comes down squarely in favor of liberty and against democracy. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights, to place our liberty outside the reach of democratic decision making.

Comments

[kowari.livejournal.com]

It amazes me how many people confuse Rebublic and Democracy.

Australia/UK is a democracy, liberty is implied in common law.
America is a Republic, liberty is defined outside of the law.

You know, weighing them both up, I prefer democracy because, in the end, people generally make the right decision. And it allows for change and choice. A bill of rights is pretty much immutable. Which is, of course, why I choose to stay living in Australia. I LIKE the fact everyone has to vote - you get a much more representative opinion on politicians (even if you have to pick a lesser of several evils when it comes to voting time). I like the fact that freedom of expression is implied in judicial law, it means we can actually stop crazy, nasty, prejudiced views before something awful happens. I like the fact our rights are part of a judicial process, because it means we dont end up suing each other over stupid STUPID things, and that people HAVE to take responsibility for their own actions (no breath testing should not be a breach of my rights, it's the right thing to do for EVERYONEs safety, as opposed to being humiliated by police officers by doing stupid sobriety tests which I would fail without being at all drunk).

Of course, it has its downsides... but then, everything does.

oops that rant went on a bit long, didn't it ;^)

Tangentially...

[dglenn.livejournal.com]

According to one popular story, a Mrs. Powel caught Benjamin Franklin leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Re: Tangentially...

[kowari.livejournal.com]

I guess technically the UK is a monarchy... and so is Australia... *grumble*

8^)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

in the end, people generally make the right decision.

See, there's the problem. generally.

What happens when they don't. What happens when mob rule dominates, as it has in a number of instances at the local levels. What happens when "democratically" the majority wants to remove the rights of a minority.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "people" are, as Men in Black so eloquently put it, "dumb, ignorant, and panicky". "People" who lack the education to recognize shysters like Dobson and Fallwell, men who use emotional rhetoric to dominate their audience with one logical fallacy after another all protecting themselves by saying they are doing "God's work".

Such shysters manipulate them to voting for legislatures who condemn science and evolution, ban vaccines that can save women from extremely painful and fatal cancers, illegalize birth control pills that will directly cause a population explosion this country neither needs nor wants...

Imagine if men of such influence and power were able to get people to directly vote for their preferences than merely trying to get a legislator.

The republican system, broken as it is, protects us from the democracy run by the ignorant and easily manipulated mob.

[kowari.livejournal.com]

But that is why you have judicial precedent. Much of our law is not written down, it is decided in a court of law. With a Judge and a Jury (not 100% sure how the judicial system relates in the US; if it is similar or not, so I cant really comment there). That is what common law is, and in the UK extends back I think it is 500 years or so. 500 years of Generally means there is very little that is stupid anymore, there is very little that gets through that doesn't get weeded out pretty quickly as the bad stuff that it is.

And dont forget that Generally is the (mostly silent) majority, not the stupid, mob minority screaming loudly and causing a ruckus. *thinks about the recent cronulla attacks*

You are putting the crazy situation in the US on a system that automatically weeds that kind of thing out just by the process. Because our rights are not autmatically defined, we have to be really careful that they continue to be implemented the way we want them to be. We have to think about our rights, and what they mean, to us and to others. All the time. We are constantly having debates and decisions about censorship, as opposed to merely yelling at the top of our lungs that we can say whatever we want, whenever we want.

With a bill of rights, you dont have to do that. You dont have to think about it at all. It is written down and because it is written down, it is confined. I see that as a weakness. I find the right to bear arms a very good example of a written down right being assumed to mean a certain thing or misunderstood and interpreted incorrectly because of its inability to move with the times.

But we are talking in black and white what is really a very, very, grey area.

different worlds...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

ALL of U.S. law is written down, either in the form of legal code or legal precedent (court decisions that interpret the law). To not be able to know the law by which one is charged is in and of itself unconstitutional. The right of Due Process, trial by jury, and right to face one's accuser are all covered. And WRITTEN DOWN in order to be protected. Read the Federalist Papers some time (a series of published essays by Hamilton and others on why the convention made the decisions it did). The lack of a written Bill of Rights was a major sticking point for several states to join in the new document. By not writing it down, a right becomes a variable, not a sacred element guarenteed.

Unless you live in California, nothing is final until written down. Nothing has any meaning until its written down.

Yes, some general agreement can be maintained in a limited culture/society without everything written down. The UK technically still does not have a constitution. EVERYTHING they do, outside the bounds of common law, is merely precedent and tradition, subject to change.

And 230 years ago, we said that doesn't work for us because too much can change on a dime for no reason other than "well, I thought it was a good idea at the time...". In the UK, for example, nobody openly or secretly declared the House of Lords to be politically impotent. Nobody voted to effectively remove all power from an entire branch of government. It just happened.

And we decided nothing happens like that anymore.

Of course, thanks to our 2 political parties dominating the game, it happens anyways, but at the party level rather than at the constitutional rights and responsibilities level.

And dont forget that Generally is the (mostly silent) majority, not the stupid, mob minority screaming loudly and causing a ruckus.

the mostly silent majority doesn't bother to vote here except when the president is up for grabs.

Yes, Australia is constantly having debates about censorship. And on the other hand, Australia's debates on censorship usually come to the fore AFTER someone has decided to censor something. My understanding is that once that happens, the people have to fight and defend why some information should be free (its certainly that way in the U.K. and Canada).

In our system, it is the responsibility of the government to defend why it should be restricted. The first amendment (and the Freedom of Information Act passed to enforce it) shifted the role.

Australia, to my understanding, consists of 3 core "cultures". The aboriginals, the anglo-celtic lower classes (debtors, prisoners, and people looking to escape the crowded industrial revolution cities), and a small handful of gentry who quickly acquired the rights to divy up the land to the others.

By constrast, America consisted of about 8 distinct cultures at the time of its founding (and 25+ religions, each of which had a different morality AND a different idea of how much religion should control government), and by the time Australia it its peak colonization time, America was up to about 20 cultures (and about to undergoe its 3rd immigration boom with the steamships, plus the acquisition of a large population of mexicans and indians through Texas and the southwest). There is no "common ground" we could fall back on, no way of everybody having the same "understanding" of the rights we have.

By the Amistad incident of 1824 (30 years into our new system), Spain STILL couldn't understand how we could have courts that didn't just hand down the desired ruling of the elected leaders. Without a written Constitution and Bill of Rights to assert EVEN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE COURT, they could have. Our rights themselves could change at the whim of the court (well, they still do, but extremely rarely).

Re: different worlds...

[kowari.livejournal.com]

I can understand how the situation arose in the US. And why it is pretty much the opposite to the UK and Oz (I dont know much about Canada so I cant pass judgement there). Australia has a constitution too. We just dont pay a hell of a lot of attention to it ;^)

These days, with regards censorship, there is an open prcess for new media to be "censored" and the debate often happens before the censors make their decision. I remember recently there was a computer game about gangs or something stupid like that, that cencors were deliberating on, and every man and his dog got involved in that debate. I think the game got an R(18+) rating or some such because of the debate. It happened before the decision. But, yes generally censors do their thing, and no one bats an eyelid.

It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other as to the before or after of the debate on contentious issues.

Re: different worlds...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

We just dont pay a hell of a lot of attention to it ;^)

You also don't have a power-insane religious wing deciding that Zionism was actually a good idea...Or a President in charge of the largest military power who's decided that right to due process, face the accuser, and trial by jury, are things that are better left for "other people" (to quote Spiderman's uncle, with great power comes great responsibility, and this jackass is the most irresponsible president we've ever had).

The nutballs in this country are far worse than anything I've posted here.

Re: different worlds...

[kowari.livejournal.com]

Oooooh yeah. It's a crazy mixed up country you live in! You have not posted anything crazy, the stuff you post up here is pretty sane - or rather, your comments are sane. I might not always agree, but I certainly can understand them and say "yep, it's just an opinion thing" not "That dude's ill informed and has screwed up logic YARGH" *RUN SCREAMING!!!*

And different opinions are what make our world great! If we all had the same opinion I would be rather bored! HA!

*looks at link*

Ok, so I take that last sentence back.
*smacks forehead on desk repeatedly!*

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

By taking exception to California - business agreements are binding at the oral/handshake level. I disagree and consider the potential to lie too strong, but I'm not living in that state for a reason.

[kowari.livejournal.com]

yeah, I was gunna ask about that, then I saw this comment and understood.

I like the fact that you and I can choose. That is something that is really great about both our countries.