And the System just keeps on working!

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 21:59
VIEWED: 7375
PAGE 4 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, I see the point of this thread.
It may not be perfect, but our government's far from a totalitarian nightmare.

Do I 'get' it? Chrisisall

That's what I believe. The old saw, "Democracy may not be a very good system, but it's better than anything else." expresses it pretty well. We've been bumping along for 230 years. Slowly, with many fits, starts, and reversals, getting better. Remember that in the beginning, only white men of property could vote, and some of their property was other people.

You just have to have faith that, in the long run, the people will eventually get it right. Anything else, no matter how well-intentioned it starts, does put you on that slippery slope to totalitarianism.

I have to admit that some of the votes on State Constitutional Amendments to ban same-sex marriage and the like have been testing my faith a bit right recently. But I think it'll work out in the end.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:25 PM

Quote:
Slavery was settled law until outlawed by a Constitutional Amendment

Slavery sure cause a big fuss for being "settled law"! In between being "settled law" and and being "outlawed"- what happened? Demonstrations, newpapers exposes, Underground Railroad and escapes, testimony, and war. An issue is not "dead" even if it's "settled law"!

Quote:
As far as the law is concerned, Bush is the President. As far as I know, there is no serious effort afoot to challenge the 2000 or 2004 presidential elections. In a bit over two years, it'll be a moot point anyway, because Bush will have served his second term and can't be re-elected. If there's a legal challenge to the election at this late date, then maybe things will change. Until then it's a dead issue.

Yes, but what about requiring Scy States not to have party affiliations? What about requiring paper receipts? What about requiring states to audit their receipts? What about making sure that the problems that happened in the LAST election not happen for the forseeable future?

It seems to me that you only consider an issue to be "alive" if it's actually wending it's way thru the courts or thru the Legislature. There is something in your approach that just inherently rejects citizen involvement. As if it were illegitimate, distasteful, or dangerous. And the point that I keep trying to make is that citizen involvement is the heart of democracy. Bitching, complaining, and kicking your government to do better is the only reason why things DO get better. And it is that very process that you seem to terribly anxious to suppress.

Quote:
You just have to have faith that, in the long run, the people will eventually get it right.

Having read Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed I am no longer so sanguine about the ability of a society to learn from it's mistakes.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:45 PM

Quote:
Please explain the relevance of your slavery comment to the topic at hand.

I can't believe I have to explain this. Geezer understands me, why don't you?

Geezer implies that as long as an issue is not in courts it's a "dead issue". Slavery was the same: It was settled law and a "dead issue"... except that popular opinion was seething both ways. At a time when the courts had settled the issue and the legislatures were not taking it up, it was a very lively popular contention. Not "dead" at all... just invisible to someone who only looks to "the system" for validation.

Get it?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer implies that as long as an issue is not in courts it's a "dead issue". Slavery was the same: It was settled law and a "dead issue"... except that popular opinion was seething both ways. At a time when the courts had settled the issue and the legislatures were not taking it up, it was a very lively popular issue. Not "dead" at all... just invisible to someone who only looks to "the system" for validation.

Get it?

Well, since you're once again going to put words in my mouth, I guess I should have a chance to spit them out and express myself.

"Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again.

The 13th Amendment is now settled law, unless someone manages to introduce a Constitutional Amendment allowing slavery.

The 18th Amendment was settled law, until the proposal of what ended up as the 21st amendment, which led to its repeal.

Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:53 AM

The thing is, it doesn't matter if SignyM and Rue and everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother. Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States. If the people can convince someone to take that action, that's fine. That's the way it works, and I think it's a pretty good idea. I'd think the same if Kerry, or Gore, or Rodham-Clinton was in the White House.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:55 AM

But does being "the law of the land" make it a "dead" issue as in.... End of discussion? Case closed? Stop beating a "dead" horse?
Or "dead" as in ..."debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on"? I don't think I was putting words in your mouth Geezer. I think I understood what you said quite perfectly: A "dead" issue is an issue you wish to kill.

-----------
EDITED TO ADD

Quote:
The thing is, it doesn't matter if SignyM and Rue and everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother.

So it doesn't matter what "the people" think?

I think this is where we totally disagree. There is nothing as powerful as an idea that takes hold. Whether that idea is expressed as lack of cooperation ( What if they gave a war and nobody came?) passive resistance, civil disobedience, persistent pressure on one's elected officials, lawsuits, boycotts, volunteerism, sabotage, or even armed resistance. An idea that takes hold: the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the women's movement- can leave a lasting mark on society BEFORE the first court case is ever heard. The will of the people is a powerful thing.

Quote:
Until some legal action is taken, either in the legislature or the courts, to remove him from office, he's the un-challenged President of the United States.

And yet altho still in office he's being challenged evey day.

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
The thing is, it doesn't matter if SignyM and Rue and everybody else in the country don't like Bush. It doesn't matter if the only person who thinks he should be President is his mother.

So it doesn't matter what "the people" think?

(Sigh) could you have taken this fragment any further out of context? Don't think so.

Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.

How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.

If you can do this and get Bush impeached, or convicted, or whatever, more power to you. The system worked. If you and those who think like you can't convince enough people to convince their reps to do it, then you fought the good fight and lost, and the system worked.

And, hey, if you want to try armed revolution, go ahead. That's your right too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:55 AM

Sigh. And if enough people are convinced that it's a "dead" issue then nothing happens.

I'm not taking your statements out of context. "Do nothing" seems to be the subtext of everything you write. Citizen action always is at the end of a very long discussion.... "dead issues" and "quit bitching" at the beginning. I think one of my responses characterized it as "sleep, go back to sleeeep..." But it's too late for me to go searching through all of your backposts for the sterling examples that you've left up here on the board, so maybe some other day...

In the meantime, think about it. If you're NOT trying to shut people off why does it look like that, and what ARE you trying to do?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sigh. And if enough people are convinced that it's a "dead" issue then nothing happens.

Hey! You figured it out!

Quote:
In the meantime, think about it. If you're NOT trying to shut people off why does it look like that, and what ARE you trying to do?

I'm trying to say that in the real world of the American system it doesn't matter a damn what you as an individual think. It matters what you and enough other people who'll bug their congresspeople to do something think. Majority rules, unless it's unconstitutional. This applies even if the majority decide to sit on their butts and do nothing.

I don't doubt that you passionately believe you are right. You may be right. But if enough other people don't agree with you to move the legislative process forward, you're not going to accomplish anything for a while. Maybe later they'll come around to your point of view. It's happened before. How long did it take for women to get the vote? You don't have to give up, but you must realize that the system takes time. Wishing doesn't make it so. You have to sell your ideas. Think long-term. Maybe Bush is good for your eventual goals, as others have noted above.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:31 AM

Geezer, you missed an important point:

Sigh. And if enough people are convinced that it's a "dead" issue then nothing happens.- Signy

Hey! You figured it out! -Geezer

So why are you trying to convince people that everything is a dead issue? Follow the logic backwards.-Signy
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE