Ozzie the Blade wrote:I started reading through the first page of this thread and then I realized there was about 16 pages of political dribble, sigh. You Yanks and Europeans and your silly politics. Politics 101. Does not matter whether you vote for Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Labor, Tories, Monarchists, Anarchists, Fascists, Socialists, Communists and anyone else I may have not covered with that list. At the end of the day, it does not matter who you vote for. Big business and big industry win. The latest Oxfam investigative study has revealed that out of 7.5 billion people on this planet, a mere 85 people control over half of the worlds entire wealth. If you really want to know who is running your country, figure out who those 85 people are, and you'll have a pretty good idea, but let me assure you. It certainly is not your president or prime minister...

Ozzy.

Hey, Aussie politics would jade even the most idealistic among us.

You are right that at the end of it, money talks in terms of how the world is run. The problem in the US is that a Constitution designed to avoid a single group to take political control has not avoided the plutocrats from doing just that.

Danivon:

You are right that at the end of it, money talks in terms of how the world is run. The problem in the US is that a Constitution designed to avoid a single group to take political control has not avoided the plutocrats from doing just that.

Ricky and Sass, do you both think that this plutocrat problem is mostly in the last few congresses, or that it has been going on for a while? And Danivon, I agree with you---to a point. But is it possible that, in other countries, it is merely "hidden" better? Unlike Ricky, who asserts that it's our presidential form of government (among other factors) enabling this campaign finance donations/corruption/overall shitty stuff, I assert that really, at the end of the day, no Constitution itself can actually protect the system it creates against corruption, whether it's the kind going on with donations to congressional campaigns (and presidential campaigns) if the people have been allowing it. It is our fault as the American People we haven't turned the South Lawn of the White House. Bc the Bill of Rights does technically allow free peaceful assembly; and in a democracy, we all ultimately get the governments we deserve. That said, whatever any of you might say, I think the American Constitution itself--while possibly needing a couple tweeks--is fine for us right now. I still believe in it....even if I do not believe in those who are at this moment carrying out its provisions (Congress, President Obama, the leadership of the parties, etc.).

My differences between the several of us over this subject originate with the fact that again, we could write a whole new constitution and it wouldn't help the corporate dominance factor. I almost wonder if there's more corruption in countries with government-owned corporations...but let's not get into that one. Several of you look at the 112th and 113th congresses, and their behavior, and say oh, you need a whole new constitution (particularly Ricky). Again, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As an example: the resignation of Spiro Agnew was mentioned by Edward Luttwak in his forward to the second edition of Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook. To wit:

When the American Vice-President was forced to resign because he had accepted bribes, or what were deemed to be bribes, there was amazement at the size of hte sums involved: in the Third World not even a junior minister could be purchased for so little. The logic whereby public power may easily generate private wealth is universal, and the enrichment of the powerful is a pervasive phenomenon found all over the world.

Think you can really stop shit like this with a particular constitution? Just ask anyone from the Bankrupt State of California. There's a reason it is the way it is. Once upon a time, the Governor & Legislature of California were the stooges of railroad barons. So the People wrote a new constitution, one that would be able to bypass the stooges entirely, put power back in the hands of the people, who would rule by majority of what people wanted. I'm sure it worked that way...for a little while. But--I read in an article about California's constitution--this power back to the people have made the special interests (not just corporations but other such bodies with interests) even worse for that state. And p.s.: this is the state that passed--by majority vote, which means to Ricky it is the rightful will of the People and should be respected, right?--the ballot measure making gay marriage illegal. It took a federal court to overturn the thing. You sure about majority will protecting freedom, Ricky? Or that it should not meet obstruction?

And the border situation has to do with an executive order signed, ironically, by President Bush, allowing children to have a federal court hearing as to whether they can stay in the country.

hacker

. And p.s.: this is the state that passed--by majority vote, which means to Ricky it is the rightful will of the People and should be respected, right?--the ballot measure making gay marriage illegal. It took a federal court to overturn the thing. You sure about majority will protecting freedom, Ricky?

Once again, I think you don't get the notion of majority government being able to pass "constitutional" laws .... (The problem in the US congress is that a small minority can stop almost any legislation from advancing... and an extreme rump in the House is accomplishing just that for several years now..)
The constitution exists to ensure that there aren't laws passed by a majority that discriminate against the rights of minorities.... In the case of California's anti- gay marriage plebescite the Constitution and the courts sytem did its job, (In fact it seems to be interpreting personal freedoms in an ever enlarging virtuous circle. Something of a shock to US conservatives I suspect. But then every interpretation of increasing protections for minorities has been a shock to the entrenched majority... )

hacker

Ricky and Sass, do you both think that this plutocrat problem is mostly in the last few congresses, or that it has been going on for a while?

When Scotus ruled on Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission, the ability of Congress to limit the power of money in politics ended.
Although the problems in the US have increased with the development of the primary system, which provided small minorities of highly motivated groups to control the fate of politicians in their district. This wouldn't be such a problem in a system where there are many political parties representing a large spectrum of views but in a duopoly when the extreme takes control .... you lose the ability to compromise. And thats whats happened in the US to the Republican party since about 92 and Gingrich....
And especially with the advent of the Tea Partiers..

There are countries that have made the political process more democratic by providing money from the public purse. (Since all political donations are tax deductible in the US the money is the US actually comes out of the public purse...its just that corporations and large donors control it rather than public will as expressed electorally.

Germany has provided public funding to the political parties since 1958. Since then, the Federal Constitutional Court has frequently ruled on the fair distribution of government funds to the parties and on the tax treatment of private donations, thus causing frequent changes in legislation. Currently, the overall annual amount that can be allotted to the parties is €133 million.[1] Parties receive funds in proportion to the latest election results plus a partial matching of €0.38 per donated Euro for private donations up to €3,300. The parties, in return, must submit yearly financial statements to the legislature. In these, only contributors of more than €10,000 per year must be named. Private individuals may deduct 50 percent of their donations below €3,000 (twice that for joint returns) from taxable income, or claim a tax credit of €825 (€1650 for joint returns). There are no limits on private or corporate contributions

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-fi ... ermany.php

Unless the Citizens United decision is subject to revision, I think the US is @#$!. At least until the decline has reached a point where the majority understand that the national interests are not really being met by those with money.

We had public financing laws in Canada too, but the Tories have attacked and revised them (since they have the most corporate money available... but we're still not wide open like the US. I don't know the Uk campaign financing laws that well.

By the way, Hacker, I never said the US is stuck without a new constitution. Obviously the thing worked well for a couple centuries... Its the advent of unconstitutional items like primaries, and campaign financing, and legislative rules and regulations that are primarily to blame for dysfunction. However when you have a duopoly, which also was never an aspect of the Constitution, you can more likely have a standoff then in multi party systems. Plus the structure of "checks and balances" creates the ability of minorities to simply stop governance within the complex legislative machine.. Which is whats happening with the Tea party.
If one single thing could change this ...it would be a change of Citizens United and rules on public finance of campaigns that limit the expoure politicians have to the big money requirement.
Won't happen. Unless some of the SCOTUS are changed out somehow.
And you'll never stop personal corruption entirely. But thats not the problem. The problem is instituionalizing the need for enormous money to run a political campaign successfully. And therefore making the process vulnerrable to the plutocrats and corporations. (The latter who are multinational and don't really give a damn about domestic interests if they don't match the corporations interests...)

And the border situation has to do with an executive order signed, ironically, by President Bush, allowing children to have a federal court hearing as to whether they can stay in the country.

I'm not entirely clear where you're trying to go with this point, but I assume you're using it as an example of how executive action can have negative consequences, and therefore should be constrained. If so, then it's a strange argument to make. Of course any action taken by the government has the potential for unforeseen consequences that could very well be negative ones. This isn't even an especially good example. Bush was clearly attempting to bring in a more humane system for dealing with unaccompanied children at the border. Those of us like myself who are professionals in the immigration field could have told him what was likely to happen, but nevertheless the intentions were honourable. If the governing party in the legislature had more freedom of action then they could change the law to deal with the resulting problems, and then in 4 years time they would be held to account for their actions in an election. This is the fundamental basis of democratic government. It doesn't have to mean that only good decisions will ever get made, just that the government has the power to act but can clearly be held accountable for their actions later.

Sassenach wrote:

And the border situation has to do with an executive order signed, ironically, by President Bush, allowing children to have a federal court hearing as to whether they can stay in the country.

I'm not entirely clear where you're trying to go with this point, but I assume you're using it as an example of how executive action can have negative consequences, and therefore should be constrained. If so, then it's a strange argument to make. Of course any action taken by the government has the potential for unforeseen consequences that could very well be negative ones. This isn't even an especially good example. Bush was clearly attempting to bring in a more humane system for dealing with unaccompanied children at the border. Those of us like myself who are professionals in the immigration field could have told him what was likely to happen, but nevertheless the intentions were honourable. If the governing party in the legislature had more freedom of action then they could change the law to deal with the resulting problems, and then in 4 years time they would be held to account for their actions in an election. This is the fundamental basis of democratic government. It doesn't have to mean that only good decisions will ever get made, just that the government has the power to act but can clearly be held accountable for their actions later.

Indeed. As I understand it, the 'problem' arises not from a single action by executive. legislature or judiciary, but from a series of precedents, laws and decisions. Now, of course, we have a situation where the politicians in Congress are shouting over the top of each other and not actually working together - using it as an opportunity to score political points, not to actually solve the problem. The Republicans and Democrats there know that with a few compromises they can come to a solution. But both (although I see more accusations that the GOP are doing this) seem to be presenting ever more divergent proposals so that the other side can disagree, and then get the 'blame'.

Sheer idiocy.

Ricky: don't mean to backtrack, but has it occurred to you that I am trying to admonish two extremes when I speak of things like tyranny of the majority? Because I admonish the idea of the majority having absolute power does not mean that I do not equally admonish the proverbial "majority of one" [or several]. Moderation is a good thing to me. And it is possible for the government to do that. The Minority must have at least a few weapons fo keep the Majority from always having its way. That doesn't mean I support any kind of total "obstruction" of the Majority or of democracy. But it does mean that, even a democratically--elected government should not get its will 100% of the time simply because it is in the Majority.

This is the fundamental basis of democratic government. It doesn't have to mean that only good decisions will ever get made, just that the government has the power to act but can clearly be held accountable for their actions later.

As I am sure you have noticed my post immediately above, and you know my feelings about "majority" and "Minority" in government, I might point out something you may have missed. This is not targeted at you specifically but I must say it.

A government with the ability to act is all well and good. In fact it is good; a government without the ability to act I have already admitted is not much of a "government" merely a group of people ceremonially presiding. I've already agreed on that point. However, a majority government with no [even minor] checks on it by the minority to keep it from going too far is not usually held accountable. Who else can possibly hold a majority-elected government to accountability except someone from OUTSIDE of it? In fact, who or what is capable of holding ANY government to accountability who [or which] is not from OUTSIDE that government?

Bills of Rights have been mentioned a lot in this thread, as well as the assertion that I do not understand them. Well, friends, let me tell you that I do understand. I understand that Bills of Rights DO NOT ENFORCE THEMSELVES and the government of the day, even if it is a strong government, having the strength to act, which was delivered to it by a popular, majoritarian mandate, will not necessarily enforce it themselves. They must often be FORCED to do so.

Again, I'm not talking about the obstructionism in Congress. I'm not saying that it is good. Some of you are trying to insist that, because I think the Minority must have some weapons to at least slow down the Majority (not necessarily grind them to a halt guys! not saying that!)

Let me give you an example. In the late 1950s, Brown v. Board of Education was heard by the Supreme Court, which ordered that school be integrated "with all deliberate speed and intent." (or some phrase like that...) Even though the defendant was the Topeka, KS Board of Education, the ruling was directed squarely at a lot of southern states.

The MAJORITY of the people (and the governments they elected into the state legislatures and executive branches) in these states were against desegregation. VERY MUCH against it. They did not care one whit how the Supreme Court was going to interpret the Bill of Rights. In fact, they, the majority in these states, were ignoring it for now. IN FACT....the Governor of Arkansas, rather than allow his schools to be desegregated, closed all public schools in Arkansas for a year. THAT was the majority. THAT is the Bill of Rights which, because the Minority lacked the appropriate weapons to enforce it, became a piece of paper at that moment, thanks to the vox populi of these states, a vast majority of whom did not like the idea of the [insert various racial expletives] going to school with our children.

As far as the majority opinion in Congress, the way things tilted in both houses at this point more or less ensured the timing was a bit off to pass a national civil rights bill.....yet. That had to wait until 1965.

How were classes desegregated? How was the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v. Board of Education enforced? President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to make sure the African-American children were allowed in white schools without the crap being beaten out of them. I may not have the chronology of this particular part of American history totally correct, but I mean for it to illustrate a point. Majority rule cannot be counted on to defend freedom in and of itself. Relying on majority rule in these states, would have ensured that, to this day, their schools would not be integrated.

That is why you (and particularly Ricky) are wrong about a Mandate from the Masses equating to some sort of Mandate from heaven. When the majority of the people put their majority-backed government in power and it starts thinking that it does have the right to govern as it pleases, because it's the will of the majority; it all goes to hell from there. Bills of Rights are not written to protect political majorities as I have said. They will NOT enforce themselves, and the Majority does not always want to enforce them. Majorities often try to trample on constitutions and bills of rights.

But someone will just call me an idiot and say that I do not understand the point of a Bill of Rights and democracy. Go ahead. Some arguments here have been quite persuasive, and I have been impressed with the knowledge some of you have of my country. But that doesn't change the fact that, when it comes to majority rule, many of you seem to miss the point completely. And coming from citizens from the UK, Canada and other allies which are democracies, that scares me a bit.

hacker

. Bills of Rights are not written to protect political majorities as I have said. They will NOT enforce themselves, and the Majority does not always want to enforce them. Majorities often try to trample on constitutions and bills of rights.

Actually Bills of Rights are written to protect the individual rights of everyone. Not just minorities.
That you have chosen two events which demonstrate the use of Constituional guarantees to protect the rights of minorities against a majority is odd.... I'm not sure what this proves concerning the current failure to function in the US congress...


hacker

They will NOT enforce themselves, and the Majority does not always want to enforce them. Majorities often try to trample on constitutions and bills of rights.

This is true. It comes down to the virtuos circle of liberty... That is, that the language offering equal protections under the law, are interpreted to include more and more minorities over time. As one minority (say blacks) gans protection of their rights others ask, why not us? And seek tha protection in the courts...
Gay marriage could never have gained protection under this language even 50 years ago in the US. But today it does.
The language hasn't changed, society has....

hacker, the US Constitution seems to have worked reasonably well, if a little slowly versus most other western nations, at increasing personal liberties and the interpretations of equal protection ...
It indicates that minority rights are protected. and that part of the system works... Even when majorities passs unconstituional laws, they have proven to be effective checks. So, I don't get your reference to these events as examples of majorty "tyranny". They were abuses but they didn't last long when challenged in the courts.

But when a majority wants to nominate people for appointed positions in the beauracracy, and can;t due to obstructionism... Or Congress can't seem to pass immigration enfiorcement laws at a time when the minority party says there is a crisis afoot..... due to the minority party primarily .... then you have dysfuntion.
And that has nothing to do with rights protections..

Actually Bills of Rights are written to protect the individual rights of everyone. Not just minorities.
That you have chosen two events which demonstrate the use of Constituional guarantees to protect the rights of minorities against a majority is odd.... I'm not sure what this proves concerning the current failure to function in the US congress...

Yes, Liberty and Justice for All. But my point is that the majority will not necessarily enforce those rights; that is why the minority need weapons to check the majority. Or else there will be no enforcement of them. The bill of rights looks like a great piece of parchment, very pretty. That's about all, if you give the majority the authority to enforce it...or not. Likelier than not, they will not enforce them, especially when it is to their advantage to ignore them. Hamilton was right when he said that governments are designed for MEN not ANGELS.

I'm not sure what this proves concerning the current failure to function in the US congress..

Because you were talking about obstructionism. And I was simply trying to demonstrate that your solution, or your preference in lieu of it [parliamentary obstruction in Congress] are both extremes. Why should you replace the extreme of inaction with the extreme of acting too quickly and too easily (tyranny of the majority)? (e.g., "a strong government with the ability to act" as one of you rather candidly but, don't take it personally, foolishly put it). Ba'athist Iraq had a strong government with the ability to act. Whichever one of you who said that left it that, and it sounded a bit silly on account of its lack of clarity. (Not that I'm god*** Aristotle myself, but whatever.)

You said "they seek protection in the courts". Again, the courts do not represent the majority (at least they're not supposed to). Another argument in favor of guarding against a tyranny of the majority, and the minority having weapons to check the majority. You think?

hacker, the US Constitution seems to have worked reasonably well, if a little slowly versus most other western nations, at increasing personal liberties and the interpretations of equal protection

Oh really? Like, giving women the vote in 1919, BEFORE most other western nations? France, 1945. Canada was pretty early on and so was the UK, I will admit. However, Switzerland--I kid you not---1973 [!!!!] (though a few cantons did allow women the right to vote in local elections, but they didn't get it in toto until 1973. I s*** thee not.) And Germany can brag about all the women in parliament (and the fact that the Federal Chancellor is a woman, no small feat I admit) all they want: for years they had been the most incredibly misogynistic nation (I think that is the right word for it, but I'll whip out the Thesaurus at---yawwwwn---some point...). The rights granted for the welfare state in Germany in the 50s and 60s were also stilted against working women. I learned this in that class on history of Europe 1914 to present, from a professor who actually studied & lived in Germany for years, then got her PhD there (if I'm not mistaken on the location from whence she earned her PhD). So yeah, not all "western" nations have been really nice to women, at any rate. And in Europe, they have no less tendency than in the U.S. to want ethnic minorities to have the adjective "minorities" permanently attached to them. Western nations are all pretty much equally guilty of stuff like that. Perhaps not as much as the U.S. treatment of the African-American [and other minorities'] population, but even so.

P.S., I may not like the guy, but our head of state is 1/4 African American. I am very critical of President Obama, and I wish it had been someone else, but if it does have to be Barack Obama, at least I can be proud I come from a country where that's possible. I'm going to get myself into hot water by saying this, and I hope not to offend anyone with this statement, but if I see a minority occupying the "federal washing machine" or Elysee Palace within my lifetime, I will eat my beret.

[Footnote, "Federal Washing Machine": the new Chancellery building in Berlin, built after the capital returned to that city, from Bonn, in the 1990s; is so nicknamed because, not only does it resemble something Andy Warhol threw up after a long night of drinking, it also resembles a washing machine what with the little round bit in the middle.]

And yes, the abuses DID last quite a while as far as African-Americans are concerned. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified in 1865, 1868 and 1870, respectively. Yet, despite those amendments including Congress shall have the power to enforce this with appropriate legislation, the "appropriate legislation" did not come until almost a century later, almost exactly a century after the outlaw of slavery. So, in that sense, you would be right about the "slowly" part. And I think despite all that the Constitution has worked more than "reasonably" well. As you are by now aware, my argument is that the "obstructionism" (sitting on their asses is more like it) in Congress is procedural and not constitutional. A revision of the manuals of parliamentary procedure in both houses of Congress probably would not be a bad idea. But don't forget that other democracies around the world have adopted some of the mechanisms of the U.S. constitution (depending on the particular country's needs and political culture).

And next of all, the Senate is in Democratic hands, it is they, not the House (in GOP hands) that are responsible for granting (or withholding) "advice and consent" to executive/judicial nominations. And you said bureaucracy, that is not true. An executive appointment is a political appointment. A bureaucrat is someone who is HIRED by the State, as a permanent employee of the State, not a personal appointee of its ruler(s). But I know what you're talking about, so I won't get into semantics (oops I just did sorry).

Therefore, the Senate, with its Democratic majority, should be (if you're right about political polarization) approving nominations left and right from the President. Party-wise, that is the only part of Congress that you would expect to be WORKING at this point, even if the rest of it has ground to a halt. So you at least can't accuse the nominations being held up as obstructionism, especially AFTER the majority party in the Senate invoked the "nuclear option". (or nucular option, if you're W.) And nominations, by the way, are not bills.

Not only that, good presidents usually make a few phone calls first, before sending a nomination to the Senate. Better to KNOW you're going to get a bulls eye BEFORE you pull the trigger. Right?

Yes, I realize dysfunction and obstruction has nothing to do with protecting rights. But the tyranny of the majority, and "strong governments with the ability to act" that are juuuuuust a trifle too strong, do not have anything to do with protecting rights either (they do the opposite usually).

Society you say has changed. YES!!!!!!! The best constitution in the world cannot and will not change a society from the top down, no matter how hard it tries. As Shakespeare has Brutus (or somebody in Julius Caesar) say: "The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves...." Weimar Republic in the 1920s was not only dysfunctional for its constitutional flaws (by 1933, Reichspraesident Paul von Hindenburg's self-appointed, non-partisan Chancellor, Franz von Papen, was still running the country via executive decree, as per the infamous "Article 42") it was also dysfunctional because German SOCIETY was as well. They can talk about liberal democracy all they want, but when even the Social Democratic party (of all people) have their own personal "street militia" to beat up the other street militias, something is seriously f***** up with German society [at the time] and not just the so-called Weimar constitution. I think the Germans have risen from the ashes to create a decent society, but like all societies, it too has its flaws. That is only one example. As well as a French politician quoted in AP or Reuters, one of the two, who said "America is light years ahead of us in racial relations."

And like I said, yes, I already accepted: this is a Congress sitting on their asses. But the President can be blamed for his own abuses as well. If you don't think so, maybe the media outside the United States isn't "getting it" where he is concerned. (I'm still proud you can be black and be President of my country, but there were plenty of others I would have voted for!)

Yes, there is some pretty screwed up s*** that is going on right now. But I still believe that our constitution is the best possible for the moment. Otherwise, how would it have lasted 225 years, 5 months? (using March 4, 1789 as the "start" date for the present republic/constitution; though its signature was Sept. 17, 1787) No constitution as flawed as some of you have seem to be implying would have some of its features copied by so many other democracies---parliamentary or presidential alike---if it was that anti-democratic or in need of scrapping.

Sorry that got a little long-winded. Again: not Aristotle when it comes to articulation of ideas. And one of those too-much-coffee-mornings resulting in diarrhea of the keyboard.

hacker

That's about all, if you give the majority the authority to enforce it...or not. Likelier than not, they will not enforce them, especially when it is to their advantage to ignore them

Hmmm.
In which instances have the supreme courts ruled on the unconstitutionality of the law, where the government did not ultimately abide by that decision?

You realize Hacker that the parliamentary systems that you suggest can allow "tyranny of the majority" also have the same constitutional protections that the Us constitution provides its citizens...
So how is this "tyranny" supposed to occur?

as for accountability.... Thats the nature of a representative democracy. Every 4 or 5 years, the populace at large gets to re-elect or kick the bums out ...

hacker

Oh really? Like, giving women the vote in 1919, BEFORE most other western nations?

Well, i was thinking of treatment of blacks or gays .... but okay.

JimHackerMP wrote:A government with the ability to act is all well and good. In fact it is good; a government without the ability to act I have already admitted is not much of a "government" merely a group of people ceremonially presiding. I've already agreed on that point. However, a majority government with no [even minor] checks on it by the minority to keep it from going too far is not usually held accountable. Who else can possibly hold a majority-elected government to accountability except someone from OUTSIDE of it? In fact, who or what is capable of holding ANY government to accountability who [or which] is not from OUTSIDE that government?

The judiciary?

There is a difference between holding to account and blocking from action.

Bills of Rights have been mentioned a lot in this thread, as well as the assertion that I do not understand them. Well, friends, let me tell you that I do understand. I understand that Bills of Rights DO NOT ENFORCE THEMSELVES and the government of the day, even if it is a strong government, having the strength to act, which was delivered to it by a popular, majoritarian mandate, will not necessarily enforce it themselves. They must often be FORCED to do so.

As my previous answer - the Supreme Court in the USA is what enforces the Bill of Rights (and other aspects of the Constitution), through hearing cases which challenge the constitutionality of laws and government actions.

Again, I'm not talking about the obstructionism in Congress. I'm not saying that it is good. Some of you are trying to insist that, because I think the Minority must have some weapons to at least slow down the Majority (not necessarily grind them to a halt guys! not saying that!)

I don't know about the others, but I am not really sure what you are saying really on this.

Let me give you an example. In the late 1950s, Brown v. Board of Education was heard by the Supreme Court, which ordered that school be integrated "with all deliberate speed and intent." (or some phrase like that...) Even though the defendant was the Topeka, KS Board of Education, the ruling was directed squarely at a lot of southern states.

The MAJORITY of the people (and the governments they elected into the state legislatures and executive branches) in these states were against desegregation. VERY MUCH against it. They did not care one whit how the Supreme Court was going to interpret the Bill of Rights. In fact, they, the majority in these states, were ignoring it for now. IN FACT....the Governor of Arkansas, rather than allow his schools to be desegregated, closed all public schools in Arkansas for a year. THAT was the majority. THAT is the Bill of Rights which, because the Minority lacked the appropriate weapons to enforce it, became a piece of paper at that moment, thanks to the vox populi of these states, a vast majority of whom did not like the idea of the [insert various racial expletives] going to school with our children.

As far as the majority opinion in Congress, the way things tilted in both houses at this point more or less ensured the timing was a bit off to pass a national civil rights bill.....yet. That had to wait until 1965.

Was it a majority, or was it more of a large minority which was likely to be obstructionist?

How were classes desegregated? How was the Supreme Court's ruling on Brown v. Board of Education enforced? President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to make sure the African-American children were allowed in white schools without the crap being beaten out of them. I may not have the chronology of this particular part of American history totally correct, but I mean for it to illustrate a point. Majority rule cannot be counted on to defend freedom in and of itself. Relying on majority rule in these states, would have ensured that, to this day, their schools would not be integrated.

Hoorah for the Judiciary, backed up by an Executive with some cojones.

That is why you (and particularly Ricky) are wrong about a Mandate from the Masses equating to some sort of Mandate from heaven. When the majority of the people put their majority-backed government in power and it starts thinking that it does have the right to govern as it pleases, because it's the will of the majority; it all goes to hell from there. Bills of Rights are not written to protect political majorities as I have said. They will NOT enforce themselves, and the Majority does not always want to enforce them. Majorities often try to trample on constitutions and bills of rights.

But someone will just call me an idiot and say that I do not understand the point of a Bill of Rights and democracy. Go ahead. Some arguments here have been quite persuasive, and I have been impressed with the knowledge some of you have of my country. But that doesn't change the fact that, when it comes to majority rule, many of you seem to miss the point completely. And coming from citizens from the UK, Canada and other allies which are democracies, that scares me a bit.

we are democracies which also have an independent (in a way) Judiciary which is quite prepared to stand up against the elected powers. We are also democracies where it is often considered inadvisable to simply allow politicians to hold sway on populist positions, and the real 'anchor' is the civil service, which is politically independent.

I'll answer the rest of your reply in a second, but for now, I think you said you recognize my name, JimHackerMP, as being one of the three main characters in an old-ish BBC sitcom about that very thing: the Civil Service and how OBSTRUCTIONIST it is.....now I'll bet you three farthings that Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, while probably exaggerating the situation somewhat (satire often does to make its point), contain more than a grain of truth.

Of course, having never been one of Her Majesty's Civil Servants I cannot speak accurately on this matter, but it sounds to me like hundreds of thousands of permanent employees of the State--from the lowliest typist at the Home Office to the Cabinet Secretary himself--are required to perform the same function as a mere 535 members of the United States Congress.

Wouldn't that make our system MORE efficient?

hacker

Of course, having never been one of Her Majesty's Civil Servants I cannot speak accurately on this matter, but it sounds to me like hundreds of thousands of permanent employees of the State--from the lowliest typist at the Home Office to the Cabinet Secretary himself--are required to perform the same function as a mere 535 members of the United States Congress

.
But they don't carry out the same fiunctions Hacker.
the 535 members of congress (House and Senate) perform the equivalent functions of the House of Commons and House of Lords in the UK....

the professional public service in the Uk is equivalent to the public service in the US,..... Although far fewer of the UK positions are political appointments...