My first poll: which would you defend over the others?

[magellan]

Defending and adhering to which of the following is most likely to ensure that "The Great Experiment" doesn't wind up on the scrapheap of history as another collapsed democracy?

Choice #1 is intentionally ambiguous on the legality of actions taken.

Choices #2 and #3 are separate because with all the high-powered lobbying and gerrymandering in place nowadays, it's difficult to say Congress represents the actual will of the People.

Be kind...like I said, it's my first poll.

[bryant69]

1. I voted for the Will of the People

Because that can be anything I damn well want it to be.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[IndependentVoice]

2. Breakfast all the way

Without it you can't function and all of the above would suffer the consequences of malnutrition

[Crankie Avalon]

3. As the old saying goes, we are supposedly a nation of laws, not men...

...and women.

The "will of the people" can occasionally be off, like it sometimes was in Southern states prior to the Civil Rights Movement, for example.

[rock]

4. The problem with the "will of the people" is

they may decide to deny me my rights. Best we stick with the Constitution and the Law.

[tocqueville]

5. all democracy is based on the will of the people by definition

that's why I start to wonder if this Constitution idolatry in the US isn't really the source of all its problems specially when you think that the ultimate power isn't in the hands of the people, but in the hands of 9 old men.
I don't know of any other democratic (?) country where such an attitude prevails. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution and they are maybe the oldest democracy (in modern times) with Switzerland. In other European countries where there is a written constitution or base law, it's merely seen as a frame that settles the rules of the popular political expression. Very important, yes, but not "the solution". The solution is a representation system that honestly deals with public expression and passes laws with the broadest consensus.

The US model is quite unique, specially in the way it is perceived. But it's result so far is a failure. The US of today is a proto-fascist theocracy and it emerged legally out of a relatively democratic experiment. Only by media manipulation, a little cheating and practically no use of force. Brilliant.

The fact that you say "deny my rights" is a libertarian approach. Of course the majority has the the right to deny individual rights. Because if it wasn't so everybody would have the right to do whatever pleases them, no matter how harmful it can be to others.

And the system "individual rights judged through 9 persons chosen for life reading a 230 years old document" isn't a democracy, it's a "jurocracy". It's formally a republic, because there is no King. But it could be a monarchy it wouldn't matter, the result would be the same than today with more "glamour" for the masses.

[treestar]

6. The "9 old men" have to follow the law

under the system, regardless of their personal beliefs. They know that and are supposed to be trained in it. If they are picked badly, it is ultimately our fault - we elect the Presidents and the Congress who confirms them.

Respect for this rule of law is what Repug presidents lack. They want someone who will try to twist the law to follow their agenda. You can only twist the law so much.

People never read the Supreme Court's opinions and go off half cocked making conclusions about them without understanding them. Reading one will at least give them some idea of what is involved with the law.

It's just laziness. One can't condemn a decision without reading it. Judging it without reading it but only based on the MSM and talking heads is irresponsible citizenship, IMO.

And I bet all those Fox pundits talk about legal opinions without having read them. Mainstream journalists generally make no effort whatsoever to understand a legal opinion.

A good newspaper would publish the opinion itself rather than editorials on it.

[tocqueville]

7. the problem is that they TRANSLATE it

under nearly 100 years racial apartheid was constitutional in the US (from a state of constitutional slavery). Nowadays torture is constitutional or whoever can be designed as Presidents even if his votes are in minority. Depends of the whims of the ruling party.

I stick to what I say : a constitution can only be a frame for the debate, not the "supreme law" in the meaning it can decide stuff like abortion for example. Tommorrow abortion will be "unconstitutional", depending of what judges the President has appointed. Abortion or not must be decided by voted law, not a judicial transaction.

the expression "9 old men" is not mine. It's Roosevelt's. He wanted to crack down on that system and he was right.
Those times freepers attacked him with the constant bashing of the word "constitution", "bill of rights" etc... and he lost and the war came.

after the war the sitting judges were so afraid to lose their power that they conceded major changes in the US following the "air of the time". That's why abortion was legalized through a complete artificial reading of the constitution and apartheid was abolished. Then the Democrats thought that they had achieved so much that the "constitution" became a religious mantra. That was a fatal mistake. It's just propagating a myth that can be used any way the sitting power decides. The US will only become a real democracy the day there is a real parliament (the presidential system can coexist with that) and a voting system which is very difficult to fraud and votes parties in a proportional majority system.

But I know I am preaching for deaf ears.

[rock]

8. Very incisive and well thought out

I see you've put in a bit of time thinking about this. I must point out though that the proto-fascist theocracy (very apt) which has emerged in the US today is because we did not hold the government to the Constitution and the Law.