Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:53:50AM -0500, childers.paula AT epamail.epa.gov 
wrote:
> 
>  short description time here.
> 
> democracy = majority rules, govt by voting. a "true" democracy would be
> where every decision got voted on by ALL the people. the US was
> originally set up as a Constitutional republic, which is basically
> representatives voting in the place of the people, with certain checks &
> balances in the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities, as
> well as the rights of the people who elect the representatives. Ahem.

Well, I was with you until "to protect the rights of minorities". The
checks and balances in the Consitution have little to do with the
protection of minorities, unless you count Rhode Island's free white
men.

The electoral college was provided to protect the rights of minorites -
the elite - against the fickle will of the ignorant populace.

The phrase "checks and balances" usually refers to the way in which the
power of the President (and Executive Branch, generally) is limited by
the Congress and Judicial (to prevent tyranny by one popular man); the
Congress may be overidden by the President (veto power, to prevent
tyranny of a single party over all; also judicial review, to overturn
bad laws); and the ways in which the powers are split among the
President and the Congress.

Unfortunately, we seem to have reached a point in which these checks
aren't working - the President was installed by a Supreme Court at
variance with the spirit of its former decisions, the Congress will soon
be controlled by the President's party, and the President believes
himself to be a new Constantine.

Jose, speak your mind. We don't lose our freedoms all at once, but by
voluntarily giving them up a tiny bit at a time.

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier