Final Points and then Fini
It’s very frustrating for me to try and explain an extremely complex system of American jurisprudence which doesn’t rest just on a single document — The Constitution — to people who weren’t trained in this tradition. Simplistic arguments about “democracy” miss the point of the governmental system that was envisioned during the 18th century. The Constitution is not meant to be a document that enshrines democracy. It’s genius rests in the system of checks and balances. The House was always meant to be the brawling, more “democratic” branch of government, but it has to work in concert with the more conservative, staid Senate whose function was to temper the hot enthusiams of the House. Congress in general was meant to act as a brake on the power of the executive — a branch of the government that left many of the framers deeply uncomfortable. There was even discussion not to have an executive or to keep the position merely ceremonial. Of course the present Congress has done a piss poor job of reining in excesses by the Executive, but we can hope that will change.
And then there was the Court system. It was specifially designed to be the _least_ democratic of the three branches of government. One of its functions was to protect minorities against the power and passions of the majority and to check the power of the other two branches.
There have been many statements made that are, if not out and out wrong, suspect in their interpretation of certain events in American history. I am considering printing out this thread and having a guest essay written by Mr. Ragsdale who is a brilliant legal scholar and an authority on the Constitution.
But since this is my blog I hereby decree that this discussion is concluded.
Melinda