Posted on 11/14/2005 4:10:16 PM PST by Lorianne
LONDON -- Two countries. One has a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. These documents limit the power of the elected branches. They cannot be repealed or easily amended. Although neither one says so explicitly, there is a rock-hard tradition that the courts, and not the legislature or the executive, have the final say over their interpretation. No elected official would claim more authority than the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. Put it all together and an individual citizen can feel pretty secure against the tyranny of the majority or a runaway government. Or so we suppose.
The other country has what it calls a constitution, but it is a metaphysical conceit -- an ill-defined set of ideas and values floating in the ether, not an actual document. Courts do refer to it in deciding cases, but there is no certainty about what the words are, let alone what they mean. There is no established principle that the courts may declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional. The legislature, meanwhile, is sovereign and can trump this constitution by passing an ordinary law. In effect, the individual has no legal protection against the tyranny of the majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The author < conveniently > fails to distinguish between criminals who threaten people, and terrorists who threaten thousands of people in his diatribe against the Bush administration's refusal to let terrorists have the benefit of our civil laws.
"I said to her that democracy is not what a free people should strive for...That a society based on the rule of law, which protects the individual against ALL tyrants is what needs to be achieved."
Like a representative republic such as we have in the states.
I agree the schools do not do a great job teaching government.
Can't help you with the part where she thinks you're nuts!
What about the tyranny of the courts? There is this assumption that judges are always altruistic and good. That's just not factual. Better tyranny of a majority than tyranny of a super minority (judges). That said, the whole idea of republicanism over a straight democracy was about avoiding the problem of mob rule. But if judges are allowed to interpret the laws contrary to the intent of the lawmakers, then all is lost. We have a judicial oligarchy, not a republican democracy. It's not ordered liberty; it's judicial tyranny. Judges are supposed to make sure everyone plays by the SAME rules. They do not get to write the rules. You want changes, persuade your fellow citizens.
What can one expect from Michael Kinsley? He is fascinated by his own opinion. He needs to grow up and the little boy in him needs to stop trying to impress the adults around him.
The Ghost of FReepers Past has it right:
"Judges are supposed to make sure everyone plays by the SAME rules. They do not get to write the rules. You want changes, persuade your fellow citizens."
As in CO-EQUAL branches of government with defined roles that check the others - which includes checks on the courts. Rule of law, which government and the people observe is the grease that makes it all work.
That and a semi-informed , civic-minded electorate. Which brings us back to the terrible job our failing schools do such a poor job of teaching.
Besides, who am I to argue with ghosts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.