help on essay

[DLopez]

I was hoping someone else would chime in with some other sources of info, but since not, I guess I'll drop a few more names that had a lot to do with the formation of The Consitution.

 

James Madison. Alexander Hamilton. John Jay.

 

Those three had lots to say about not only the separation of powers, but the whole checks and balances idea in The Federalist Papers.

 

Well, okay. They had lots more to say than just that, as they were basically campaigning for the ratification of the new Constitution with those essays. It's overwhelming how much they had to say!

 

[battousai16]

i'm surprised no one threw out thomas hobbes yet... . if you want to clear out a lot of the myths of the constitution, the relatively new book John Adams i thought did a good job with that... i wanna' say it's by a fella called mccullough, but i don't remember off hand...

 

of course, if that essay is due tommorow or something, you should probably get on that before you read the small library we've assigned you

[delta1]

But of course, the USA didn't really acheive greatness until they added The Republic of Texas as the 28th state in 1845!!

 

 

By the way, did y'all know that Texas is the only state that could unilaterraly split itself into five seperate states?

 

I am a little disapointed that no one has called me on one apparent discrepancy in my previouse rant, though. C'mon, guys, wake up! Gimme whut fer!

[Shorin Ryuu]

Here's some starting places:

 

Political Ideas

 

1. Where did the idea for the three separate branches of the federal government come from? (Executive, Legislative, Judicial)

 

2. Where did the idea for checks and balances in government come from?

 

3. What did it take to get all of the states, each with their own governments, to agree to be governed at a higher, federal level?

 

Hint: The first two didn't exist before the Constitution was ratified in 1788.

 

I'm strongly worried about the fact that no one has mentioned Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws.

 

Hint: The first two may have drawn a lot from this book.

 

Edit: Just read your post again delta1. While I do cringe at your horrible command of the French language, I do commend you for pointing out that it wasn't the Constitution that gave us rights. We have these rights inherently rather than given to us on paper. As you said, the Constitution served as a limit on government.

 

While we're talking about reading assignments, you should read Thucydides's History of the Pelopponesian War. Despite it being staged in Ancient Greece, it is still highly applicable. The Founding Fathers read it.

 

Double Edit: Actually, its just called The Peloponnesian War...I posted that one rather late...

[delta1]

I am a little disapointed that no one has called me on one apparent discrepancy in my previouse rant, though.

 

OK, if you guys are going to be nice about this (I'd hate to think no one could spot this )...

Checks and ballances were set up. Not just in the three branches of government, but in the courts and the Electoral College.

 

The courts are part of the judicial branch, one of the three brances of government. This is redundant! But, I broke it out loke this in the (vain) hope that someone would call me on it and start a dialogue. Now, I'm reduced to talking to myself.

 

The thing that makes this this institution unique is that it is our check on government! It was intended that in this one branch, the people would have the last say! It is one of the primary safeguards against tyrany! And if we don't understand our rights and responsibilities here, we are left at the mercy of judges and lawyers who routinely lie to us in order to take this power from us! If you ever sit on a jury, do not let anyone tell you how you must find!!!

 

:Exit rant mode:

[Shorin Ryuu]

Hmm, I've never looked at it that way. I've always seen the courts as not necessarily linked to the people because they are appointed rather than elected. Your statement is telling me that jury nullification can work around this structure, if I read you correctly. If anything, I've always thought the jury's responsibility was to determine whether or not a person was guilty within the confines of that law, not determine whether the law applied to that person. In my opinion, it is the role of the courts to determine the applicability/validity of a law, not the jury (hence necessarily the people in a direct manner). Because of this, I am a big fan of judicial restraint rather than judicial activism, which brings about the negative effects of the court system which you disparage.

[delta1]

I've always seen the courts as not necessarily linked to the people because they are appointed rather than elected.

 

Judges are appointed, courts are established institutions.

Your statement is telling me that jury nullification can work around this structure, if I read you correctly.

 

What jury nullification works around is the possibility that a bunch of scoundrels fool enough people to get elected, then pass oppressive laws and appoint activists to the bench. Each time an infraction goes before a jury, both the defendant and the law are on trial.

I've always thought the jury's responsibility was to determine whether or not a person was guilty within the confines of that law, not determine whether the law applied to that person.

 

I'm not surprised. I'd bet most people here think that, since that is what we are taught in our uneducation system.

 

That is one of the responsibilities. But no law is perfect, and in some instances should not apply. For example, there is a legal doctrine that says that in an emergency, if a person breaks the law, but acted in a way that a reasonable person might act, then he is not guilty of an infraction. And if the jury finds the law onerouse, they can find 'Not Guilty!' because of this, and no other reason is required. Another (bad) example of jury nullification was OJ Simpson- any system can be abused. But this is what is meant by 'Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be punnished.' He basically went free because the jury thought he was black. He may have been, but I know a lot of decent black folks that don't claim him as representative of their values.

In my opinion, it is the role of the courts to determine the applicability/validity of a law, not the jury (hence necessarily the people in a direct manner). Because of this, I am a big fan of judicial restraint rather than judicial activism, which brings about the negative effects of the court system which you disparage.

 

I don't disparage the system, just the modern application. And the fact is that what we have now IS mostly judicial activism! But if the people understood how the courts were meant to work, they couldn't get away with it! This is precisely the kind of thing that our court system was set up to check. It is our final check before revolution on a governments tendency to assume too much power!

[delta1]

Found it! Go Mamma!

 

http://www.caught.net/juror.htm

[Shorin Ryuu]

Judges are appointed, courts are established institutions.

Well yeah, I was referring to them as an entity, not the actual institution themselves.

What jury nullification works around is the possibility that a bunch of scoundrels fool enough people to get elected, then pass oppressive laws and appoint activists to the bench. Each time an infraction goes before a jury, both the defendant and the law are on trial.

I understand this part, but what makes this a huge problem is when the executive and the legislative branches are in cahoots, as it is the executive branch that appoints while the legislative branch approves. Not saying that this hasn't happened, but do you know of any examples where this has happened (passing oppressive laws, judges support them, etc.)? I simply do not know enough of judicial history, so I am curious.

I'm not surprised. I'd bet most people here think that, since that is what we are taught in our uneducation system.

I mainly put that down because I, perhaps sharing the view of many in the judicial system, fear "mob" judicial review, which is what may end up happening in the case that people will abuse this power.

That is one of the responsibilities. But no law is perfect, and in some instances should not apply. For example, there is a legal doctrine that says that in an emergency, if a person breaks the law, but acted in a way that a reasonable person might act, then he is not guilty of an infraction. And if the jury finds the law onerouse, they can find 'Not Guilty!' because of this, and no other reason is required.

See above. Of course, that is the nature of our system, where laws are left somewhat vague on purpose and the jury and judge are supposed to determine its applicability to a specific case.

I don't disparage the system, just the modern application.

That's what I said, but I think you got bogged down in some of my prepositional phrasing that wasn't quite too clear.

And the fact is that what we have now IS mostly judicial activism!

I agree in many courts this is true.

But if the people understood how the courts were meant to work, they couldn't get away with it! This is precisely the kind of thing that our court system was set up to check. It is our final check before revolution on a governments tendency to assume too much power!

This is all very interesting, I will have to ponder about all of this more.

 

Are you by chance a libertarian?

 

Anyway, so what do you think of Democrats challenging Ralph Nader in all the state ballots? What gets me about this is that this will have a HUGE, dramatic impact on absentee ballots since they waited until just recently to do this (far too close to the election deadline), all the absentee ballots sent to military members that had Nader on them will no longer be valid in those states that reject the legitimacy of his status. That means that new absentee ballots will not be sent back in time to military members overseas so they can return them before the deadline (and some governors, like in Philadelphia I think? Maybe it was Ohio...either way, a Democratic governor) are refusing to extend the deadline so military members can have their votes counted. This is what makes me more sick about manipulations of the judicial system. If they were really sincere about it, they would have challenged Nader much, much earlier, and not well past the standard overseas military 30 day limit processing time for all the absentee ballots...

[delta1]

...but what makes this a huge problem is when the executive and the legislative branches are in cahoots, as it is the executive branch that appoints while the legislative branch approves.... do you know of any examples where this has happened (passing oppressive laws, judges support them, etc.)?

 

The executive branch appoints, and the legislative branches approval is one of the checks in our system. But you are correct, they can be, and have often been, in 'cahoots'. That is why we the people have the final check in our court system.

I, perhaps sharing the view of many in the judicial system, fear "mob" judicial review, which is what may end up happening in the case that people will abuse this power.

 

It isn't 'mob' review. It is review by a jury, selected from voters (not drivers!) , which is empanneled to consider evidence and find a verdict. These people are considered responsible enough to determine the fate of another human being, so surely they are responsiale enough to determine the applicability of the law in that persons case.

...that is the nature of our system, where laws are left somewhat vague on purpose and the jury and judge are supposed to determine its applicability to a specific case.

 

Actually, laws are very specific. What is (intentionally) vague is the legal use of the English language. For example, in modern legalese, 'must' means 'may'. Now, when I hear the word 'must', I think I 'must'. So, using that one word in a law can keep you in line, even if it would be illegal to force you to do the thing they want. They, of course, aren't, since you only 'may' comply, if you only knew.

...what do you think of Democrats challenging Ralph Nader in all the state ballots? What gets me about this is that this will have a HUGE, dramatic impact on absentee ballots since they waited until just recently to do this (far too close to the election deadline), all the absentee ballots sent to military members that had Nader on them will no longer be valid in those states that reject the legitimacy of his status.

 

I don't want to get into politics (and I'm not a Libertarian- I'm an independant), so I won't go too much into this topic. However, what you bring up is a good example of abuse of the system. The military traditionally votes conservative. Remember last election in Florida, the Democratic party disenfranchised the military vote by claiming the military postmark was not valid. They insisted that only the US Mail postmark was valid, so most of the overseas military absentee ballots were disqualified. This is just the same tactic repackaged nationally. And, where the courts are packed with activist judges, it will stand. Unfortunately, Jury Nullification won't work in this case because it is not a criminal case. However, if the Grand Jury in the districts where this occured knew their rights and responsibilities, they coud initiate an investigation and hand down indightments where they found evidence of wrong doing, and no activist judge could stop them. Then it would go to a petit jury to either convict or find not guilty.

 

Go to the link I provided. This organization explains this better than I could ever do, and they cite numerouse examples. A little over 20 years ago, they virtually shut down IRS suits in one judicial district for a long time by getting the word out so well on Jury Nullification. Read their info- you'll be surprised at what you didn't learn in civics class!