The essence of the separation of powers

[rupol2000]

The myth about the separation of powers is a system of balances and checks is a sheer lie. It's just legacy. In the tribal system there was a king and a council of leaders. The king was one of the leaders, the main among equals. It was in that system that there was a real system of checks and balances, because all leaders had great power and army and could overthrow the king and install another, it was a decentralized system. Therefore, the king could not physically abuse power. From here originated the senate.
No parliament is needed for this, and in a centralized state it does not work at all.

And in the United States, this works not because of democratic institutions, but because of federalism, which just inherits the decentralization of the tribal tsarist system.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Your description of a king and his council as the main and his/her equals. The problem with that is that the "people" or "rabble" in general aren't among the "equals," only the council is. What is described is an Autocracy or oldy style Monarchy. With exceptions, the military backed the king, emperor, pharaoh, or military junta leader. The military would only rise up when a ruler's negative decisions affected them negatively. A good example is ancient Rome's Emperors. When the emperor's Praetorian Guard became displeased, they would assassinate the emperor, but as long as the Praetorian Guard was placated, the emperor could do as he pleased to the people, even assassinate various senators. How long a king, emperor, or pharaoh ruled depended largely upon how insane he/she was (damn inbreeding).
Under our system, the legislature makes the laws and all laws are limited to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (Amendments). If a law is approved by the legislature and is considered to violate the Constitution, those opposing the law sue and it goes to the Supreme Court, which determines whether or not the law violates the Constitution, if it does, the Supreme Court rules against it and the law is sacked. Our president (good or bad), only approves or vetoes any laws brought before him, or her in the future, thus we have our checks and balances.
Once you go to any type of One-Party rule, you ALWAYS end up with authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and the murder of any opposed to its rule.

 

[sparky]

describe freedom juxtaposed to any given political system

now i read a lot of you here, actually read more than post.....

lotta smarts, lotta history, lotta perspective

myself?, i think any system can fail, sell out , cave in under it's own greedy control freaks

devil....details......

~S~

 

[rupol2000]

that the "people" or "rabble" in general aren't among the "equals,"

This is a tribal way of life. Is the father equal to the son in the family? There was no "plebs" there. The plebeians in rome are foreigners

 

[rupol2000]

Once you go to any type of One-Party rule, you ALWAYS end up with authoritarianism

Only in the case of the arrival of the left. This is their main goal.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Your description of a king and his council as the main and his/her equals. The problem with that is that the "people" or "rabble" in general aren't among the "equals," only the council is. What is described is an Autocracy or oldy style Monarchy. With exceptions, the military backed the king, emperor, pharaoh, or military junta leader. The military would only rise up when a ruler's negative decisions affected them negatively. A good example is ancient Rome's Emperors. When the emperor's Praetorian Guard became displeased, they would assassinate the emperor, but as long as the Praetorian Guard was placated, the emperor could do as he pleased to the people, even assassinate various senators. How long a king, emperor, or pharaoh ruled depended largely upon how insane he/she was (damn inbreeding).
Under our system, the legislature makes the laws and all laws are limited to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (Amendments). If a law is approved by the legislature and is considered to violate the Constitution, those opposing the law sue and it goes to the Supreme Court, which determines whether or not the law violates the Constitution, if it does, the Supreme Court rules against it and the law is sacked. Our president (good or bad), only approves or vetoes any laws brought before him, or her in the future, thus we have our checks and balances.
Once you go to any type of One-Party rule, you ALWAYS end up with authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and the murder of any opposed to its rule.

Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

So the unelected SCROTUS controls everything in this totalitarian anti-majority system created in the horse-and-buggy era.

 

[rupol2000]

i think any system can fail, sell out , cave in under it's own greedy control freaks

Yes, but in this system, when there are junior and senior leaders, such risks are less, because the center is balanced by the periphery. And everything is based not on words, but on the real military forces of the junior leaders. The king of such a situation will not be able to usurp power and direct it against the people

 

[rupol2000]

In fact, communist totalitarianism was not the original system. This system was copied from the absolute monarchy, which was, in fact, imperial politics. The destruction of the junior aristocraty led to totalitarianism and slavery.

 

[rupol2000]

In the left system, local leaders are replaced by the administration of the monarch, and centralization occurs. Local groups and peoples lose the ability to defend their interests, so they are enslaved

 

[rupol2000]

American police officers are a legacy of such a system. They are independent from the center. There is no doubt that this stems from the armies of the military aristocracy of local tribes or groups.

 

[rupol2000]

In the United States there are more traces of the military-aristocratic system than anywhere else. The last such state in Europe was Austro-Hungary.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In the United States there are more traces of the military-aristocratic system than anywhere else. The last such state in Europe was Austro-Hungary.

The Only Thing About Vietnam That America Should Be Ashamed Of

Our HeirHeads are Chickenhawks. The previous aristocracies, including Rome's until it declined, were sent to the front lines as soon as they reached age 18. One Cadet Legion died to the last man. So, if Dubya and his gutless unpatriotic classmates had followed that tradition, they might have been all dead within a year of prep-school graduation.

 

[rupol2000]

The Only Thing About Vietnam That America Should Be Ashamed Of

Our HeirHeads are Chickenhawks. The previous aristocracies, including Rome's until it declined, were sent to the front lines as soon as they reached age 18. One Cadet Legion died to the last man. So, if Dubya and his gutless unpatriotic classmates had followed that tradition, they might have been all dead within a year of prep-school graduation.

I think that warriors die primarily because of treacherous politics and not because of war. They are just used.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think that warriors die primarily because of treacherous politics and not because of war. They are just used.

Epitaph at the Vietnam Memorial: PROUD TO DIE TAKING A RICHKID'S PLACE

The Preppies and their wannabe flunkies who ran away to college were not used at all. We should have brought the war home to them. Anyone who says about Bush, "At least he served," is a Preppylover, a coward, and a traitor. I don't care if someone got a Medal of Honor in Vietnam; if he supports Chickenhawks, he has no honor.

The purpose of the Vietnam War was to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest of those born in the White working class. Mission Accomplished.

 

[BackAgain]

The myth about the separation of powers is a system of balances and checks is a sheer lie. It's just legacy. In the tribal system there was a king and a council of leaders. The king was one of the leaders, the main among equals. It was in that system that there was a real system of checks and balances, because all leaders had great power and army and could overthrow the king and install another, it was a decentralized system. Therefore, the king could not physically abuse power. From here originated the senate.
No parliament is needed for this, and in a centralized state it does not work at all.

And in the United States, this works not because of democratic institutions, but because of federalism, which just inherits the decentralization of the tribal tsarist system.

Your faux analysis or misunderstanding of the nature of our Republic is noted.

 

[rupol2000]

Your faux analysis or misunderstanding of the nature of our Republic is noted.

empty tongue chatter is noted

 

[BackAgain]

empty tongue chatter is noted

You recognize your tendencies? Good. Healthy first step in seeking recovery.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

empty tongue chatter is noted

All Republics Go Bananas

A republic is elitist tyranny. What makes politicians so special that they are Constitutionally empowered to make all our political decisions for us? Electing is not voting; it is a forced choice about which pre-owned elitist will lord over us. This system must be replaced with the people's vote on all important issues. A good start would be that if the Supreme Court declares something unConstitutional, we, the people, can either overturn or ratify what is really the self-interested ideology of the majority of 9 political appointees.

 

[rupol2000]

All Republics Go Bananas

A republic is elitist tyranny. What makes politicians so special that they are Constitutionally empowered to make all our political decisions for us? Electing is not voting; it is a forced choice about which pre-owned elitist will lord over us. This system must be replaced with the people's vote on all important issues. A good start would be that if the Supreme Court declares something unConstitutional, we, the people, can either overturn or ratify what is really the self-interested ideology of the majority of 9 political appointees.

The essence of the republic is that the states have their own strong power in relation to the center. This means that the "center of the empire", the metropolis, has fewer opportunities to enslave nations.

 

[BackAgain]

All Republics Go Bananas

A republic is elitist tyranny. What makes politicians so special that they are Constitutionally empowered to make all our political decisions for us? Electing is not voting; it is a forced choice about which pre-owned elitist will lord over us. This system must be replaced with the people's vote on all important issues. A good start would be that if the Supreme Court declares something unConstitutional, we, the people, can either overturn or ratify what is really the self-interested ideology of the majority of 9 political appointees.

Title wrong. All non-Constitutional Republics go bananas. Maybe. But unless we defy the limitations imposed on the legislature etc BY the Constitution, then there’s no reason for our Republic to go bananas.

That said, we have a bad problem in the USA. Our elected officials (and to some lesser extent even our people) have become more or less indifferent to the crucial limitations supposed to be imposed on governmental authority.