The Separation of Government is Supposed to be Demarcated by the Partitions of Law

[$ecular#eckler]

So, how should our government be organized?

I present my primary argument to begin.

The Three-part Separation Theory is the government model deployed in the American governing system, and it is erroneous. The Three-part Separation Theory incorrectly defines three processes of law as the demarcation of a balanced government.

The correct separation of government is supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of law, and then those branches are subdivided into the three processes: legislation, execution, and adjudication. And there are probably additional processes; particularly, investigation and litigation appear to be much more significant now, than what the intelligentsia of the Eighteenth Century could determine.

The erroneous deployment of the erroneous Three-part Separation Theory only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. It does nothing to dissipate, or control, the partisan contest to populate the three branches with ideologically aligned people.

The processes of law are inherently cooperative entities - there is nothing inherent to check on the other processes. The checks on power had to be extraneously assigned to the entities in the Constitution. Whereas, if the "branches" are responsible for a partition of law, then the government officials elected and appointed to the processes of their partition are more inclined to guard their partition of law, which have inherent checks on the other partitions of law.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I have spent the greater part of the past twenty years trying to figure out why society has gotten more disorderly, rather than orderly. And basically, it is because of the lack of a reliable information classification system. This is basically what the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress Classification systems are, but they are not reliable, or "scientific." And we need one that is, because that is the root of the Social Contract Theory - we have to agree as to what the meaning of words are, and a classification system stabilizes the semantics that dictionaries cannot do.

And at the end of the rainbow, the demarcation of the partitions of law is subsequent to the reliable information classification system.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Chuck Schumer doesn't know that there is Judiciary branch of government.

• Chuck Schumer - You know, we have three branches of...​

  

  Chuck Schumer Quotes

  "You know, we have three branches of government...." - Chuck Schumer quotes from BrainyQuote.com

  www.brainyquote.com
  You know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a President. Chuck Schumer

 

[$ecular#eckler]

And after many years of research and development, this is the six-part separation model to inspire the constitutional convention series. The Three-part Separation Theory is what inspired the Philadelphia Convention.

 

[Winston]

I present my primary argument to begin.

The Three-part Separation Theory is the government model deployed in the American governing system, and it is erroneous. The Three-part Separation Theory incorrectly defines three processes of law as the demarcation of a balanced government.

The correct separation of government is supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of law, and then those branches are subdivided into the three processes: legislation, execution, and adjudication. And there are probably additional processes; particularly, investigation and litigation appear to be much more significant now, than what the intelligentsia of the Eighteenth Century could determine.

The erroneous deployment of the erroneous Three-part Separation Theory only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. It does nothing to dissipate, or control, the partisan contest to populate the three branches with ideologically aligned people.

The processes of law are inherently cooperative entities - there is nothing inherent to check on the other processes. The checks on power had to be extraneously assigned to the entities in the Constitution. Whereas, if the "branches" are responsible for a partition of law, then the government officials elected and appointed to the processes of their partition are more inclined to guard their partition of law, which have inherent checks on the other partitions of law.

Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Chuck Schumer doesn't know that there is Judiciary branch of government.

An excellent contribution to this discussion - did you hear about the civics deficiency presented earlier this week?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53

Do you think you're smart? Do you think I haven't read that propaganda written for the ratification campaign? Let's review Bacardi 151.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.

Do you think each branch (department) has a will of its own, or does the partisan alignment seem to permeate the boundaries and lead to each party trying to control each branch so as to more efficiently implement their economic agenda?

The only way to cause a public institution a "will of its own," is by the assignment of a partition of law to guard. The three processes of law do not have any inherent oversight of the other branches. The "checks on power" had to be extraneously assigned in the composing of the Constitution.

How about the judiciary? How can it be separate and a will of its own if it is dependent on partisan favoritism to graduate its hierarchy of offices?

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

Just because he wrote that as an argument for the Constitution, does not mean it actually occurs in the exercise of the Constitution.

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.

Do you think that happens???
No. You think there is a bipartisan conspiracy to not enforce the almighty United States Constitution - don't you?

That means the checks and balances do not work.

It is not my fault nobody has been able to describe this, before.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions.

Do you think there have been any "further precautions" added?

The checks and balances do not work just because they say so.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

The “American Experiment,” should not be regarded as a rhetorical device, especially among the political science clowns. We are approaching the second breaking point of the test trials of a half-baked social experiment.

The American society, if it has ever been whatever it is that citizens believe it is supposed to be, it is obviously, now deviating from that ideal.

The first generation of the American Experiment has expired its trial parameters, and subsequently, the over-run is repeating and compounding errors in the approach to the hypothetical and established expectations for the American society.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53

Let's see here. Have you ever read about Benjamin Franklin's final address to the Convention? I am sure you have heard the other anecdote about it being a republic, "if you can keep it, Ma'am."

But have you ever read his final address?

Delay is as unnecessary as the adoption is important. I confess it does not fully accord with my sentiments. But I have lived long enough to have often experienced that we ought not to rely too much on our own judgments. I have often found I was mistaken in my most favorite ideas. I have upon the present occasion given up, upon mature reflection, many points which at the beginning, I thought myself immoveably and decidedly in favor of. This renders me less tenacious of the remainder. There is a possibility of my being mistaken. The general principle which has presided over our deliberations now guides my sentiments. I repeat, I do materially object to certain points, and have already stated my objections. But I do declare that these objections shall never escape me without doors; as, upon the whole, I esteem the constitution to be the best possible, that could have been formed under present circumstances; and that it ought to go abroad with one united signature, and receive every support and countenance from us.

Benjamin Franklin's final speech in the Constitutional Convention, 17 September 1787 | Jefferson's 3 Volumes

jefferson3volumes.org

Ben was a scientist and he recognized inadequacies, but because of the lack of information in 1787, he could not define and solve the inadequacies. We have that information now. We have almost two hundred security agencies - each assigned a section of law.

Critical analysis of the Three-part Separation Theory reveals that it is obviously simple compared to our modern sophisticated understanding of things like programmable systems. The Three-part Separation Theory lacks a reliable formulation for the missions and subdivision of the three branches. The founders were very much aware of these inadequacies, because it is impossible to not notice the inadequacies when contemplating the design of a government based only on the very simple theory of three parts. But what were they to do? The substantiated formula needed to correctly define the inadequacies of the Three-part Separation Theory has seemingly still not been revealed to the political science field.

And how about the anecdote attributed to George Washington? Of course, you know who George Washington was, don't you?

If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work?

'Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.

What's that all about?

And there are more. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and oh so many more who would . . .

They are not rolling in their graves because of the misuse or abuse of the Constitution. they are rolling in their graves because of the continued use of their antique that has been jalopied.

 

[Winston]

Let's see here. Have you ever read about Benjamin Franklin's final address to the Convention? I am sure you have heard the other anecdote about it being a republic, "if you can keep it."

But have you ever read his final address?

Benjamin Franklin's final speech in the Constitutional Convention, 17 September 1787 | Jefferson's 3 Volumes

jefferson3volumes.org

Ben was a scientist and he recognized inadequacies, but because of the lack of information in 1787, he could not define and solve the inadequacies.

Critical analysis of the Three-part Separation Theory reveals that it is obviously simple compared to our modern sophisticated understanding of things like programmable systems. The Three-part Separation Theory lacks a reliable formulation for the missions and subdivision of the three branches. The founders were very much aware of these inadequacies, because it is impossible to not notice the inadequacies when contemplating the design of a government based only on the very simple theory of three parts. But what were they to do? The substantiated formula needed to correctly define the inadequacies of the Three-part Separation Theory has seemingly still not been revealed to the political science field.

And how about the anecdote attributed to George Washington? Of course, you know who George Washington was, don't you?



What's that all about?

Look, bringing in "programmable systems" is not helping your case. In effect, what you are suggesting, "silo-ing" responsibilities, is not going to work for me. If you read Madison close, he is not denying that problems can arise, just as the scenarios you have implied demonstrate. But it is this concept of "auto-correct", much like many systems in nature, that will eventually unfold in the long term.

First, I will point out that I believe the primary goal of the powers that be is to shut-off the auto-correct feature of our democracy. But your scenario is little more than a divide and conquer concept, with no auto-correct, and nothing but a straight line to the very despotism you portend to protect against.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Does this make sense to you?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Look, bringing in "programmable systems" is not helping your case. In effect, what you are suggesting, "silo-ing" responsibilities, is not going to work for me. If you read Madison close, he is not denying that problems can arise, just as the scenarios you have implied demonstrate. But it is this concept of "auto-correct", much like many systems in nature, that will eventually unfold in the long term.

But a constitutional convention to get it all straightened out cannot possibly be an auto-correct that unfolds - right?

First, I will point out that I believe the primary goal of the powers that be is to shut-off the auto-correct feature of our democracy.

The powers that be cannot stop me from doing what I am doing. I am in the mid-development of a reliable government charter template.

But your scenario is little more than a divide and conquer concept, with no auto-correct, and nothing but a straight line to the very despotism you portend to protect against.

You are imagining things. You are not asking questions.

You don't even know what questions to ask, and haven't the gumption to answer my questions.

 

[Winston]

Does this make sense to you?

View attachment 697703

No, not at all. I mean how hard is it to understand that this flow chart has an over-powered executive branch. I mean screw it, why not find a royal family. We could probably get paid to take Charles and company from the British Commonwealth. Wouldn't that be ironic?

And you don't need to get smart with me. I don't need to ask any questions. I think I portrayed it pretty well. You think you can silo off responsibilities, keep everyone in their lane. And computers, maybe even AI, will keep everything in line.

From what I can tell, the only protection we have against executive overreach is budgetary constraint. So, Trump gets elected in 2024. He wants Congress to approve funding of a statue, higher than the Washington monument, of his pecker. On the base the inscription, "Trump, the president with the biggest !&$(. If they don't approve the funding, why Trump will throw his support behind the convicted sex offender running in opposition and their ass is toast.

That work for you? We ain't far from it. Cause I got to be honest with you. I am waiting for the auto-correct to come raging in and, like it or not, it is going to come from the Federal side. State legislatures have done ran off the track. My own state, North Carolina, a case in point. I mean these people are morons.

Look, I don't think it is supposed to be this way. You are a state representative because it is your civic duty. You get paid a token salary, but you get a nice per diem. But hey, you are a successful lawyer. You get here in Raleigh, you get your job done, thanks for your service, now go make some real money.

 

[Darkwind]

I present my primary argument to begin.

The Three-part Separation Theory is the government model deployed in the American governing system, and it is erroneous. The Three-part Separation Theory incorrectly defines three processes of law as the demarcation of a balanced government.

The correct separation of government is supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of law, and then those branches are subdivided into the three processes: legislation, execution, and adjudication. And there are probably additional processes; particularly, investigation and litigation appear to be much more significant now, than what the intelligentsia of the Eighteenth Century could determine.

The erroneous deployment of the erroneous Three-part Separation Theory only prevents any one person from ascending to a dictatorship. It does nothing to dissipate, or control, the partisan contest to populate the three branches with ideologically aligned people.

The processes of law are inherently cooperative entities - there is nothing inherent to check on the other processes. The checks on power had to be extraneously assigned to the entities in the Constitution. Whereas, if the "branches" are responsible for a partition of law, then the government officials elected and appointed to the processes of their partition are more inclined to guard their partition of law, which have inherent checks on the other partitions of law.

All you did is rename what we already have and then complained that those elected have no incentive to check their greed for power and money.

You did NOT outline a different form of government at all.

That main problem we have today is that everyone seems to be vested in the notion that the President is the power in our government and that government exists to help special interests.

The truth is, the President is to represent the STATES to the world. The President is not to be elected by the people but by the States. Hence, the electoral college.

The power in our tricameral government is to reside in the House of Representative. Which is the Peoples house. They represent the peoples will.


The Senate is to represent the interests of the States.

The Judiciary is to ensure equal treatment of the states and to enforce judgement on law.

 

[Winston]

All you did is rename what we already have and then complained that those elected have no incentive to check their greed for power and money.

You did NOT outline a different form of government at all.

That main problem we have today is that everyone seems to be vested in the notion that the President is the power in our government and that government exists to help special interests.

The truth is, the President is to represent the STATES to the world. The President is not to be elected by the people but by the States. Hence, the electoral college.

The power in our tricameral government is to reside in the House of Representative. Which is the Peoples house. They represent the peoples will.


The Senate is to represent the interests of the States.

The Judiciary is to ensure equal treatment of the states and to enforce judgement on law.

nice post. The Senate is to represent the interest of the States. No, the interest of the Nation, and that is where the system is broken.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

All you did is rename what we already have and then complained that those elected have no incentive to check their greed for power and money.

You did NOT outline a different form of government at all.

Yes I did. I broke it up into parts, because, like you, nobody can get past the possibility that the Three-part Separation Theory is erroneous. I explained the theory first, and then a couple of posts later, I presented an organizational chart that is very similar to the federal government organizational chart that the Obama Administration published.

That main problem we have today is that everyone seems to be vested in the notion that the President is the power in our government and that government exists to help special interests. The truth is, the President is to represent the STATES to the world. The President is not to be elected by the people but by the States. Hence, the electoral college.

That means We do not agree to what the Constitution is supposed to do. It's a good thing you are around to correct us. you should write a book explaining the Constitution for our future generations to realize what is wrong.

The power in our tricameral government is to reside in the House of Representative. Which is the Peoples house. They represent the peoples will.

It doesn't work because the nefarious people are in control??? And there is a bipartisan conspiracy to not enforce the constitution???

It's not because the Constitution does not contain the directives to make that happen, because the founders were very limited in technological stuff like paper and ink, compared to our computer-assisted textural manipulation controls, not to mention, cut and paste technology and the

The Senate is to represent the interests of the States.

And that got displaced by the 17th Amendment - right???

So, you know that is not working as designed - right?

What about the 12th Amendment - was there a change in course of the game theory, there?

The Judiciary is to ensure equal treatment of the states and to enforce judgement on law.

And that's not working, either - right???

But you will defend the Constitution as the greatest organizational scheme for a government - it's just abused by the nefarious people that it breeds - right?

 

[Darkwind]

nice post. The Senate is to represent the interest of the States. No, the interest of the Nation, and that is where the system is broken.

I wholly disagree as I think you are splitting hairs.

The States will naturally want to represent the interests of the "United States", but clearly, the founding documents and the Constitution itself (before being amended) set the Senate -- representatives of the State -- to look after the interests of the States.

This was to ensure that the majority of several states and their population would not run roughshod over the smaller states.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

And you don't need to get smart with me. I don't need to ask any questions. I think I portrayed it pretty well. You think you can silo off responsibilities, keep everyone in their lane. And computers, maybe even AI, will keep everything in line.

We have to construct the perfect human-served government, before the robot government. The artificial intelligence of the system will be the aggregation of the true democracy following the perfect republic.

From what I can tell, the only protection we have against executive overreach is budgetary constraint.

And from what I can tell, the proper protection from executive overreach is a six-part separation of executive offices. Each one, and their subsequent legislative assemblies, watching the others to make sure they are not overreaching their powers.

That work for you?

No. My idea is better. And I suggest we do that, and not depend on Trump to do all the heavy lifting against the chaotic political system.

We ain't far from it. Cause I got to be honest with you.

Oh please, you don't have to do that.

I am waiting for the auto-correct to come raging in and, like it or not, it is going to come from the Federal side. State legislatures have done ran off the track. My own state, North Carolina, a case in point. I mean these people are morons.

It's morons everywhere. I am the sane person in the insane world..

Look, I don't think it is supposed to be this way. You are a state representative because it is your civic duty. You get paid a token salary, but you get a nice per diem. But hey, you are a successful lawyer. You get here in Raleigh, you get your job done, thanks for your service, now go make some real money.

Whatever.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes I did. I explained the theory first, and then a couple of posts later, I presented an organizational chart that is very similar to the federal government organizational chart that the Obama Administration published.

View attachment 697756





That means We do not agree to what the Constitution is supposed to do. It's a good thing you are around to correct us. you should write a book explaining the Constitution for our future generations to realize what is wrong.



It doesn't work because the nefarious people are in control??? And there is a bipartisan conspiracy to not enforce the constitution???

It's not because the Constitution does not contain the directives to make that happen, because the founders were very limited in technological stuff like paper and ink, compared to our computer-assisted textural manipulation controls, not to mention, cut and paste technology and the



And that got displaced by the 17th Amendment - right???

So, you know that is not working as designed - right?

What about the 12th Amendment - was there a change in course of the game theory, there?


And that's not working, either - right???

But you will defend the Constitution as the greatest organizational scheme for a government - it's just abused by the nefarious people that it breeds - right?

View attachment 697762

Correct, we do not agree.

Technology is meaningless in such a discussion. The purpose and structure of our government exist outside that variable. We can attach all the information in the world and it would not alter the purpose of the Constitution or the organization of the government. The problem is not with how the government is structured, but in how it is being abused for minority interests it was not designed to address, nor should it address those concerns.

Correct. There is a bipartisan effort --I would not term it a conspiracy-- by both parties to gain and hold power at all costs and the notion of benefiting the nation as a whole or in part, has gone to the wayside.

I am not sure what technology has to do with any of this. The purpose and intent of our government would not change based on the availability of information or technology.

The 12th Amendment? It does not change the fact that the President is elected by the States to be THEIR representative to the world. The entire notion that the most powerful office in our government is the President is ridiculous.

Our country and form of government is being abused by money and corrupt politicians. The two parties have written laws in every state that ensures they remain in power. That is NOT a conspiracy, but pure fact.

People have been misinformed and propagandized to think that the government exists to provide them with things from the treasury. The old saying is true. "If your rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote."

We are going to have to disagree on this as I don't have any more time to stay and debate it.