Chapter 4 of "What Would Jefferson Do?" is entitled "When Democracy Failed", in which Thom discusses the parallels between the rise of fascism in the US and 1930s Germany. You can watch Thom talking on the subject here.

Whom could be considered more fascist than the tyrannical judges legislating from the bench, by individually redefining the US Constituion without proper procedures of amendments, treasonously citing and implementing foreign law, all in direct violation of their judical capacitymay I ask?

quote:

Whom could be considered more fascist than the tyrannical judges legislating from the bench, by individually redefining the US Constituion without proper procedures of amendments, treasonously citing and implementing foreign law, all in direct violation of their judical capacitymay I ask?

quote:

A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

American Heritage Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983)

You feel that judges have been working towards merging state and business? You may well find people here who agree with you.

quote:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Article III. Section. 2 of the Constitution

quote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article. VI of the Constitution

Judges have to treat foreign treaties as law. Do you have examples of foreign laws they cite and implement which are not from foreign treaties? If they ARE from foreign treaties, you'd best look to the president who signed those treaties to assign blame.

quote:

Originally posted by GG:
Whom could be considered more fascist than the tyrannical judges legislating from the bench, by individually redefining the US Constituion without proper procedures of amendments, treasonously citing and implementing foreign law, all in direct violation of their judical capacitymay I ask?

I doubt that you're referring to Scalia or Thomas since you're no doubt convinced that they actually want to preserve the Constitution under the guise of Originalism. Yet if you know ANYTHING about the Constitution you know that the people grant government limited power and retain all rights. If in doubt read the 9th amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Yet Scalia has another agenda. He believes that UNLESS rights are enumerated… they don’t exist. And when it comes to the federal government… he doesn’t believe its powers are only those enumerated in the Constitution. He believes it can do anything not prohibited by the Constitution. I know you won’t believe me… and come to think of it you probably would loath the 9th amendment if you bothered to look… but here’s a critique from a right wing site http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204d.asp

quote:

But his (Scalia’s) views are based on an incorrect — indeed, a pernicious — notion of what the U.S. Constitution was and is supposed to be. In fact, he stands the Constitution on its head. Instead of a document that protects individual liberty by reining in government power, Scalia would make it one that protects government power by reining in individual liberty.

So tell me more about those evil liberal judges who in my view don’t go far enough in carrying out the TRUE meaning of the Constitution when it comes to rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
Chapter 4 of "What Would Jefferson Do?" is entitled "When Democracy Failed", in which Thom discusses the parallels between the rise of fascism in the US and 1930s Germany. You can watch Thom talking on the subject here.

I think the problem with the title of this chapter is that in the case of the 2000 election in the US... it's not that democracy failed... it's that we have an anti-democratic method of "electing" presidents.

I'm sure that in a real democracy the people may make bad decisions. But under our system there's no way for them to learn since election results are not based on votes... but votes weighted depending on choice of state residence… then mediated by an anti-democratic star chamber called the Electoral College.

The proper title of this thread should be "When The Constitution Failed".

Obviously I'm no constitutional expert, Ultrax. I'll try and remember to do a transcript next time Thom talks about the electoral college.

quote:

Originally posted by Sue N:
Obviously I'm no constitutional expert, Ultrax. I'll try and remember to do a transcript next time Thom talks about the electoral college.

Why is THAT obvious, SueN??? Maybe Democracy failed last Tuesday, when without constraint, the 'Jefferson' strain, was permitted to display dismembered martyrs, because this is very dis-respectful???

Why is what obvious, Goodbusiness? And who or what is the "Jefferson" strain?

SueN: I've thought a lot about democracy today, and it will have failed in the long run for subtle reasons. I can't say what, or when or how, but I feel a bottom line helplessness, because to 'get subtle' with a Neo-con, as Thom repeatedly demonstrates, is to have the discussion exploded, and re-framed somewhere in the stratosphere!
And about the awful, disgusting pictures appearing on Mr. Hartmann's site, well it almost got folks, like me, and in some cases did get folks kicked off the site!!! Your afraid for im-propriety-I'm ALWAYS afraid for the continuity, and survival of this site!
Maybe kids log on here. And those pics are rated M, in The Thom Hartmann Family, which occupies an important shelf at my household.
I am sorry again, SueN for construing you as the enemy(of democracy) but it is perhaps only the Neo-cons who appreciate the subtlties that colour our democracy with failure.
Would you accept my apology, Aunt SueN?

Hi Goodbusiness,

Democracy will always need work, because there are always those who prefer other ways, and will be working to replace it with their own preferred system. There is also apathy, entropy. So we will likely never reach a democratic heaven, but will remain in a messy real world - like this forum. This forum is not a place for hiding way from the struggle, but us a place to meet fellow strugglers, and to spar with those who disagree, just as Thom does.

Apology accepted.

I am reminded that the term "democracy" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution .A democracy would have every eligible citizen gathered to vote upon all legislation turned out by legislatures at all levels.
While this would certainly be a boon to the vendors of beer, sausages and portable toilets, it makes for a most unwieldy system of government.
So the framers settled upon that classical form of pre-Caesarian government, a republic.
The ideal was that the informed citizen would give up a portion of time in service to the Republic, returning to his business, craft or farm after a period of duty to the commonwealth.
Government service was not to be seen as a vocation, it was a duty of citizenship, an office of transitory nature which passed to others so that diversity and a variety of skills and outlooks might benefit the nation.
Some financial recompense should be provided, so that the service might not lead to financial hardship, though the pay was not enough to enrich the office holder. Strict rules were in place to prevent financial chicanery,(a rule against any member of Congress accepting a gift of more than fifty dollars still exists, it has been ignored since the initial gavel of the First Congress of the United States).
A superficial study of the Continental Congress might have raised a more skeptical attitude among the founding fathers, General Washington complained bitterly in messages to the Congress of solons and contractors selling supplies authorized for his freezing troops at Valley Forge.
There were some inquiries made, and a few persons of no merit were pilloried by the patriotic press, though the practice continued, with more sophisticated book keeping, until the end of the war.
With the formation of the new Federal Government, Washington's trusted aide, Alexander Hamilton, became Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton had the very modern perception that debt, properly managed, could generate economic growth. His great bequest to the future was the role of controlled monies, and a national debt, which was to be watched carefully, so as to not artificially influence the general welfare.
Another bequest, which Hamilton did not invent, was the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the taxpayers. Hamilton advocated the federal treasury paying the costs of the late war which the various states had accumulated during the long war with Britain.
This policy was a great source of debate in the new Congress, in the end, it was decided that national existence had been the burden of the entire nation, therefore, the treasury would make good these funds , at par.
Those persons holding Continental notes and bonds were not informed of the settlement by federal law in time to prevent insiders from purchasing these monies at a fraction of their true worth. The citizens had a saying, "not worth a Continental!" The value of the monies printed by the various state and national entities during the revolution was solely based upon a promise of payment after the war was won, a prospect not so sure at the time as it seems to us now.
The usual rate was ten percent in good silver to the dollar, as gold and silver would not lose value, to the average person, it seemed a good deal, with the risk falling upon the purchaser.
In this way, many thousands of veterans of the war were cheated of their money and lands,(land was another bonus promised by the Continental Congress).
In Hamilton's defense, I must say that my studies have found no instance in which he personally gained from this criminality, I think he was sincere in his belief that a strong government must rest upon an educated elite, holding the mob at bay.