www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote: You left out the third option: revolution. I have no means to go elsewhere, thanks to the way things are set up.

Have fun dying.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:...It's power is, however, limited by the requirement that individual members of the legislative and executive must periodically stand for reelection.

During their elective period, each can do their part to ensure more power for the next group, in exchange for "compensation". Most people over here are resigned to the fact that most politicians are on the take. We've started giving up, and that is the first step toward a populace enslaved without any resistance. Transparency in government affairs is quite limited over here, as is civilian oversight.

How exactly is that relevent to my statement? The fact remains that in a democracy, if politicians do not retain the confidence of the electorate they get kicked out of office. Whether the electorate have the brains to make a rational decision about whether said politicians deserve their confidence is an entirely different matter.

You left out the third option: revolution. I have no means to go elsewhere, thanks to the way things are set up.

In that case, I'll sit back and watch you get run over by a tank. Have fun!

Cpl Kendall wrote: Someone **** in your cheerios? Supreme Court judges often turn out to be more impartial than intially thought. And there has to be a consitutional basis for their smackdown.

Yeah, dude. Someone pissed in my fucking cheerios. My dad was seriously injured on the job when I was three, and my family fell apart because the insurance company denied his injury, and therefore, his benefits.

When my mom got the case to California Supreme Court, we won. Then we were told that only the Federal Supreme Court had jurisdiction; my mom filed a new case in 1992 and it's still sitting there, unheard. Over a million individuals a year are injured in California alone every year; a serious problem that the "Supreme" court decides to ignore in favor of whether a death row inmate can enjoy smoke-free air in his cell, and a thousand other meaningless cases.

The constitutional basis for their ruling is based on pre-existing laws and amendments, which can be changed at any time by the ruling majority in the Senate and House.

Rochey wrote:In that case, I'll sit back and watch you get run over by a tank. Have fun!

When it happens, I'm quite sure it will be more than one person.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Have fun dying.

I will. Thank you.

Revolutions in western countries will always be small affairs. Why? Because the country rules by the majority, thus the majority will always be in favour of the government. Thus your revolution will not only be smacked down by the military in ten minutes, but the majority of the populace will likely be against you.
That's the thing about modern revolutions; all the rioters in the world wont stop a tank plowing through the rebels or a squad of soldiers unloading their guns into a crowd of attackers. They're all predoomed to failure.

I certainly never said it would be my revolution.

Perhaps it won't be a violent, overt revolution. Something more subtle.

*EDIT*

Plus, the majority is always going to be on the side of the government because they've already been indoctrinated. The only thing they'll say when freedom is thoroughly usurped is: "Baa."

Like? If your predictions of dozens, if not hundreds, of officials suddenly becoming evil dictators comes true, it's not going to be subtle to take them all down.

Tsukiyumi wrote:The constitutional basis for their ruling is based on pre-existing laws and amendments, which can be changed at any time by the ruling majority in the Senate and House.

All US statute laws are subordinate to the US Consitution, and therefore subject to being overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Consitutional Amendments, naturally, do not fall under this umbrella, but they're a lot more difficult to make than you imply - they require, IIRC a two-thirds majority in both Senate and House, Presidential approval, and ratification by two thirds of State legislatures within two years. Given that it's rare for a part to have more than a half-dozen seat majority in either chamber the chances of an Amendment passing without massive public support are vanishingly small.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote: Someone **** in your cheerios? Supreme Court judges often turn out to be more impartial than intially thought. And there has to be a consitutional basis for their smackdown.

Yeah, dude. Someone pissed in my ******* cheerios. My dad was seriously injured on the job when I was three, and my family fell apart because the insurance company denied his injury, and therefore, his benefits.

When my mom got the case to California Supreme Court, we won. Then we were told that only the Federal Supreme Court had jurisdiction; my mom filed a new case in 1992 and it's still sitting there, unheard. Over a million individuals a year are injured in California alone every year; a serious problem that the "Supreme" court decides to ignore in favor of whether a death row inmate can enjoy smoke-free air in his cell, and a thousand other meaningless cases.

Hey who'd have thought that a seven man panel would be backed up for years?

The constitutional basis for their ruling is based on pre-existing laws and amendments, which can be changed at any time by the ruling majority in the Senate and House.

Seafort has addressed this but I have to ask: how can so many people be ignorant of how their own government works?

The public barely knows what's even going on in the government here. Bills pass without notice all the time. The majority wouldn't even notice if the government started changing fundamental human rights or due process...

As for officials becoming evil dictators, they aren't nearly as Shinzon about it, but they're slowly changing things over here.

Tsukiyumi wrote:The public barely knows what's even going on in the government here. Bills pass without notice all the time. The majority wouldn't even notice if the government started changing fundamental human rights or due process...

As for officials becoming evil dictators, they aren't nearly as Shinzon about it, but they're slowly changing things over here.

How old are you? Bush and cronies have indeed abused the system excessively. But that's eight years out of the thirty that I've been around, things will change. By your very own laws these dingus's won't be around for ever and the way things are going your going to have the most progressive President since Kennedy in there.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Hey who'd have thought that a seven man panel would be backed up for years?

Too backed up to look at a case with real consequences, but they made time to hear Anna Nicole Smith's case for her husband's estate? Our case is a million times more important for millions of people, but they moved hers right to the top of their stack. Really fair and impartial there.

Seafort has addressed this but I have to ask: how can so many people be ignorant of how their own government works?

I am not ignorant of the process at all. Your inference otherwise strikes me as hostile and offensive.

As does this:

Cpl Kendall wrote:...How old are you?

I think we should take a self-imposed break from this topic for the time being.

Plus, the majority is always going to be on the side of the government because they've already been indoctrinated.

No, they'll be on the side of the government because they want to be. If they're being opressed, they're hardly going to just sit back and say "meh" to it.

The public barely knows what's even going on in the government here. Bills pass without notice all the time. The majority wouldn't even notice if the government started changing fundamental human rights or due process...

While I know little of the US, I'm pretty sur epeople would notice something important being changed. And besides, the guys who are doing that are getting kicked out, because of the rules. If they were able to, don't you think they would have changed things to stop them getting forced out?

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Too backed up to look at a case with real consequences, but they made time to hear Anna Nicole Smith's case for her husband's estate? Our case is a million times more important for millions of people, but they moved hers right to the top of their stack. Really fair and impartial there.

Get in touch with your Rep.

I am not ignorant of the process at all. Your inference otherwise strikes me as hostile and offensive.

Lets see shall we:

Ignorance of how the SC functions? Check
Statments that the government can the consitution at a whim? Check

That's just from the handy history thing at the bottom of the reply page.