We had a Constitution that spelled out specific limits on what government could do. The Founders were very wise men who understood history and human nature. Unfortunately, really I should say tragically, over time these limitations were ignored and eroded. NOw we have conservative republicans who argue that teh president can start a war anywhere anytime without congress' approval. We have liberal democrats who say forcing people to buy health insurance is within the congress' enumerated powers. I coudl go on for pages with more examples, most supported by both parties and the judiciary. Depending on "democracy" to provide limits is foolish. Once you establish the precedent that one group can vote itself the property of another group, it's over. That is essentially the platform of the modern democrat party. It is obama's personal specialty , setting one group against another.
Interesting. So what is your preference, if not democracy? By the way, according to Constitutional Law Professor Louis Seidman, Georgetown, we started ignoring the Constitution almost by the time the ink dried. see, Louis Michael Seidman, On Constitutional Disobedience (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012).
yeah... why would you listen to a guy who says we should ignore the constitution? Which is an odd position for a guy who clerked for Thurgood Marshall and then was a public defender. It was the constitution which was used to protect the minority from majority rule.
"Once you establish the precedent that one group can vote itself the property of another group, it's over." That's another reason why vast disparities in wealth and the bubble/burst cycles of unsupervised capital are undesirable.
so who would you have avoid this problem you want a bigger govt to be in the hands of the cronies who own it? Would you want people who create money out of thin area and destroy the savings and buying power of the working class to support a govt that over spends. Would you want people who support the idea of loosening credit during a bubble and forcing lenders to lend to people who have weak prospects of paying the loans back. Would you want people who create money out of thin area and destroy the buying power of the working class to support a govt that over spends. Govt polices distort the markets and had money over to those who buy the politicians. You want fairness.... end the IRS stop campaign bribery and politicians leaving their jobs for those they voted for while on the job.
The system set up by the Constitution was not a pure democracy. As time has gone forward, we have moved further and further toward a more democratic system. It's illustrative of how ignorant most Americans are that they believe more democracy is a good thing. I believe the orginal system, with some modifications, is far superior to what we have now. Voting was limited to those with a stake in the system, male landowners at that time. I agree with many others here that voting rights of those on welfare, etc should be retricted. I'm not talking about retirees, but those who make welfare a way fo life. It's madness to let them continue to vote themselves bigger and bigger benefits from the rest of us. Senators were orginally chosen by state legislatures, another improvement over our current system. Direct elections of senators gives way too much power to low information voters. I have little respect for state lgislatures, but at the end of the day, I think they would do a more responsible job and there would be far more accountability. Now a Senator is virtually a form of royalty, accountable to no one. The concept of enumerated powers has been totally eviscerated. It was crucial to the original scheme of federalism, ie balance of power between states and federal government. If the federal government were limited to its enumerated powers, many other problems would be alleviated. Problems exist, but they are best dealt with at the lowest possible level of government, not the highest. Again, that is how you maximize accountablility. The current dispute over voting laws highlights many of these issues. The Obama administration, all of the democrat party and many republicans accept the notion that the federal government can require sovereign states to come hat in hand for pre approval of state election laws. I am quite certain the Founders would have been astounded by the very idea that the government they set up would claim such power. The other major change I would make is to repeal the poorly written 14th Amendment. It has been an unending source of mischief since it was enacted. It's very enactment is constitutionally dubious, as it was done under military duress. One of the worst ramifications of the 14th Amendment was the so-called incorporation doctrine, which applied various of the first 10 amendments to the states through the 14th. Don't ask me to explain it logically, because there is no logical explanation. Activst judges just decided that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment meant the states had to abide by the terms of some but not all of the the first 10 amendments. This has been the prime avenue for federal court overreaching into the affairs of the states. For example, prayer in schools, the entire atheists agenda to drive religion out of public spaces, federal court intervention into criminal procedure, welfare rules, etc etc. The list is endless. Ironically, and to close the circle of this discussion, the intervention of federal courts into local affairs is a direct infringement on democracy. Local voters' right to decide issues is arrogated to appointed judges with life tenure.