imported post
This discussion is in danger of becoming worthless. Both sides are debating like children. Don't dispute this point; simply admit your own culpability. It will be better for all of us.
And I mean all of you.
__________
The debate basically boils down to the way certain founders imagined things to be, vs how things are in practice.
I'm well aware of Jefferson's views on the issue; these are nothing new to me. It's also in some ways irrelevant to the current government we live under, outside of political theory for its own sake. These ideas are certainly worth discussing, but to implement them will require a complete overhaul of the entire federal government (and many state governments too). In the meantime, I am happy to have my practical ability to exercise my RKBA furthered by the courts, a process we are seeing now.
I'd like a complete overhaul, but I see it as unlikely. In the meantime, while I disapprove of basically avery aspect of our current government (including the legislative and executive branches), I'm going to make use of what meager scraps the courts allow us. And right now the courts are doing more than our legislature, or our executive.
By the way, I find WFL's stance on this issue a little amusing. We had a very intense debate about the nature of Jeffersonian (sometimes called democratic) Republicanism. Do you remember the thread? You accused me of quoting Jefferson out of context, and when I showed that accusation to be incorrect, you fell back on "It is sad that you quote a man in his aging years giving in to populism"?
The contradiction I see is basically this: Jefferson railed against a judicial oligarchy,
but this was part and parcel of his notion that:
The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism.
Interested parties may want to review the thread in question:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/25742-4.html
It occurs to me that the anti-federalists lost. The federalist system is what our current monstrosity evolved from. The elitists had their way, and we have a government of elites rather than a government of the people, all under the guise of "protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority" (a noble cause when engaged in honestly). In some ways, it seems as though it is irrelevant to criticize the Supreme Court from an anti-federalist perspective. Under our Federalist system, they're the branch whose tyranny mitigates the even worse tyranny of the other two.
How do you reconcile the disregard of the Constitution demonstrated by all three branches of our government with your notion that a government run by the people is an evil democracy?
Who is the bulwark that protects the rights of the individual against the onslaught of the socialist masses? We ourselves have failed in that role. You argue it is not the be the elites, the judicial oligarchy who currently fills that role. Who, then? If not the People, the evil democratic We, then who?