Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#16  Postby Dolphin42 » March 16th, 2017, 1:06 pm

-1-
I don't think there had been an immigration ban on Muslims before. ("this kind of context.")

I don't think there had been a context on muslims before at all.

I don't think the judicial system is where it's at.

How close do you mean to be to "this kind"? Philosophically speaking it's like asking how long is a string. You can be close, you can be far, but there is always farther away then far, and there is always (sometimes) closer than close.

So please specify the outer limit of how far away you want to include judicial decisions to be similar to this. Within half a mile? Within five kilograms? within twenty-five parsecs per fortnight?


I don't understand your question about distances, weights and timescales.

My questions was this:

A judge is trying to decide whether some proposed legislation (in this case an order from the executive branch of government) complies with the US Constitution. Should the judge consider words that were spoken during the presidential campaign to be relevant to gaining an understanding of the meaning and purpose of that proposed legislation?

-- Updated March 16th, 2017, 6:21 pm to add the following --

I like the rock/paper/scissors analogy but I don't think it really works.

In rock/paper/scissors each item beats one and is beaten by the other. In the US form of trias politica the three branches are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. As I understand it, each of these is supposed to act as a check on both of the other two. So it's more like as if rock, paper and scissors all kind of beat and kind of are beaten by the other two.
Dolphin42
 
Posts: 895 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#17  Postby Ranvier » March 16th, 2017, 4:46 pm

It's interesting to thing that in a "Democracy" people are not considered to be a branch of the Government...We arrive to further problem, where a corporation or a branch of the government can be considered "the people". The Supreme Court in theory is supposed to check the Legislative and Executive branches of conformity with the Supreme Law of The Land, The Constitution. However, the Supreme Court had often been asleep for many issues that are not contested. In order for the Supreme Court to rule, a given consideration must pass through the entire judicial system before the Supreme Court can make a decision. It's a lengthy, inefficient, and most of all a costly process with covenant that someone will object to what other two branches are doing.
Ranvier
 
Posts: 116 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#18  Postby Rr6 » March 16th, 2017, 6:14 pm

Rr6 wrote:Fact } there can exist only 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, or any alleged multiverse scenarios.
Opinion } the above appears to be an absolute truth.

-1-----Your fact is wrong. If you meant your "/" to mean "or" which is the usual and customary meaning of it.



In my above-- and anywhere I'm not using numbers ---means the two or more words are synonyms. Simple, not complex.

-1---There are an infinite number of symmetrical polyhedra in the universe.



As per your usual, you lack any rational, logical common sense comment/statements

I never counted them, but I shan't contest your claim, that there are 5 regular polyhedra in the universe.


You contest it above and as per your usual, your lacking in rational logical common sense not to mention just plain incorrect.

Please share when you want to have rational, logical common sense discussion. No significant worries tho, as your one of many around here like that. imho :--(

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Rr6
 
Posts: 1035 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#19  Postby Dolphin42 » March 17th, 2017, 5:07 am

Ranvier:
It's interesting to thing that in a "Democracy" people are not considered to be a branch of the Government


All three branches of the government are considered to represent the people.

...It's a lengthy, inefficient, and most of all a costly process with covenant that someone will object to what other two branches are doing.


Then propose a simpler and more efficient system and explain how you would put it into effect. Criticising the imperfections of a system is always vastly easier than proposing how a workable system could be put in place to replace it - put in place by real human beings who have to persuade other human beings of its merits, not by all powerful gods.
Dolphin42
 
Posts: 895 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#20  Postby Rr6 » March 17th, 2017, 8:03 am

Three branches of government, as balance of power is based on structural stability of a triangle, that, embraces and protects the people.

3 points/corners/yippions{ V }---nippions{ . }----vertexions{ Y }

3 chords/edges/lines-of-relationship.

12 jurors, or 12 steps this or that, stems from 12 vertexes/points/corners of 4-fold Vector Equilibrium and 5-fold icosa{20}hedron,.

Bi-lateral is stems from the single axi between two triangular openings of the above mentioned VE aka cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron wherein we discover the derivation of a left and right skew set of icosahedra, that have specific set of 31 left and righ skew great circles. Human as 31, bilateral spinal nerves.

All stems from or based upon 3 structurally stable, symmetrical/regular polyhedra of Universe. imho

r6
Rr6 wrote:
Rr6 wrote:Fact } there can exist only 5 regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, or any alleged multiverse scenarios.
Opinion } the above appears to be an absolute truth.

-1-----Your fact is wrong. If you meant your "/" to mean "or" which is the usual and customary meaning of it.

In my above-- and anywhere I'm not using numbers ---means the two or more words are synonyms. Simple, not complex.
-1---There are an infinite number of symmetrical polyhedra in the universe.

As per your usual, you lack any rational, logical common sense comment/statements
I never counted them, but I shan't contest your claim, that there are 5 regular polyhedra in the universe.

You contest it above and as per your usual, your lacking in rational logical common sense not to mention just plain incorrect.
Please share when you want to have rational, logical common sense discussion. No significant worries tho, as your one of many around here like that. imho :--(

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Rr6
 
Posts: 1035 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#21  Postby Ranvier » March 19th, 2017, 2:58 pm

Dolphin42
All three branches of the government are considered to represent the people.


Of course, although I don't really feel represented regardless of how I vote. Do you?

Unfortunately identifying problems is often considered to be negative in description by "criticizing". I can only dream on "paper" until others agree that there is a problem and choose do do something about it. Before then, there is no point in searching for feasible solutions.

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 3:23 pm to add the following --

This may not appear as a significant difference but there is a difference in following someone's ideology (leader) versus equals working together to identify problems and work together to find solutions. How can one expect a democracy being surrounded by "sheep". I would imagine that the Philosophy forum would be a good place in finding equals with the same thirst for constructive debate. Perhaps I was wrong and I'm out of my depth.
Ranvier
 
Posts: 116 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#22  Postby Dolphin42 » March 20th, 2017, 5:02 am

Ranvier:
Of course, although I don't really feel represented regardless of how I vote. Do you?


I think I feel about as represented as I could realistically expect to feel given that I live in a society of 65 million people (and you live in an even bigger one). Inevitably, if you live in a democracy in which several million people have to decide on a single government then you're going to feel like your vote doesn't count for much. That's true regardless of any reservations you might have as to whether we really live in functioning democracies. It would be true even if our societies were pure democracies and not quasi-plutocracies. It's a simple function of the number of people involved. As far as I can see, the only way around it is to live in very small village-like democracies in which you can directly see the consequences of your decisions as a citizen. Very, very local government. Is that what you would advocate? It's a thought.

Unfortunately identifying problems is often considered to be negative in description by "criticizing".


I don't see it as negative. I just see it as the very, very easy part. Since all political systems that have ever been invented or conceived of so far are imperfect it's easy to point out their imperfections.

I can only dream on "paper" until others agree that there is a problem and choose do do something about it. Before then, there is no point in searching for feasible solutions.


If you think you have a solution, a large part of your task is to persuade other people of its merits. In fact, that's almost the whole task. That, I think, is what most people forget. They bemoan the fact that people, en masse, don't behave collectively in ways that they see as beneficial. This is why I said earlier that if you're going to play the "setting the world to rights" game the first rule is that you can't give yourself godlike powers to direct vast swathes of people to behave in ways that you see fit. You have to persuade people in your capacity as a single human being. Even the US president has to do that (as he is finding out). If your solution can't persuade these people to do what you think ought to be done then it has fallen at the first hurdle.
Dolphin42
 
Posts: 895 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#23  Postby Felix » March 20th, 2017, 5:59 am

Dolphin42: This latest judicial block (in Hawaii) on the latest executive order by president Trump to ban the citizens of certain countries from entering the US is interesting, I think. It makes it plainer than before that the reason for the block is the context of the executive order, and part of that context is seen by the judge as being the comments made by Trump on the campaign trail calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." In this context the judge argues that the order violates the "establishment clause" in the US Constitution.


It's the context of his former statements combined with the fact that Trump has presented zero evidence that immigrants from the 6 countries on his list pose a greater security threat. The facts show otherwise: no one from those countries has performed terrorist acts in the U.S., however the one thing these countries do have in common is that Islam is the primary religion in all of them - that and the fact that they are all war zones from which refugees are fleeing.

There's also the fact that Trump has not exactly endeared himself to judges by calling those that have disagreed with his edicts, "so-called judges," "traitors," etc.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Felix
 
Posts: 1791 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#24  Postby Dolphin42 » March 20th, 2017, 6:17 am

Felix:

I think the Trump administration would argue against your post here by claiming that even if no citizens from those 6 countries have actually personally committed acts of violence that would be classified as terrorism in the US, it's reasonable to assume that the instabilities in those countries combined with their relative lack of effective screening of citizens who want to visit the US means that they present a risk. Being a war zone from which refugees are fleeing does make a country a risk, regardless of what we might think of the importance of helping refugees, doesn't it?

Of course, you could argue, as others have done, that there are countries that are not on that list that are also a very big risk. Notably Saudi Arabia. But then I think the answer would be that we cannot ignore the role of realpolitik. The political reality is that it would not be feasible to place this ban on a country like Saudi Arabia because of various aspects of the USA's political, commercial and security links to that country. The administration's argument would be that it attempts to reduce the risk of violence to US citizens wherever political and economic reality allows.

-- Updated March 20th, 2017, 11:26 am to add the following --

There's also the fact that Trump has not exactly endeared himself to judges by calling those that have disagreed with his edicts, "so-called judges," "traitors," etc.


I'm sure he hasn't. But it could be argued that one of the tests of a good judge is that he/she can rise above such slurs and slanders and remain objective regardless. Given his track record in turning arguments on their heads (notably the "birtherism" argument) I might even expect Trump to cheekily claim that he is doing those judges a favour with these slurs by allowing them to show their ability to be impartial regardless of provocation.
Dolphin42
 
Posts: 895 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#25  Postby Ranvier » March 20th, 2017, 7:08 am

Dolphin42

I don't agree with you but I understand your perspective. I have my own apprehension in pointing out the "obvious" as the easy task of criticism, yet it's not as easy as one might think, since it's not that obvious to swaths of people. Politics always was and still is just a pageant in the race for power. It has never been about representing the interests of the people other than the fear of the mob, and there had been many ways of controlling the population using various political systems.

The main problem is in our human mentality, partially genetic and partially stemming from the reality of economic slavery in which we were raised. Theoretically, we want freedom because we don't like others to tell us what to do but once given the freedom of choice, many just don't know what to do, looking for guidance from others or just follow the crowd. It's a psychological defense mechanism in distancing ourselves from the consequences of our choices. This is why most people are comfortable with just an illusion of power in a democracy. We can assign the dilution of will to the vast number in population, where the direct democracy becomes unrealistic but in reality it's just a choice that we are willing to make, leaning towards socialism in equality of common good.

The truth is that individuality and inequality is not only in our biological nature but also, it's the driving force for innovation and progress. There are many people, especially in modern politics, that will contest the uniqueness of each individual in perception of the common wealth or morality. The challenge becomes of how to reflect the falsehood of such premise in strive to achieve the success of every individual. The true challenge isn't to redistribute wealth as the common good but to realize the wealth of each individual in assistance to succeed. Neither Democracy nor Communism can do that. Of course one will immediately ask for a reasonable solution that I seem to be able to propose, where I would suggest that there is always a solution to any problem, with covenant that we perceive there to be a problem. I divert my thoughts to the method of how to best accomplish the change short of talking about it openly.

-- Updated March 20th, 2017, 7:36 am to add the following --

I agree with Dolphin42. Regardless of the unpopularity or even unfairness in ban of refugees from the 6 countries, it's in the president's purview to issue such executive order in the interest of the national security. Especially since such countries are the current theater of military operations or had been war zones in the recent history, where US is not perceived as unbiased. I think China would be in a much better position to accept such refugees, rather than Europe or US.
Ranvier
 
Posts: 116 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#26  Postby Felix » March 20th, 2017, 4:42 pm

Dolphin42; I think the Trump administration would argue against your post here by claiming that even if no citizens from those 6 countries have actually personally committed acts of violence that would be classified as terrorism in the US, it's reasonable to assume that the instabilities in those countries combined with their relative lack of effective screening of citizens who want to visit the US means that they present a risk. Being a war zone from which refugees are fleeing does make a country a risk, regardless of what we might think of the importance of helping refugees, doesn't it?


Keep in mind that this is an "emergency 90 day ban" (a 90 days which has now come and gone since Trump's first exec order). U.S. Intelligence agencies have gone on record to state that we already have adequate vetting of immigrants from those countries - actually we have very few immigrants from them because, aside from Iran, they are all very destitute countries, refugees are lucky to get out of their country alive, let alone travel all the way to the U.S. where it is clear they are not welcome.

Trump could simply supply evidence (select classified info if necessary) to the courts to support his claim that immigrants from these countries represent an increased security risk and that would be the end of the judicial story. But he has not, presumably because he cannot, any more than he can prove that Obama had Trump Tower bugged.

The bottom line is that we have a U.S. president whom has almost no credibility with the judicial and intelligence departments of his own government, because of all the irrational and unsubstantiated statements and actions he has made such as (I paraphrase), "I would've won the popular vote too if 3 million dead people hadn't voted for Hillary"; "Islam is a religion of terrorists, if we do not ban all Muslims from entering this country ASAP there will be deadly consequences (repeatedly spoken several months ago)"; "We must build a big wall on our nation's southern border to keep out all the illegal Hispanic murderers, rapists and drug dealers flowing over the border. Do not fret, Mexico will pay for this wall!"; "My predecessor, Barack Obama, is a traitor and felon who ordered an illegal wiretap on Trump Tower"; The list goes on and on....

Never mind Donald Trump's policies, he appears to be paranoid and perhaps delusional and should be removed from office for that reason alone. God only knows how he will react to a really serious international crisis (rather than his fairy tale ones) like the increasing unprovoked hostilities of North Korea's leader. He (Trump) wants to rekindle the nuclear arms race with Russia and he has said that nuclear war is an acceptable military option. That should scare any sane person.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Felix
 
Posts: 1791 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Seperation of Powers; Opinions and Facts

Post Number:#27  Postby Grunth » March 25th, 2017, 2:47 am

Felix wrote: He (Trump) wants to rekindle the nuclear arms race with Russia and he has said that nuclear war is an acceptable military option. That should scare any sane person.

The threat of using nuclear arms is the reason for having nuclear arms. It is stupid and dangerous to tell hostile nations you would never use nuclear arms.
Grunth
 
Posts: 813 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy of Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST