Sunday, September 14, 2014

On Judicial Independence

On Judicial Independence: 9/14/14

Ex. NJ Supreme Court Justice, Gary Stein, spoke at the Bergen County Ethical Society today, on Judicial Independence and Christy's interference thereto.

In comment section I said I concurred with all his conclusions but differed with his premise, that the judiciary must be independent. I cited Jefferson saying the Independent Judiciary did not even look like a part of the Nation, it was not answerable to anyone or anything: Not the Executive, not the legislature and not the people. A prime position for corruption to sink in. Justice Stein belittled the argument with two or three examples of Judges Standing up against pressure because their job couldn't be threatened.
I tried to get a rebuttal in but the moderator, correctly, cut me off.
After the presentation he approached me to tell me that voting on judges never works. I said if a judge makes a decision only because his job is not threatened, and would be, or could be, influenced to make another decision if his job wasn't threatened, he had no integrity and shouldn't have been a judge.
Further, later, I thought about independence for bricklayers, writers, actors, scientists, etc., and why they don't have it. They don't have it so that error can be rapidly pointed out and corrected, and the workers skills improved and his work product improve. Judges, free of any force of criticism, or from criticism, can error, never need to correct their errors, learn that they were errors, etc. Additionally, the impetus of higher courts to support lower court errors can't be removed or corrected. Once an 'Old Boy's Club ( or person's club) is formed, there's no breaking it up.
And no decision, by anyone, on any subject, is free of the influence of the decision maker's personality, education, belief systems, economic status, peer pressure, philosophical biases, etc.
If judges perform better without being answerable to anybody for their work product, why doesn't that hold true for all professions? The argument for independence is sophistical, conclusionary, prejudiced by judges and lawyers, and demeaning of the people and the peoples wishes. They demand independence because they have, in their opinion and the opinion of the legal profession, that they are superior to others. Their judgment must go unquestioned for it to be 'respected'. They interpret the laws, for 'our good', for the 'good of the people' and should never be challenged anywhere at anytime. Were they proven infallible the argument may have some semblance of accuracy. But we have the Dred Scott decision, 'The 'Separate but equal' decision. There are so many 5 to 4 Supreme Court decisions that obviously have nothing to do with the law but only with judicial and political philosophy that it is almost criminal: of the 9 Justices on the Court, all superior and experienced Judges and lawyers, 44% of them don't know a laws meaning until the other 55% tell them what the law is and what it means.
We must vote on our laws, vote on the administrators and executors of the laws, and vote on the interpreters of the laws. There simply is no evidence that any citizen is superior in judgment over another one, regardless of education, class, religion, or any set of combined human characteristics. There can be no way of selecting who a “Philosopher King” is, who an incorruptible dictator would be, who a 'good representative' would be, who a 'good judge for life' would be. Without the direct voting power of the people on our laws, our executive officers, and our judges, we are being ruled by a set of corruptible, fallible, human beings no better and no worse than each of us.


Tuesday, September 9, 2014

What if people's climate march fails to get laws passed?

The People's March for Climate control, a march to keep the average temperature of the planet from going 2 degrees Celsius above the 1960 temperature will be a successful march, in the sense of many people taking to the streets to influence their  political representatives to pass laws that will limit the amount of energy in the atmosphere. But, the real question is, "Will the representatives pass the laws?" In other words, will the will of the people become the will of our representatives?

This is a hypothetical question. I believe the threat to the planet and all of life on the planet is real, immediate, and perhaps, already inevitable. But I think that representatives of law making bodies are influenced by immediate, what you can see for yourself, problems. Climate change now has consequences that are easily easily seen. The representatives, after our communal request, will probably pass the laws to lower the energy content of the atmosphere, by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere or physically or chemically removing them from the atmosphere. Probably....

But there is no certainty that the representatives, from all the nations, will try to get such laws passed, let alone succeed in getting them passed.  The U.N. is a debate society. Its resolutions are not binding on anyone. Our Congress is a 1% bought and paid for group of $200,000 employees of the people who make ten times that when they leave office as payment from the 1%. See ex-Representative Cantor's current salary. Will they save the world and not take advantage of getting tens times their salary?  I think it's doubtful. But a majority of informed and insightful representatives can prevail.

The Association for the Advancement of Actual Democracy is adamant in trying to remove the "CAN" from that statement. Our wishes, plainly expressed to the Representatives, can be made into law. But instead of that uncertainty, that 'CAN BE', we hold that the wishes of the people should be expressed by the people by their voting directly on the laws. The will of the people must not only be expressed by the people but VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE, and only the people, not through or by representatives.

We should no longer be begging our representatives to set their personal self-interest aside in favor of the 'greater good', or the will of the people. Today that will, when frustrated, leads to us taking to the streets to show our common desire for the 538 law-makers, representatives, of our nation to decide in our favor, as we see it, after long and considered debate, which has been ignored or frustrated by 'Political' means. Our wishes, our conclusions, our needs and hopes, must be expressed, not in just words, but in VOTES THAT COUNT. We the People are responsible for the laws and should make them ourselves. Not being able to do that today has led us to the point of having to beg our representatives to save our civilization from a real problem that can, and if ignored will, destroy all life on this planet. We should never again permit such a scenario to transpire. We must Amend the Constitution so the people vote directly for their laws, vote directly for their Chief Executives who execute and administer the laws, and vote for their Judges who interpret the laws. Nothing else is freedom. Nothing else is political equality. Nothing else is DEMOCRACY.

After the march the politically active members of the march, the organizers of the march, all who supported the march, financially, philosophically, and with their presence in the street, have one more cause to work for, the cause of removing the need to ever go to the streets again to express their common will, but instead, go directly to debating, analyzing, and then voting on the laws that they believe are required.

Join, support, and work for the Association for the Advancement of Actual Democracy.
http://www.assosactualdemocracy.com

This last political fight must be fought.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Comment on The Ethical Culture Web Page

  1. Roger Duronio   Reply
    I went to Climate march's website, to see what it's all about. I don't get around much. There are roughly 600 organizations and associations registered to support this march. The first thing that stuck me is "That's a lot of loosely organized people disgruntled with the 'decision makers' of the nation and the world. Of course the march to stop our polluting the air and affecting the climate is necessary, and I'll be there. But it bothers me, in many ways, that the people of the United States have to take to the streets to , effectively, beg our representatives to use the power we gave them for our benefit. And then I realized that that fact underlies the loose tie between all those cooperating groups. They all, us included, are acting on the assumption that we must influence the powerful to use their power, the power we gave them by voting them into office, to use it in a manner we want them to. This thinking came about partly because I've been angry with the government and more generally because I had concluded that revolutions put 'good men' into power who were soon corrupted by the power which then, in turn required another revolution. And this pattern was stamped broadly over history. Anyway, I thought that a possible solution was to alter our Representative Democracy and replace it with Actual Democracy, where the people vote directly on the laws under which they live. It's a step forward in the evolution of Democracy, I thought. A little research turned up that it was the very first intended form of Democracy, see Pericles Funeral Oration in Thucydides, where he says the laws of Athens are made by the many. Of course the many didn't include slaves or women. But the intent was universal suffrage on legislature, direct voting on their laws. The research further turned up Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, J.S. Mill, Bertrand Russell, even John Kennedy, in his "Outlines in Courage" all concluding that the best form of democracy was the people voting directly on the laws: an Actual Democracy. They also all concluded that a compromise was needed because we could not all fit in the market place and openly debate issues, propose laws, and vote on them. So representative government, which Rousseau called 'elected Aristocacy' was the compromise. Certainly better than kings, dictators and oligarchies. Churchill said democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others. But I realized that the Internet, telephony, the geo-sychronous communication satellites enabled us to argue, openly debate, raucously debate, lie, propagandise, spread the truth, every minute of everyday. Further we were voting everyday on who the best singers, entertainers, talented people were on various television shows: American Idol, The Voice, America has Talent. We are debating and we are voting. Seems a perfect entry point to we should debate the laws and vote on the laws, live in Actual Democracy. There is a website for the Association for the Advancement of Actual Democracy, which I also recently joined, advocating this position: http://www.assosactualdemocracy.com. I believe the idea of changing the Constitution so people take responsibility for voting on the laws they Will live under is a major step forward, a necessary evolutionary step in democracy, and what is the real, but unrecognized, driving force behind the 600 organizations about to march, which I very unkindly see as 'beg', their representatives to protect man's future by stopping the level of suicidal polluting we do.

Leave a Reply

Thursday, September 4, 2014

The Corrupt Supreme Court

The Courts are not answerable to the people, according to Thomas Jefferson, they aren't answerable to anyone. Who tried to stop the prosecutor here? What police officers that took incorrect confessions from young people have ever been charged, or even exposed. In a 1994 case where a man in Missouri was charged and convicted with killing a fellow inmate, after two rounds of appeals through state and federal Courts, The Supreme Court decided to him, in a 5 to 4 case. Four of the Justices, in the face of overwhelming evidence of innocence, vote for his execution because the case had been closed in the State courts. Four Justices, they happened to be conservatives, Scalia among them, were quite willing to kill this man because there must be finality in criminal cases and this man had been through the courts twice with none of them looking at the evidence properly . He had had his day in court and 4 members of the Supreme Court joined in saying he should be executed, irrespective of evidence of innocence. They are not interested in justice. Scalia says it in a book he wrote, they are interested in "important cases". Jefferson predicted they would take over their jurisdiction, i.e. pick the cases to hear, and become corrupt and uncorrectable. He called impeachment a 'nugatory' check on the judiciary. We need to vote for the Federal Judges, and on the laws, and for the President and Vice President.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Don't take it anymore

The weak never revolt, never stand up, until they are forced to decide to "not take it" anymore. Here, in the U.S., and certainly around the world, people know they are almost totally powerless. Every revolution in history has been followed by another revolution. Every set of 'good rulers' goes bad and needs replaced. But suffrage expands. Democracy becomes the objective. We demand, or beg, depending on your view, for power to work for us. It never fully does. Representatives are the 'elected aristocracy'. Who makes the laws, rules. 538 representatives in the U.S. make our laws, spend 4 trillion dollars a year, a year, and are no more qualified to do so than the average citizen. And in other countries it's even worse. We need to change our government from a representative republic into an Actual Democracy. We need to Amend the Constitution so that the citizens are the legislature and vote directly on the laws. So that we elect the President and Vice President directly and vote for Judges rather than have political appointees for life judging us and the laws. That is freedom and political equality. Nothing else is. See assosactualdemocracy.com. In 5 to 7 years we can remove the possibility of grid lock in the legislature, gerrymandering for the Congress and Elector College, and powerlessness of the citizenry. It is essential to quit begging for representation and to represent ourselves. It is essential to quit begging for equality and freedom and vote for them directly.

What Actual Democracy will Accomplish

What Actual Democracy will Accomplish:

o It will remove the possibility of Legislative grid lock where Party Philosophy is more important than the country.
o Lobbying will be futile or will get focused on the Executive officers, who don't make laws.
o Budgets will get passed.
o Judge appointments will not be political.
o The Electoral College will be rescinded and gerrymandering made irrelevant.
o We will not need to 'fight city hall', we will be it.
o News media and reporters will no longer pander to Representatives and spin their messages for 'access'.
o There will be no Representatives to be bribed. No 'elected aristocracy' ruling us.
o We will have political equality.
o Money will no longer be more important than people, or the nation, or the nation's and people's future.
o The economic command and control of the people and their lives will devolve to them, through voting.
o The military will actually be under civilian control and not under political control, as party and philosophies of current representatives change.
o "Them against us " attitudes will disappear: "They" will be "us".
o "The Rich an Famous" will be that, and speak their minds, and have one vote, like all of us.
o Only elections for those who execute the laws and those who interpret the laws, and direclty by the people.

The next, and last, government change...

There is one social change that subsumes them all: changes in the form of government that expands the political power of individual citizens. We require another such step in America, we require becoming an Actual Democracy: The people must vote directly on the laws, directly for the Executives, and directly for the judges. Representatives are an 'elected aristocracy', Rousseau. 


Monday, September 1, 2014

Climate march and Actual Democracy

I went to Climate march's wesite, to see what it's all about. I don't get around much. There are roughly 600 organizations and associations registered to support this march. The first thing that stuck me is "That's a lot of loosely organized people disgruntled with the 'decision makers' of the nation and the world. Of coursse the march to stop our polluting the air and affecting the climate is necessary, and I'll be there. But it bothers me, in many ways, that the people of the United States have to take to the streets to , effectively, beg our representatives to use the power we gave them for our benefit. And then I realized that that fact underlies the losoe tie between all those cooperating groups. They all, us included, are acting on the assumption that we must influence the powerful to use their power, the power we gave them by voting them into office, to use it in a manner we want them to. This thinking came about partly because I've been angry with the government and more generally because I had concluded that revolutions put 'good men' into power who were soon corrupted by the power which then, in turn required another revolution. And this pattern was stamped broadly over history. Anyway, I thought that a possible solution was to alter our Representative Democracy and replace it with Actual Democracy, where the people vote directly on the laws under which they live. It's a step forward in the evolution of Democracy, I thought. A little research turned up that it was the very first intended form of Democracy, see Pericles Funeral Oration in Thucydides, where he says the laws of Athens are made by the many. Of course the many didn't include slaves or women. But the intent was universal suffrage on legislature, direct voting on their laws. The research further turned up Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, J.S. Mill, Bertrand Russell, even John Kennedy, in his "Outlines in Courage" all concluding that the best form of democracy was the people voting directly on the laws: an Actual Democracy. They also all concluded that a compromise was needed because we could not all fit in the market place and openly debate issues, propose laws, and vote on them. So representative government, which Rousseau called 'elected Aristocracy' was the compromise. Certainly better than kings, dictators and oligarchies. Churchill said democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others. But I realized that the internet, telephony, the geo-sychronous communication satellites enabled us to argue, openly debate, raucously debate, lie, propagandize, spread the truth, every minute of everyday. Further we were voting everyday on who the best singers, entertainers, talented people were on various television shows: American Idol, The Voice, America has Talent. We are debating and we are voting. Seems a perfect entry point to we should debate the laws and vote on the laws, live in Actual Democracy. There is a website for the Association for the Advancement of Actual Democracy, which I also recently joined, advocating this position: http://www.assosactualdemocracy.com. I believe the idea of changing the Constitution so people take responsibility for voting on the laws they will live under is a major step forward, a necessary evolutionary step in democracy, and what is the real, but unrecognized, driving force behind the 600 organizations about to march, which I very unkindly see ad 'beg', their representatives to protect man's future by stopping the level of suicidal polluting we do.