BF2S Forums China Riots go unnoticed here

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

He must really be at ends with congress. Otherwise he would have done what our President must do... use his proxies in congress. 'Cause as it stands right now, congress must introduce law.

Sure thing and I totally agree ... but what congress would have passed against a public vote, imo that is what they feared ... the public opinion, and when not in sync with the public you have infact lost democracy

Public opinion elected Congress.

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Sure thing and I totally agree ... but what congress would have passed against a public vote, imo that is what they feared ... the public opinion, and when not in sync with the public you have infact lost democracy

Public opinion elected Congress.

Also correct but that doesn't mean the congress speak for the people or reflect the peoples opinions in all matters when it comes to issues such as this ... hence why we twice had public votes in Norway about joining EU, Denmark had the same about the Mastricht treaty, England had the same concering the Euro etc etc etc ...

Then the people need to stop electing people who supposedly don't speak for them. you either play by the rules you create or it is pointless. This was about self preservation. He wasn't breaking constitutional law to protect the mating habits of polar bears. He was breaking the law to serve himself.

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Also correct but that doesn't mean the congress speak for the people or reflect the peoples opinions in all matters when it comes to issues such as this ... hence why we twice had public votes in Norway about joining EU, Denmark had the same about the Mastricht treaty, England had the same concering the Euro etc etc etc ...

Then the people need to stop electing people who supposedly don't speak for them. you either play by the rules you create or it is pointless. This was about self preservation. He wasn't breaking constitutional law to protect the mating habits of polar bears. He was breaking the law to serve himself.

You vote people into congress based on a program or how their general views coinside with yours ... I have yet to come across 1 political party that have the exact same opinions I have and that can provide me with speaking my opinions 100% in parliament ... I have to make due with what comes the closest to my opinions when I vote ... that's why certain issues goes to a public vote ...

Implementing constitutional law goes beyond referendums.  Sometimes, the will of the people must be subdued in favor of the rule of law and civil rights.

This had to be done for ending segregation in this country, and it makes sense that Honduras did it to end the rule of someone clearly trying to bend the system to stay in power.

It's a shame that Venezuela didn't do this.

burni$te wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

This is why pure democracy doesn't work.

there is not one "democratic" nation on earth. The United States is a republic, and even though
it's the 'purveyor' of democracy it's still a republic! China, Russia, hell even Honduras - differant systems
and everyone here keeps holding them to the 'American' yardstick. Democracy has been a myth since ancient Greece,
and today we have differant systems worldwide. China can crack heads all they want, until chinese people do something about it.
"Republicans" in this country can bitch all they want until they do something about it.
Hondurans can take to the street, Iranians can take to the street, until they change their system that's what they'll have. . .

In the context of what I posted, I was extrapolating on why pure democracy wouldn't work.  If you had a system completely dependent on the will of the people, it would fall in a relatively brief time.

This is why republics generally work better, because, at least half of the time, the people elected are competent in their fields of policy.  The average person isn't educated or intelligent enough to make effective policies.

Granted, quite a few politicians aren't very intelligent either.

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Then the people need to stop electing people who supposedly don't speak for them. you either play by the rules you create or it is pointless. This was about self preservation. He wasn't breaking constitutional law to protect the mating habits of polar bears. He was breaking the law to serve himself.

You vote people into congress based on a program or how their general views coinside with yours ... I have yet to come across 1 political party that have the exact same opinions I have and that can provide me with speaking my opinions 100% in parliament ... I have to make due with what comes the closest to my opinions when I vote ... that's why certain issues goes to a public vote ...

You aren't getting it. You are basically saying to follow the constitution up until the point that it gets in your way (that is exactly what happened here). Essentially YOU are endorsing coup with your selective legal reasoning.. under your plan it is illogical to have any legislature or representation.

You are correct sir, and this in a nutshell how they will convince a majority of people that abandoning our own Constitution is somehow a good thing. They make a contrived interpretation of law and changing political procedures mainstream by propaganda and intimidation and carrots on sticks.

When in the end it is always about consolidating power in the hands of the few.

The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many in this twisted age we live in, as it stands now.

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Then the people need to stop electing people who supposedly don't speak for them. you either play by the rules you create or it is pointless. This was about self preservation. He wasn't breaking constitutional law to protect the mating habits of polar bears. He was breaking the law to serve himself.

You vote people into congress based on a program or how their general views coinside with yours ... I have yet to come across 1 political party that have the exact same opinions I have and that can provide me with speaking my opinions 100% in parliament ... I have to make due with what comes the closest to my opinions when I vote ... that's why certain issues goes to a public vote ...

You aren't getting it. You are basically saying to follow the constitution up until the point that it gets in your way (that is exactly what happened here). Essentially YOU are endorsing coup with your selective legal reasoning.. under your plan it is illogical to have any legislature or representation.

Oh yes I'm totally getting it hence why I have several times said "true" and "that's correct" ...

Essentially I AM endorsing public vote the few times that it is necesary when situations arise that goes beyond party politics or what you could possibly have forseen when you casted your vote ...

And in this case a public vote was the only possible way he could change those particular laws ... if he did have a history of misusing public vote as a method of getting passed congress and the supreme court I would totally agree with you ...

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg, it's extremely suspect when a person crosses over their assigned position ONLY to change a written rule that affects themselves. That is what I think you are missing. Yes, I 'd like to see more referendums, but this is not how you do it. The supreme court is the neutral party here. .. and (for example) our courts have ruled a few times here in the states on term limits also.

Luckily our first President refused to run for a third term and he peacefully relinquished power.

Eh nope ... I'm not missing it Kmar, not at all ... I have certainly considered that he is doing this for his own sake, I am also considering the fact that he may be doing this to continue a work he feels he can't complete in one term ... I consider both, you seem to discard the latter totally ...

Hence why I think a public vote in this matter was a good option, when the vote was done that would have given a clear indication to congress and the supreme court how to follow up on that issue ... making a ruling based on the will of the people can't exactly be called a bad thing ...

And what is the point of a time limit anyway in a democracy?

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg, it's extremely suspect when a person crosses over their assigned position ONLY to change a written rule that affects themselves. That is what I think you are missing. Yes, I 'd like to see more referendums, but this is not how you do it. The supreme court is the neutral party here. .. and (for example) our courts have ruled a few times here in the states on term limits also.

Luckily our first President refused to run for a third term and he peacefully relinquished power.

Eh nope ... I'm not missing it Kmar, not at all ... I have certainly considered that he is doing this for his own sake, I am also considering the fact that he may be doing this to continue a work he feels he can't complete in one term ... I consider both, you seem to discard the latter totally ...

Hence why I think a public vote in this matter was a good option, when the vote was done that would have given a clear indication to congress and the supreme court how to follow up on that issue ... making a ruling based on the will of the people can't exactly be called a bad thing ...

And what is the point of a time limit anyway in a democracy?

Maybe we can fly you down there to rewrite their constitution. Toss out the old eh? In a representative democracy you elect people who represent your values and opinions. That is what they do in Congress. Really, it's not that complicated. Perhaps during the next election there will be a wave of congressman taking the platform of eliminating term limits. Then, according to constitutional law they will have enough votes to pass it or propose a referendum. Term limits are important to prevent consolidation of power.

Flying me down there is totally irrelevant Kmar ... are you unable to comprehend what I am saying? ... you claim I'm missing your point but clearly you are missing mine ...

I know perfectly well how a congress and or parliament works ... my point is a public vote is for the very few times were you actually should ask the people what they think or if there is no other way ... concerning Honduras a public vote is the only way to change the law so the president can serve more than just one term ... and to my knowledge this was not about removing term limits but rather to prolong the number of term he could serve ...

Termlimits is not important to prevent consolidation of power ... the public in a democracy is what prevents that, you clearly don't trust the people if you need a termlimit ...

I bet Roosevelt if alive would have served his fourth period after the war if running ... would that have been a bad thing?

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Eh nope ... I'm not missing it Kmar, not at all ... I have certainly considered that he is doing this for his own sake, I am also considering the fact that he may be doing this to continue a work he feels he can't complete in one term ... I consider both, you seem to discard the latter totally ...

Hence why I think a public vote in this matter was a good option, when the vote was done that would have given a clear indication to congress and the supreme court how to follow up on that issue ... making a ruling based on the will of the people can't exactly be called a bad thing ...

And what is the point of a time limit anyway in a democracy?

Maybe we can fly you down there to rewrite their constitution. Toss out the old eh? In a representative democracy you elect people who represent your values and opinions. That is what they do in Congress. Really, it's not that complicated. Perhaps during the next election there will be a wave of congressman taking the platform of eliminating term limits. Then, according to constitutional law they will have enough votes to pass it or propose a referendum. Term limits are important to prevent consolidation of power.

Flying me down there is totally irrelevant Kmar ... are you unable to comprehend what I am saying? ... you claim I'm missing your point but clearly you are missing mine ...

I know perfectly well how a congress and or parliament works ... my point is a public vote is for the very few times were you actually should ask the people what they think or if there is no other way ... concerning Honduras a public vote is the only way to change the law so the president can serve more than just one term ... and to my knowledge this was not about removing term limits but rather to prolong the number of term he could serve ...

Termlimits is not important to prevent consolidation of power ... the public in a democracy is what prevents that, you clearly don't trust the people if you need a termlimit ...

I bet Roosevelt if alive would have served his fourth period after the war if running ... would that have been a bad thing?

Thanks for clarifying the relevance of flying "Varreg" down to Honduras..lol. I get what you are saying entirely. You want to rewrite the laws to exclude two out of the three branches of government in this situation.

I haven't said that there shouldn't be a vote. What I have said is that there is a constitution in place that allows for it if the majority of the elected representatives want it. If that is not the will of the people then they will not be re-elected. A referendum is not "the only way" to make new laws. They can be changed the proper and constitutional way. You seem to think that because this way failed that they had to do it another way. Rather than accepting the legislative results he went outside of the constitution. The supreme court then judged his actions according to the power given to them in the constitution.

Rooservelt and an additional term? Who knows. Rosservelt didn't break our laws.

PureFodder wrote:

Uribe in Colombia held a referendum in 2004 to get a second term and again this year is having a referendum in order to get a third term in office.

Does it strictly forbid it in their constitution?  If so, then that still means nothing as in Honduras is a different country.  Honduras has an article in their constitution that forbids him from bringing up the issue, if he does he is to step down from his position immediately and not to serve in the government for 10 years.  Seams pretty cut and dry.

I think we should be able to ignore the constitution anytime we disagree with it.  All we have to do is take it to a public vote and there we go.  Heck, why even have a constitution.

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

If this was first handled as a request from the president to the elected representatives and turned down and then proposed as a public vote I rest my case ...

And don't you have a two term limit in the US?

So when you fail ignore the constitution and go about firing the people following the law.. got it.

Yes we do for our president.

I'm not ignoring it Kmar ... I'm trying as a true liberal to shed light on the issue from both sides ... so I see it as he could definately be in the wrong here but he could also be trying to change an ancient law that really is in the way of progress for the country of Honduras ...

Laws needs to be redone from time to time and in this case a public vote is close to being the only way to change it seeing as the laws are so clear that even speaking about is against the law ... this is without doubt an issue that goes beyond party politics and would not be an election issue, if it was an election issue the candidate bringing it up would clearly disqualify himself from the election ... stalemate!

And Roosevelt served 3 terms ...

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

If this was first handled as a request from the president to the elected representatives and turned down and then proposed as a public vote I rest my case ...

And don't you have a two term limit in the US?

So when you fail ignore the constitution and go about firing the people following the law.. got it.

Yes we do for our president.

I'm not ignoring it Kmar ... I'm trying as a true liberal to shed light on the issue from both sides ... so I see it as he could definately be in the wrong here but he could also be trying to change an ancient law that really is in the way of progress for the country of Honduras ...

Laws needs to be redone from time to time and in this case a public vote is close to being the only way to change it seeing as the laws are so clear that even speaking about is against the law ... this is without doubt an issue that goes beyond party politics and would not be an election issue, if it was an election issue the candidate bringing it up would clearly disqualify himself from the election ... stalemate!

And Roosevelt served 3 terms ...

Stupid article is stupid, but still an article.  It is not the presidents job try to change it, in fact, I think they should be the last one to even mention changing it.  The Judiciary branch is the interpreter of the constitution and if it needed to be changed they would allow an amendment to be brought forth that changed the article to something more sensible.  In this case they prevented a President from changing the constitution illegally.

There were no term limits when Roosevelt was President.  It was just a tradition.

As a true conservative, I am having a hard time understanding you words, they are very confusing to me.

Last edited by LividBovine (2009-07-07 01:47:15)