I used to think of unelected political power as an outdated, archaic concept that should be done away with. But after seeing the horrors that “democracy” has been responsible for lately, a lawmaking body composed of non-elected, lifelong members suddenly makes a lot more sense.
A constitutional safeguard with lawmakers that are not at the mercy of voters could prevent unconstitutional laws from being passed just because the majority of voters (or elected lawmakers) want them.
Voters and elections can be manipulated. Congressmen and senators vote for laws with elections in mind. “Will voting for this bill help or hurt my chances at reelection?” Wise, unpopular laws don’t pass; stupid popular laws do.
There is a need for a lawmaking body that is NOT afraid of voters, one that does not have an incentive to simply pass a law based on merit of its popularity.
Presidential appointees won’t work either. They’re even worse; they work for the vote of one person. When an uniformed, reckless majority has the power to elect anyone they want, having presidential appointee lawmakers is like taking chunks of a tumor and having them grafted into your other organs.
Of course, absolute power corrupts. A lawmaking body comprised entirely of non-elected officials would be just as bad, and probably even worse. But in my opinion, both are essential.
Elected lawmakers to prevent the tyranny of the minority, and lifetime office-holders, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Or would the whole problem be easily addressed by throwing more veto power around? Would that cripple the lawmaking process? Committees suck at reaching consensus.
I haven’t given this that much thought, and I’m sure this would have its own challenges. But democracy, in its purest sense? It’s gotta go.
Data shows that for the avg person the chance to use a gun against a criminal is a once in a lifetime event.
— Touré (@Toure) February 21, 2013
Well, life is ALSO a once in a lifetime event. Ever think of that?
“What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion?”
The Postal Service has announced that it will no longer deliver mail on Saturdays. According to Rep. Elijah Cummings, this decision would disproportionally hurt minority groups.
Why, you ask?
“You’re talking about just this reduction … from six days to five days will cut anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000 employees.”
And? Where does the magic word (minority groups) fit into this?
“So it’s logical to believe if they were to lose that 30,000 jobs, easily 40 percent of them would be African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans.”
So what is disproportional about that? If minorities make up 40% of the workforce, wouldn’t it be completely proportional that 40% of those who (unfortunately) lose their job would be minorities. If not that, what would be proportional, Rep. Cummings?
Would it be more proportional if only 20% of those about to lose their job were minorities?
Maybe stop sending white people mail altogether?
“Eep, minorty, the minority.. minority groups… race… racial minority… eep… bloop…
Read more here.