Just watched this to help in my essay about whether or not Athenian democracy can be a suitable alternative to liberal democracy, great video and extremely useful so thank you massively! If you have any advice or ideas for where to look re: my essay I'd love to hear them, if not don't worry about it! Thank you once again, great video!
!!!**I Am Truly Happy To Be #AStudentAtTheClintonSchoolOfPUBLICSERVICE - My Graduate Studies Online. To Learn More About Our American Civil Society. How To Make Democracy Work For Every American??. "Thank God For My Wonderful Professors". However, I Am Deeply Troubled By Our Current Democracy That Seems To Be In #CrisisMode. !!So Help Us God!!. I Really Do Believe In Our Democratic Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi - "The Number Three To Our Presidencial Seat". And Her Power To Keep Things Together In Our State Of The Union, As A Solution To The Current Crisis. By The Same Token - ["No One Is Above The Law Of Any Land In Any Nation"]. Therefore, The United States Congress Must Act On The Rule Of Law That Governs Us All and The Constitution. Hence - America Needs Prayer**!!!
Why isn't the supreme court directly elected by voters? After all, their decisions are political in nature and citizens should be able to choose who sits on the court.
The idea is that SCOTUS is supposed to be insulated from politics and the warping effects of political campaigns (i.e., party affiliation, fundraising for advertising, influence by special interest groups, etc.) and free to focus on the legal merits of cases based on their unbiased expertise -- the rationale being that justice based on the Constitition should be nonpartisan, fair and separated from short-term political considerations. Hence the lifetime appointments and the president's choice being confirmed by the Senate as a check and balance. It wasn't until very recently that the appointment of Supreme Court justices became highly politicized.
@@scytale6 Anything that has an impact on public policy or the lives of people in the public sphere inherently has a political impact, this is true. However, decisions on constitutional jurisprudence, as defined in our system, need to be made based on what the Constitution means, what the law means, and how those laws should operate -- there are clearly political implications for those decisions, but they are a by-product of the process. If SCOTUS needed to be elected and re-elected, then you turn the Court into a body that is obligated to act in ways that voters request (based on their votes). Decisions become "what outcomes do the people want at this moment, such that I can be re-elected?" Remember, at various points in history sizable majorities or pluralities of US voters accepted slavery and Jim Crow laws, legally sanctioned discrimination and unfair treatment based on gender, depriving the poor of fair trials, etc. The Constitution's Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are largely designed to protect the rights of all in the face of what the majority might otherwise impose on them. The best way to ensure that the Constitution works in the face of a tyranny of the majority is to give the justices freedom from having to answer to voters (and parties, and special interest campaign donors, etc.). It's certainly not a perfect system (as the past few years have demonstrated), but it's better than the alternative. Imagine the state of constitutional law changing every few years depending on which political party happens to meet the mood of the public at that time. It would be utter chaos.
@@stephenklien Why didn't the supreme court declare slavery unconstitutional? Did the current generation of the american people give their assent to the constitutionality of rulings such as Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade?
@@scytale6 Slavery was not, in fact, unconstitutional until the 13th Amendment was ratified -- its legality was actually written into the original document (i.e., the "3/5 compromise" on congressional representation). And SCOTUS rulings are not supposed to be up to popular assent -- that's the whole point of keeping SCOTUS structurally apolitical. The state of the Constitution shouldn't be up to the changing whims of public opinion. The public has the capacity to influence the court by electing those who choose and confirm its members, but that's it (and that's why the Republican party has worked so hard for generations to get in the positions necessary to make enduring appointments to the federal bench). After that, the rule of law (vs. popular political mood) requires a more stable, protected process. Trust me, you don't want your constitutional rights changing every few years based on which side happens to be more popular at the time.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Just watched this to help in my essay about whether or not Athenian democracy can be a suitable alternative to liberal democracy, great video and extremely useful so thank you massively! If you have any advice or ideas for where to look re: my essay I'd love to hear them, if not don't worry about it! Thank you once again, great video!
Came across this while prepping for comps - great stuff Dr. Klien!
Thanks, Josh!
guruji can you plz make a video for theories of justice?
would be sincerely grateful
excellent explanation
vishal Thank you!
!!!**I Am Truly Happy To Be #AStudentAtTheClintonSchoolOfPUBLICSERVICE - My Graduate Studies Online. To Learn More About Our American Civil Society. How To Make Democracy Work For Every American??. "Thank God For My Wonderful Professors". However, I Am Deeply Troubled By Our Current Democracy That Seems To Be In #CrisisMode. !!So Help Us God!!. I Really Do Believe In Our Democratic Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi - "The Number Three To Our Presidencial Seat". And Her Power To Keep Things Together In Our State Of The Union, As A Solution To The Current Crisis. By The Same Token - ["No One Is Above The Law Of Any Land In Any Nation"]. Therefore, The United States Congress Must Act On The Rule Of Law That Governs Us All and The Constitution. Hence - America Needs Prayer**!!!
Why isn't the supreme court directly elected by voters? After all, their decisions are political in nature and citizens should be able to choose who sits on the court.
The idea is that SCOTUS is supposed to be insulated from politics and the warping effects of political campaigns (i.e., party affiliation, fundraising for advertising, influence by special interest groups, etc.) and free to focus on the legal merits of cases based on their unbiased expertise -- the rationale being that justice based on the Constitition should be nonpartisan, fair and separated from short-term political considerations. Hence the lifetime appointments and the president's choice being confirmed by the Senate as a check and balance. It wasn't until very recently that the appointment of Supreme Court justices became highly politicized.
@@stephenklien But SCOTUS makes political decisions. Doesn't this negate the idea of it's being insulated from politics?
@@scytale6 Anything that has an impact on public policy or the lives of people in the public sphere inherently has a political impact, this is true. However, decisions on constitutional jurisprudence, as defined in our system, need to be made based on what the Constitution means, what the law means, and how those laws should operate -- there are clearly political implications for those decisions, but they are a by-product of the process. If SCOTUS needed to be elected and re-elected, then you turn the Court into a body that is obligated to act in ways that voters request (based on their votes). Decisions become "what outcomes do the people want at this moment, such that I can be re-elected?" Remember, at various points in history sizable majorities or pluralities of US voters accepted slavery and Jim Crow laws, legally sanctioned discrimination and unfair treatment based on gender, depriving the poor of fair trials, etc. The Constitution's Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are largely designed to protect the rights of all in the face of what the majority might otherwise impose on them. The best way to ensure that the Constitution works in the face of a tyranny of the majority is to give the justices freedom from having to answer to voters (and parties, and special interest campaign donors, etc.). It's certainly not a perfect system (as the past few years have demonstrated), but it's better than the alternative. Imagine the state of constitutional law changing every few years depending on which political party happens to meet the mood of the public at that time. It would be utter chaos.
@@stephenklien Why didn't the supreme court declare slavery unconstitutional? Did the current generation of the american people give their assent to the constitutionality of rulings such as Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade?
@@scytale6 Slavery was not, in fact, unconstitutional until the 13th Amendment was ratified -- its legality was actually written into the original document (i.e., the "3/5 compromise" on congressional representation). And SCOTUS rulings are not supposed to be up to popular assent -- that's the whole point of keeping SCOTUS structurally apolitical. The state of the Constitution shouldn't be up to the changing whims of public opinion. The public has the capacity to influence the court by electing those who choose and confirm its members, but that's it (and that's why the Republican party has worked so hard for generations to get in the positions necessary to make enduring appointments to the federal bench). After that, the rule of law (vs. popular political mood) requires a more stable, protected process. Trust me, you don't want your constitutional rights changing every few years based on which side happens to be more popular at the time.
Thanks !
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.