ol·i·gar·chy n. pl. ol·i·gar·chies

1. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
2. Those making up such a government.
3. A state governed by a few persons.

re·pub·lic n.

1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

de·moc·ra·cy n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

com·mu·nism n.

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

So which one of the four above do you feel you see more of in the United States of America today?

If you follow many court decisions made today, your answer will be the first — Oligarchy. If you watch the MSM and follow editorial pages of many “big-city” newspapers, you might answer the third — Communism. But the real answer is supposed to be the second, a republic.

This country was founded on control being with the people. The government was set up with checks and balances. However, when a judge declares that “It is without question an invasion of the authority of the judicial branch for the Legislature to pass a law that allows the executive branch to interfere with the final judicial determination in a case,” then you can see that the judicial branch believes that we live in an oligarchy.

Indeed, judicial power is relatively unchecked. This is why many liberals have focused on obtaining power in the judicial branch — they are (in many cases) unelected, appointed for life, and completely uncontrollable.

The case that brings this most to light is Terri Schiavo’s case in Florida. Without going into the details of the case, realize that this case is not about Terri Schiavo. It has not been for a long time. Instead, this is a struggle about who determines the laws of the land. The justices made a ruling, and all the judicial branch has circled their wagons, annoyed that the legislature would DARE challenge their ruling. There is no judiciary in the land that will overturn this case — they realize that if they do, they will admit that the legislature and the executive branch do actually have a way to check their judicial authority.

In the most recent ruling, the Supreme Court refused to even comment on the case. Remember — this is not about Terri, this is about control. Since Terri’s enemies have succeeded in court, she will likely be murdered by her husband. If Jeb Bush had guts, he’s have the man arrested for murder. But the courts, in exercising their supreme authority, would likely let him go free.

Judges should be elected, and none should be appointed for life. Otherwise, we do live in an oligarchy.

Said Ogre @ 6:41 am | Permalink   

1. What type of Government?
   So what type of government do you think we have in the United States of America? Go here to read what I think the answer is.

   Trackback by Ogre's Politics and Views — 1/25/2005 @ 6:48 am

---

2. I think we have a slowly fading democracy — a representative democracy form of republic.

   But it appears we are slipping toward an oligarchy. As more and more special interests pump more and more money into the political process — through campaign donations and lobbying — the average Joe has less and less say.

   And don’t give me the “free speech” argument about campaign donations. The big givers give almost equally to both sides. But even doing this, the return on their investment can be 1000-1 if they get legislation that benefits their special interest.

   Look through a list of what Congress actually votes on — not the bills they propose. Look at the bills and you’ll see tons of things for special interests: telecom bills, banking bills, bankruptcy reform, etc. Very few that really deal with the public interest. In fact, Sen John McCain told me that when the Senate began debate on his campaign finance reform bill — it was the first non-budgetary bill the Senate had taken up in that session of Congress that did not deal with a special interest. And the special interests pretty much ruined the intent of that law.

   Even public interest types of bills are now being written with special interests in mind. The Social Security privatization idea — which has had mixed results in the 22 countries that use the plan — is designed to pump hundreds of trillions of dollars into Wall Street firms over the coming century. Guess who the biggest givers to both parties have been over the last 15 years? Try the finance sector. They’ve spent less than a billion on all candidates they’ve donated to.

   Their return could come to 10,000 to 1 if they get what they want.

   Again, ideas like a national sales tax directly benefit the finance sector. But it could be devastating to manufacturing, actually driving the price of cars through the roof. The auto industry hasn’t been giving as much money as Wall Street.

   Wanna bet how Congress votes? Follow the money.

   Comment by Terry Turner — 1/25/2005 @ 2:40 pm

---

3. The average Joes have even less say than you imply — with unchecked gerrymandering without term limits, politicians are free to choose their constituents, instead of the other way around.

   Comment by Ogre — 1/26/2005 @ 7:58 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website