[Cons] Article 1, Section 4 - Foxes and the HenHouse

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

So our holy holy holy constitution is supposed to be so awesome because it allows for a system of checks and balances, right?  So...how example is CONGRESS setting the law for elections and states for itself a check? I mean, think on this....if Congress passed a law that said, "and behold every election shall be held for one second in my house" how would that fly? Now, a law that did this is in theory reviewable by the courts and the executive, but the constitution doesn't actually give law interpretation to the court, just the implication, and if you had 2/3rds of the Reagan Reality in charge and they wanted to ensure that Democrats could never get control of the legislature again, why wouldn't they do this?

Also, the argument that someone would not do this is ludicrous.  Look at Reagan Party members who are seeking to rig the presidential election by splitting states with gerrymandered districts? As if people in Red States were more entitlted to federal voting power than the majority.

And if we must choose a minority to rule us, why would we want it to be red states?  People in red states think NOTHING is an acceptable medical alternative to help the poor.  I'm sorry 'emergency rooms'....because that's a great health care system.  This is the kind of country these people want.

Replacements:

1) Let the Executive Decide: The President sets the election by fiat. 

Strengths: Like any system, it works great.  So did the trains under Mousilini.

Weaknesses: The President gains tremendous power over the legislative branch.  He can make it effectively non existent, and even in other cases, he can leave a legislature he likes in power for nigh forever or tilt it in favor of his party.

2) Let the Judicial Decide: The judiciary either appoints someone, or simply makes rulings.

Strengths: In a flexible system the judiciary could be anything but by and large in a non dictatorship or Reagan Reality society, the judiciary tends to be the most fair of the three branches.  Fair means elections get set up to work for the people, rather than private interests.

Weaknesses: Less than letting the legislature or executive decide this.  However, in an electronic democracy, this would simply be another opportunity for corruption.  So in an old school Constitutional Republic, the judiciary is the best overseer for this, but it would be a nightmare for more advanced societies.

3) Independent - A totally independent branch of government does just elections with appointments done much like the federal reserve.

Strengths: Stability in the system.  It will be VERY stable.  While it works it will work VERY well with all of the strengths of both the Judicial and Executive options. 

Weaknesses: However, when it turns rancid it will be VERY rancid...a Bush or Palin style appointee in this system could reak much havok.

4) Verdict - I think the Judicial branch is the best place to put this most important of constitutional safegaurds.  Then in order of preference it is Independent, Executive and finally legislative. The only thing that would be better than all of this would be a legislative with a 10 year timelock to change things.

[News] Rising Powers and the end...or beginning of International Law

So this article about how the Falklands is the unhealthy obsession with slightly more than half of Argentianians and how the president of Argentina is willing to bring it up with the Pope, shows that international law as a norm might be under threat.  But let us be honest here, international law is really an agreed to hegemony between major world powers, which largely consisted of the United States and Europe, and most of the rising powers do not share that same geographical heritage. 

It does not speak well for the peace of nations...because the old guard all has nukes...and the new guard is getting them.  This has lead to some acceptable norms.  Granted, those norms blatantly favored the old regimes, but they more or less worked on a diplomatic front.  Imperialism was a thing of the past...but Argentina wants its own imperialism.  So does China.  Rising powers need military vindication to prove their status, they need a war victory. 

This is as old as human history.  The 20th century and institutions such as the United Nations and the League of Nations were supposed to change this pattern.  To some degree they did, but the United Nations was made largely unfunctional by design and certainly by execution through the veto power of the security council and its permanent members.  There is no provision in international law for rising powers....well, there is, but it seems to be not adding permanent security council members.  India is now far more a power than France, but it isn't on the board, nor is Brazil. 

This lack of respect by the international community is part of the reason all of South America is lining up behind the Argentinian Imperialism, and how many anti americans around the world are able to use the same kind of Pretzle Logic that American conservatives use to justify how Argentianian Imperialism now is any different than British Imperialism two centuries ago.

However this article gives me some hope.  First, that nations that have up to now been stomped by the old guard are fighting back, and are willing to challenge the status quo to do so, but they are also trying to use international institutions first, or at least international protocols.  India, at the least, seems to say it cares about international law.  Of course, so does China and so does Imperial Argentina, but they only care about international laws so far as they apply to them.

Then again, so does the old guard.  How will these protocols stand up to this conflict?  Will we survive? The next few decades...hell...the next decade, will prove rather interesting.

But if they are strengthened to allow diplomacy, rather than force of arms, a chance to succeed, does that mean that the Republican War Criminals of the United States...and perhaps even their Democratic Enablers will be held to an international tribunal? And if they are...will they be capable of discerning between covert strikes against a hostile power that harbors terrorists within its borders and someone who orders troops to instigate tortures against third party nationals?

We shall see.