Is the U.S. a dictatorship?

Great Debates
1

Is the U.S. a dictatorship?

I always understood that people had unalienable rights and that governments were instituted to secure these rights. I always understood that these were the founding principles, the precedence, of the United States of America and its Constitution.

I also understood that Justice was the balance between the Rights of the Accused and the Rights of the Plaintiff; that Justice was the balance of Truth and law.

Now, I am told I am wrong. I am told that Justice is and must be bound by law. I am told that the job of a judge is not to seek Truth or Justice; it is only to interpret the law; that law dictates Justice.

Does this make the U.S. a dictatorship of the law?

Peace
Only through Liberty
rwjefferson

2

:dubious:

Please explain what in the world you mean. That was a rather vague post.

3

No. The law can be changed by a vote of the people. A dictator can’t.

We’re not a dictatorship of the Constitution, either.

I hope that clears things up for you.

4

No, the law doesn’t dictate justice. (At least not in the sense of “fairness”, which is what I take it you mean.) To accept that, we’d have to accept that slavery was just up until the point where it became illegal, a claim that (I hope) most people would find utterly absurd.

Rather, the Congress makes laws based (in part) on their understanding of what is or isn’t just. It is then the job of the courts to determine what is or is not in compliance with these laws. It is not, generally speaking, the job of the courts to determine what is or is not just. (Again, taking “just” to basically mean “fair” or “right”.)

You seem to be suggesting that if judges don’t have the power to determine what is or is not “justice”, then the U.S. is a dictatorship. That’s ridiculous. How is an appointed judge making that decision intrinsically any more fair than having the decision made by an elected representative? I personally think that there would be some benefit in giving more discretionary power to the people examining things case-by-case, rather than relying on the forsight of those who made the general rule. But a less-than-perfect system does not a dictatorship make.

I’m quite liberal, and thus quite unhappy with the direction our leaders are taking us, but to suggest the U.S. is a dictatorship is laughable.

5

No.

Regards,
Shodan

6

Dictator does not mean what you think it means.

Any government that denies Liberty is a dictatorship, even if it is the dictatorship of the majority. Even if one tyranny is “better” than another, it is still tyranny. I hope that clears it up for you.

Do you consider yourself more of a tyrant or an apologist for tyranny?

rwj

7

You’ve made up your own definition. Wouldn’t it be better for you to define your terms at the start of your thread?

Put me down as another vote for “no.” We don’t live in a real dictatorship, and I don’t think we live in your phony version of one either.

8

Can you give us some examples? Sounds like there’s a story behind this.

9

I’ll put in a hearty ‘no’.

Just so we are working with a standard definition:

dic·ta·tor·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dk-ttr-shp, dkt-)
n.
The office or tenure of a dictator.
A state or government under dictatorial rule.
Absolute or despotic control or power.

Is the US ‘the office or tenure of a dictator’? No, we have an elected government represented by the people who have set temporal limits on their elected offices.

Is the US ‘A state or government under dictatorial rule’? Not that I’m aware of…see above.

Is the US an ‘Absolute or despotic control or power’? Again, not that I’m aware of…see such things as the ammendment process.

You’ll need to do a bit better framing your debate rwjefferson to show why we should even consider the US a dictatorship…or you’ll just be dismissed out of hand and we’ll ge a round of folks cutting up about seals or left handed anabaptists or something before the thread is finally closed (and just when I was about to finally say something really witty…for once. Was nearly there in the White Bear thread but it was closed before I could unleash).

-XT

10

Judges are bound by laws. Laws are enacted by legislators. Legislators are chosen by the populace. Therefore, the United States is not a dictatorship.

Unless, of course, you have your own pet political theory and it suits your purpose to redefine words from their normal meaning to one that better suits your purpose. In which case, you can claim that the United States is a dictatorship, a monarchy, or a zebra. But your claims will not convince anyone else.

11

But the US doesn’t deny liberty. You are equating any governmental authority with tyranny. Explain how your system, in which you enshrine “juistice” above the law is not a tyranny. Why isn’t it a tryanny of the judges?

Do you consider yourself more of a wife beater or an apologist for wife beaters?

12

It was law dictating “justice” that allowed slavery and Jim Crow. Jim Crow was a dictatorship (tyranny) of the majority, a dictatorship of the law. Please tell me again how it was not.

By definition, any government that does not secure the Rights of its Citizens is a tyranny, a dictatorship. I will consider different words; but these words best reflect my understanding of the Spirit in the Declaration or Independence.

I was told in an earlier thread, that it was not the job of our judges, not even our Supreme Court Judges, to secure these rights.

By my definition, loss of these rights is tyranny and dictatorship; even if it is accepted by the majority; even if it occurs by constitution.

If U.S. Justice is indeed based on unalienable rights, there will be no dictatorship. It is clear that that it hasn’t always been the case. I am not convinced it is the case now.

I am not convinced that rights are not still being arbitrarily denied. I would guess that even now there are citizens that honor liberty and equality (certainly more than certain posters) that feel that they are treated as second class citizens.

Peace
Only through Liberty
rwj

13

At this point, I’d have to ask the OP what wouldn’t be a dictatorship, since his definition covers everything from Oliver Cromwell to the South Cleveland Junior Bowling League.

14

Apparantly it isn’t a dictatorship if we all agree to everything his way.

15

First of all, it is to a certain degree. Every branch of government is charged with upholding the Constitution. Each does so in a different way. It is not, however, the sole or exclusive puyrview, nor the sole guiding principle of any of them.

You seem to be making a rather big jump from an imperfect application of rights to assuming that this makes a dictatorship.

16

.

There is overriding Truth that gives just powers to the Constitution:
All are equal.
All have unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit

If the Constitution fails to secure these rights, it is unjust, it is not legitimate. I am not convinced all judges understand this. I am convinced most politicians do not.

How is it tyranny if an educated and knowledgeable judge does his best to balance the rights of the plaintiff against the rights of the accused (using the law of the guide)?

I was told that this was not the job of a judge.

Horse feathers

I have not implied I would limit unalienable rights by unjust law. Your posts seem to show a certain blindness to reality. I hope I have clarified my position.

Peace
rwj

rwj

17

Have you figured it out yet?
rwj

18

I see that you earlier mentioned the Declaration of Independence. Given your statement above, maybe it will help to point out that the Declaration Of Independence states,
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

So the Supreme Court is not charged with securing those rights, it is The Government, of which the SC is one of three branches: Presidential, Legislative, and Judicial. Congress is the branch charged with making those laws. The role of (ordinary) judges is to hand down rulings based on the law. At times, the Supreme Court may be asked to review whether the laws passed by Congress and applied by judges are in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

There have been bad SC judgements handed down over the decades. There will, no doubt, be more in the future. A lot of people would say that the SC’s recent ruling regarding Eminent Domain was ill-considered.

I think the basic difference to point out, based on your post, is that the U.S. is a country of laws, not men. A dictatorship, as has been pointed out by others, is the rule of the whim of man. A particular man. (Or woman.)

If we don’t like the laws are how they are applied we can vote the men and women who happen to be in power out of office. Not so with a dictator.

I don’t know if that helps, but I hope it does. A lawyer or Constitutional scholar can, I’m sure, offer a better description.

19

How much tyranny (dictatorship) do you find acceptable?

rwj

20

Marx speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Putin speaks of his rule as the dictatorship of law. He is proud of that fact.

If a despotic majority backs despotic office holders, we cannot. It is quite easy for a democracy or democratic republic to become a dictatorship of the majority.

I appreciate your comments, but I stand by my definitions and interpretations.

rwj