RE: Democracy?

["Hegge, Roy" <Roy_Hegge@adc.com>]

	>Roy;
	>
	>  How do you think Lincoln would have fared, with a recall vote, on the 
	>issue of slavery? Do you believe that the masses can be (and often are) 
	>very wrong, swayed by emotion, irrelevancies, prejudice and fear? I 
	>understand the frustration over a stadium vote. But when it comes to 
	>congress, we're talking about some important issues.

	After thinking about this a while, I think that Lincoln probably would have fared quite well.  Afterall, 
	he did not fight the civil war alone.  The federal rosters outnumbered the confederate by quite a bit.
	But a recall of the president is not what I had in mind, as we already have that capability through the
	impeachment process.   And as I stated, allowing recall does not mean mob rule and quiting our 
	fundamental tenants of law.  As Lynn pointed out, it is a tool that could be subject to abuse.  But isn't 
	any process vulnerable to subversion by those individuals who tend to be of that nature?  I think that 
	recall is one change that would add accountability to a system that tends to not have much these days.

	>  Clearly, based on what we are seeing, the cockroaches scurrying for cover 
	>in the Senate are not fit to conduct an impeachment trial. The 7th 
	>amendment denuded them of their ability to think, apparently. Originally, 
	>the Senate was appointed by, and was accountable to, the state 
	>legislatures. I think it was a terrible mistake to ever change that. They 
	>cannot be the deliberative body the the founders envisioned when they are 
	>blown about by every political wind. I hope history's hand deals them all 
	>the derision they so richly deserve. And they are clearly frightened of the 
	>polls, which I believe are being misread. I don't think most Americans care 
	>one way or the other if Clinton is removed from office. If he was removed 
	>from office tomorrow, there would be nary a ripple. All the polls say is, 
	>"Hey, don't mess up my life!" End of story.

	I think most people realize that if Clinton were kicked out of office, their life would not change much.  And
	they also realize that they have little input into whether it happens or not.  Hence the apathy.  But I think
	that a lot of people side with the President because they think that he's getting a raw deal.  They care in
	the sense that they think it would be wrong to kick him out.  They don't care if it happens or not 'cause
	it will not affect them much either way.

	>  Could the way our government was originally set up by the founders be 
	>improved upon? Yes, in the sense that they could have added more safeguards 
	>to keep the state in check. Unfortunately, they didn't have quite the 
	>foresight to require a 3/4ths majority in congress to raise taxes, impose 
	>universal term limits, and make certain constitutional clauses more 
	>explicit in terms of articulating the concept of enumerated rights. But 
	>other than that, I think they did an inspired job. It is too bad we have so 
	>denigrated those principles over the past 50 years, to the point where so 
	>many Americans think the state owes them something other than the 
	>opportunity to take charge of their lives and do something with them.

	I agree, Greg.   

	Thanks,

	Roy