In this VIDEO , by including undemocratic systems in the comparison Justice Scalia seems to suggest that the constitution is the reason not only for the type of implementation of democracy here but also for preserving democracy here in general. However, he himself described the rights given to people in those systems as being just words on papers and I want here to emphasize this same part against the suggestion mentioned above. Unless they contain some magic spell, no words can preserve democracy if the people do not choose to do that. So the answer to what make this country have its democracy, which also must happen for democracy here to be implemented the way it is, is simply the people here. The people here made the difference. The difference did not make them. I do not think that it is a good trade-off to exchange this credit with tagging the self with an external thing for the sake of direct access to the external side of the identity coin. The constitution just provided a starting point. People get the credit for really preserving democracy just like they get the blame for not really following the Second Amendment.
Later, after watching this video, I myself commented on another video, saying that if the founders were not as pioneers in democratic systems it could have been as much probable for them to choose a parliamentary system. But then I questioned my use of the pioneer description there. Clearly there have been more wants for democracy in the world than implementation for it. Therefore, despite the effort put in the constitution to protect democracy, the people who kept that system seems to be as deserving or more to be called pioneers.
No comments:
Post a Comment