Democracy, User's Manual (Republican are not Democrat)

(paragraphs gathered from my last fb posts and comments)

One of the biggest paradoxes of democracy is that law is (how should i say this...) not democratic. I mean, laws, Constitution are usually voted by an elect body of legislators, following democratic elections, referenda, however once laws are voted it all becomes some sort of dictatorship of the law. Which means you usually need to apply the laws as they are dictated and written and voted, including all grammar and stuff. It's not demos kratos anymore, power of the people. It's power of the judges.

Here's an example. The past inhabitants of the upstairs apartment came here with the sole purpose to harass me, and everybody knows that and they believe all the BS that has been told about me for the most part of my life and they also believe it's a normal act of a great democracy to let this happen.

But what can i say. They, including the President, who is an official of the government, are trying to impeach somebody who is not at the time of impeachment an official of the government anymore. As some would say. Mission Impossible (ask any lawyer). But most likely, waste of our precocious quality time when searching for the news.insert

One of the "causes" or inspirations for Declaration of Independence in 1771 and issuing the first ever Constitution in 1790 was the supposed madness (literally mental illness) of King George III who was reigning during both moments.

So "We The People" in 1790 wanted to get rid of the King for ever and invented the new institution of the President.

Periodic election of the President seemed to be an insurance against any madness that may occur in any hereditary monarchy.

But that didn't seem enough to the Congress, and they also wanted to provide a mechanism of removal of the President himself, just in case.

However it is clear to anybody now that the mechanism, that of impeachment through vote of the members of the Congress is again not quite democratic.

Much of the US Constitution has been designed on a model provided by french philosopher Montesquieu who at the center of his ideas had the so called theory of separation of powers in state which are usually three. Executive, Judicial and Legislative.

We have seen now, throughout Trump presidency that Executive power is very limited when it comes to normal every day business of the state. Any judge (of the Judicial branch) can easily overthrow an executive order. That is because the principles of separation of powers that inspired the Constitution do not apply to everyday normal business and we can see here a first aspect of interference the two branches.

Any bill voted by by a simple majority Congress (Legislative) needs to be "signed into law" by the President. Any President may "veto" a bill, or not sign it. However, Congress can overthrow the veto, with a 2/3 majority. Do i see here an interference of the two branches, executive and legislative?

Other examples include all Secretaries of the branches of the Government (that are subordinated and nominated by the President or the Executive) need to be approved by the Congress (the Legislative), all Supreme Court Judges (The Judicial) are nominated by the President (the Executive) etc..

Impeachment seem to copy a judicial process. However, Congress is the Legislative body and not a part (court) of the Judicial (branch of power). More than that, most elected members of Congress do not have a law degree required today for any judge. Out of 500 members of Congress, only 168 Representatives and 57 Senators have a law degree.

And the final and most important legal aspect is the fact that a President is elected through general elections by the majority of the vote of all the people of the US, and could not be possibly removed juridically by only a tiny number of the members of a majority in Congress.

The problems lays with the theory itself, with its main contradiction right at the abstract level: "Separation of powers is a doctrine of constitutional law under which the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate. This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches."

If powers are separate and real, they cannot "check and balance" (read nullify) each other.

Needless to say. After the assassination of king Louis XVI France wast under masonic rule. All "philosophers" of the French Revolution and all other revolutions that came after were obviously masons and we all know that masons do not really value philosophy. Here are some examples of masonic "philosophy".

"Freemasonry is a Western Mystery Tradition – originates with the giants of Greek Philosophy."

"Freemasonry itself, a philosophy of Logic and Reason that encouraged the individual to form a personal ethical system and obey it ruthlessly and without compromise." 

"Francis Bacon, polymath, court spy and philosopher extraordinaire was also rumored to be a member of both the Rosicrucian Society and the Freemasons and his work The New Atlantis has left historians and Masonic scholars alike with many puzzling clues as to the true origin of his philosophy." Freemasons would go only so far and say "rumored" when publicly talking about brethren membership. "The New Atlantis", one more confirmation that racial supremacy started with them.

https://www.universalfreemasonry.org/en/masonic-philosophy-freemasonry

Separation of powers itself as expression of democracy - power of the people or state of the people - is dubious and gives only the illusion or appearance of democracy. No matter how many branches of government or powers you create, they will still be in a limited number when compared to the numbers of the electorate. Within branches, power will still be concentrated in the hands of a few. Judging by the number of mandates of most known, real politicians or times they have been elected, or years in power, those are usually the same, for life. Instead of having only one king, now you have a whole bunch of supermen and superwomen marching on the Capitol's floor carrying their super article of impeachment of an ex-President. I call it politocracy.

There would be no suspicion of a king possibly going mad or under foreign influence as this could not possibly happen with a large number of "independent" politicians. Unless... Unless if they're all of the same foreign origin. But that would be incredible.