A why question with yes or no answer? Needs options.

If you keep changing the question, who can give the answer you want?

(July 1, 2025 at 12:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's an awfully long winded way to describe the separation of powers

I'll have to review the textural descriptions of the three-part separation

(July 1, 2025 at 12:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: but I'm not seeing an alternative to compare our system to.  Reliable for what, and compared to what?  

It will require a graduated series of local and state constitutional conventions to accomplish.  Here is an example of a six-court convention docket for six-part separation of government that will look like the organizational map below it.


The commissioning of partitions, each with the three processes for specific jurisdictions of law will fulfill what was prescribed by Mr. Madison in the political science scholars' favorite essay, Federalist Papers Number 51; “Each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others, . . . divide the legislature into different (assemblies); and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action.”

The undetected problem is that the bicameral legislative assemblies are not commissioned exclusive jurisdictions of law to guard (principles of action), and that miscalculation surrendered the entire system to flawed partisanship. The addition of the Seventeenth Amendment making the Senate elections public (modes of election) like the House of Representatives captured the All-American duopoly of forever-wavering political parties. The primary doctrine of the duopoly evolved into doing whatever it takes to win public elections in the persistent effort to populate the three branches with partisan alignment to overrule the competing faction, rather than guarding the commission of the branch to check the abuses in the other branches.

Legislative assemblies commissioned for specific jurisdictions of law with graduated appointments are inclined to faction based on the unique aspects associated with the isolated system of law, rather than the general political parties' promises to relieve artificial and frivolous grievances. The Demarcation of Law Separation model with exclusive legislative assemblies and corresponding security departments will further the ambition to provide each partition with “a will of its own,” because each partition will also have separate career paths for their members compared to the shared, narrow, and partisan-favored career paths for the generally commissioned legislatures and consolidated security departments in the executive branch.

OP is trolling, looking for a fight. Move along.

Do you think bad actors couldn't or wouldn't run the same play with six partitions that they have with three? I mean, we're ultimately talking about making government even more burdensome and unwieldy on the hopes that it will be too much of a pain in the ass for anyone to capture the whole thing, right? I think you might be underestimating the will of our owners.

The 3-part system is legit. Perhaps even....a bit too legit.

(July 1, 2025 at 10:00 am)Secular Heckler Wrote:

The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that!

Just ask any civics teacher!

First of all, don't fuckin' yell at me. And I'm pretty solid on civics. Political science was at one time my minor in college.

Secondly, you missed my point, that the checks and balances themselves require buy-in from the politicians to make it work. No system can force people to be both honest and earnest.

(July 1, 2025 at 1:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: First of all, don't fuckin' yell at me. And I'm pretty solid on civics. Political science was at one time my minor in college.

Political science scholars are unwittingly awaiting the Demarcation of Law paradigm. However, because the discipline has enjoyed a surge of student enrollment, novices, and hobbyists during the advent of mass communications, they are awaiting an error code. If there were an error code it might be best to start with the partisan category errors. "Stop playing politics," is the absurd battle cry of the flustered corrupt politician. If “politics” is undesirable, or has limited applications, then the politicians should be inclined to secure a reliable definition, rather than allowing the decades-old rhetorical contradiction to continue confusing civics students into submissive partisan constituents.

Partisan category error occurs in the designations of the parties, as well. The designations do not correlate with the principles of organization. The Republican Party is not based on the principle of improving representation, and the Democratic Party is no where near interested in advancing to a true democracy. Although the parties seem to guard their stances on social issues, there is no obligation to maintain any position on any issue. The insightful political science scholars have described this phenomenon in every political publication and every night on political television about how the corrupt party used to be tolerable, moderate, cooperative, and in favor of the legislative provisions that are currently being debated.

Political science scholars are not scientists, and neither are any of the graduates, or hobbyists. They are theologians, numerologists, psychics, sophists, plagiarists, liars, and fear-mongers. They are the underwater basket weavers that our high school science teachers warned us about. They are not even trying to analyze the formulation of the checks and balances. In the proverbial box, they can only calculate ways of improving their favored partisan control of the erroneously commissioned three branches.

It is the fault of the political science scholars for having not already detected and revealed the miscalculations of the Three-part Separation Theory, inadequacies of the checks and balances, the amendment exception for the separation of government, and the general lack of research and development of government chartering systems. Political science scholars are indirectly responsible for the political chaos, and the media pundits are directly responsible for the social disorderliness, riots, bloodbaths, and civil war that they like to foretell that hides their failures in research and development for the discipline.

(July 1, 2025 at 1:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Secondly, you missed my point, that the checks and balances themselves require buy-in from the politicians to make it work.

That is a delusion derived from the favorable aspects of representative governing theory but nullified by the unidentified inadequacies of the three-branch government.

There is no uniparty, or bipartisan conspiracy to not enforce the Constitution. That is a delusion derived from not understanding that the checks and balances cannot be reliably constructed for a three-branch government. The evolution of the deployment of the three-branch government yields an obvious political strategy to populate the branches with politically aligned personnel to control the checks on power, and the erroneous system is not going to auto-correct itself, or publish an error code. The political parties are clearly in a civil war to control all three branches at all three levels of the government. That is what the simple three-branch government causes the politicians to do to fulfill the citizens' anticipation of political order and justice.

So I'm guessing mom and dad couldn't get enough together for summer camp, so you've got a boring summer ahead?

I suggest nature walks or the local library

(July 1, 2025 at 1:39 pm)Secular Heckler Wrote: That is a delusion derived from the favorable aspects of representative governing theory but nullified by the unidentified inadequacies of the three-branch government.

I guess that ends our discussion, then. Your commitment to rudeness makes it clear that this won't be a productive interchange.

*plonk*