BATF violated federal law by creating a database of private gun ownership

[barnbwt]

Careful, Buck460XVR, use of common colorful colloquialisms can get you a warning 'round these parts even if you replace the offending words

a violation and the ignoring of rule #4 in the Forum's code of conduct

If Frank wishes to interpret my comments as baseless garbage, that's his prerogative as moderator; I do however think he should have simply deleted them rather than toss his own spleen into the mix as well (I must say, I've never heard or written that word so many times in my life ) as opposed to inflaming the issue. But whatever.

Or does it matter if one is a Mod or a regular poster?

It should; they certainly have a lot more investment in this place than I do.

Okay, one might "think"....

You don't think these results merit further inquiry? Okay. I suppose I wouldn't either if I was the regulator or the ATF, since doing so would doubtless raise a lot of paperwork, and even this feeble oversight is already in excess of a hundred pages.

The ATF has 16 systems to keep track of one thing. It sounds like any possible law breaking shouldn't be the story here.

Fair is fair; the ATF has good reasons for doing this (not sure if it needs to be quite 16, but whatever). One system is the 'stolen gun' list, one is the multi-purchasers list, one is the list of records kept when an FFL goes under, one is the machinegun registry*, one for the multiple long-gun purchases in border states, likely one for each class of NFA item, likely one for guns recovered from crime scenes, and likely one for all those records blanket-copied from still-active FFLs despite there being no legal reason for doing so. The issue isn't that they track these things, the issue is they are retaining personally-identifiable purchase information (10,000 records in the multi-purchaser list alone; anyone happen to know what fraction of the total number of annual records that is? Two handguns in a week seems like it'd be fairly uncommon) despite endless promises by the ATF and gun-banners in general that there was no such thing going on.

Basically, we have here the **evidence** needed to contradict their assurances that UBC's won't turn into a de facto registry, that the ATF can be trusted with even NICS info without trying to turn it into a registry, that the Bureau deserves anything but to be either dissolved into the FBI or kept on an incredibly restrictive leash.

The issue is the breach of trust rolleyes more so than the violation of statutes that probably don't even have any consequences if prosecuted. As I said, the sort of thing that gets your funding slashed, rather than B Todd Jones perp-walked out to a squad car (as satisfying as that would be). And the reason, of course, is any investigation into the matter would undoubtedly find that "no one" and "everyone" was responsible, same as it ever was.

I do not want this to sound critical, but that takes us back to my question.

http://www.gao.gov/legal/anti-deficiency-act/about
The GAO makes a report, and delivers it to congress/president as they have here. Those two are supposed to determine how many spankings the offending agency gets (which appears to be quite open-ended and left to a plethora of other laws & regulations depending on the case). So what's your point, Kleanbore? Obama & the ATF want this database power anyway, so they won't push the issue, and congress is unlikely to do much besides 'harumpf' on their own, if that. It's up to we the bilious and splenetic D) to agitate the phelgmatic D) congress into doing something; my personal remedy for their transgressions would be a restriction of funds for maintaining these databases (all of them) for some period of time, along with an accelerated schedule of oversight audits. Thoughts?

TCB

*which as usual was absent from this oversight, just as it has been free of any and all oversight since its inception. The MG Registry has never been reviewed or audited, though Hollis v Lynch/Holder seeks to shed some light on this for the first time with its discovery requests (the theory is that either by accident or through political graft, highly valuable transferable MGs produced after 1986 have been added to the registry at Bureau officials' discretion)

 

[Frank Ettin]

So what you're saying is the 9th & 10th (and perhaps soon the 2nd) are in practice theoretical restraints with few practical implications, as seen by fed court decisions to not uphold them. I can "agree" this is reality, I cannot see anyone accepting this as proper. Can the SCOTUS issue an incorrect ruling, Frank, or does their authority literally make them infallible in your view?.....

The question of infallibility is a red herring.

First, there is the threshold question of whether the federal courts have properly applied the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. You apparently don't think so. But as extensively discussed here, the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to decide case arising under the Constitution, so in a practical way the decision is theirs and not yours.

Second, the great myth that the judiciary acts with no constraint whatsoever.

What courts do is in the public eye, and judges function in a fish bowl. They must justify their decisions, and those justifications are subject to public scrutiny and criticism. The decisions of trial court judges are subject to review on appeal. The decisions of appellate courts are made by a majority of a multi-judge panel.

Every judicial organization, e. g., the aggregate of the California state courts, has a supervisor committee of judges, usually called a "judicial council" which has a wide range of responsibilities associated with the conduct of business by the courts, including monitoring of the conduct and behaviors of judges. Such judicial councils can, and have, intervened in cases of severely aberrant behavior or egregious misconduct by a judge.

And then there is a fundamental human reality: people, other than sociopaths and psychopaths, are concerned about their reputations, especially among their peers. Professionals like doctors, lawyers, judges, etc., who have studied and worked hard and long to achieve some level of success and prominence in their professions tend to care both about being professionally respected by their peers, and the usages and traditions of their professions. There is such a thing as [professional] conscience, and in the real world that is a constraint.

In every profession there are bad apples. That is the way of humanity. But in real life the vast majority of doctors try very hard to be honest and diligent in their professional lives and to properly and competently practice their profession. The same can be said of lawyers and judges.

It's true that bad things can happen to lousy doctors, lawyer or judges. They can be stymied in reaching their professional and economic goals. They can lose their licenses or positions. In extreme cases they can go to jail. Some have suffered all those bad outcomes.

Sometimes patients die (as people, especially sick people, will do). Sometimes lawyers lose (and often because their clients were in the wrong). Sometimes we might not like the result of a judge's decision (but maybe what we really need to think about is changing the law). Nonetheless, the vast majority of the time doctors, lawyers and judges are trying hard to do things properly.

And the judiciary, as other branches of government, is still subject to checks and balances. So if a judge's decision is unsatisfactory, the ball might well be in the court of the legislature.

So third, we have the separation of powers and checks and balances.

It's not the proper role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. It can sometimes be argued that in a given case the law was not properly applied, or the result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to some. We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.

I often cite the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) as an example of this phenomenon. It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result. "Checks and balances" at work.

Fourth, there is always the possibility of amending the Constitution. That's a difficult thing to do, and the Founding Fathers set things up that way. But if can be done, and has been done, when the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling are sufficiently unsatisfactory.

Perhaps the clearest, and most unhappy, example is the income tax. In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. ( 157 U.S. 429 (1895) ; 158 U.S. 601 (1895)) that the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to levy a tax on income. But national solvency was a significant concern that the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In reality, opinions by definition are not required to be based on fact or evidence, kinda why they are opinions....

The definition of "opinion" does not require that it be based on fact or evidence:

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem

2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view

3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert

b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

But as has been said here many times before: all opinions aren't equal. Opinions based on knowledge, expertise, and evidence are worth much more than opinions pulled out of the air.

 

[buck460XVR]

Buck, there is a world of difference between criticizing an argument and making accusations about one who makes argument.

Of course, one must accept that "your bile" refers to the argument.

Which it most certainly does.

My point was that Frank had the facts and a very sound argument in favor for his case. He did not need to go the "bile and spleen" route. Sorry, but for most folks, the minute the name calling and the condescending statements start to come, they tend ignore any truth/facts coming from the same source. It's just human nature. I wholly agreed with Frank and his argument in the beginning of this thread. Once he started with the negative condescending statements, started to puff out his chest and look down his nose at folks with differing opinions he lost me. As I said, opinions by definition are not based on facts or evidence. Many times they are based on based on emotion and individual experience. In the case of Gun forums, many times it what folks want to hear or what they have heard from others who have expressed their opinions. While one should correct folks when they get their facts wrong, they really are entitled to their opinions and regardless of what those opinions are, they do have worth. Correcting facts pleasantly works much better than telling folks their opinions are worthless and they are nuttin' but Bile and Spleen. Hard for folks to respect others when they are being disrespected. Again, just my opinion, you are certainly free to disagree with any other disgusting body parts that are left.......

Careful, Buck460XVR, use of common colorful colloquialisms can get you a warning 'round these parts even if you replace the offending words

Oh....don't I know!

 

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR:
In reality, opinions by definition are not required to be based on fact or evidence, kinda why they are opinions....

The definition of "opinion" does not require that it be based on fact or evidence:

See, even when we disagree, we can still agree.

But as has been said here many times before: all opinions aren't equal. Opinions based on knowledge, expertise, and evidence are worth much more than opinions pulled out of the air.

What about the opinion of what color hair looks most attractive on a woman? Do you have facts to document that those that prefer blonds know what they are talking about and those of us that like redheads are full of Bile? No, both are worthy, even tho there may be factors biologically and evolutionary that contribute to either. But to both parties their opinion is #1. Again, you do have the correct facts in this discussion, my problem was never with that. My problem was with the condescending manner in which they were delivered. I know you are better than that and you were turning people off, when you didn't need to. Telling folks their opinion doesn't matter and they are full of Bile is kinda(IMHO) like ordering a burger and watching the cook pick his nose. Regardless of how good the burger is, all you are gonna taste is bugger and not burger.

Now, like that bugger infested Burger.....I'm done.

 

[barnbwt]

the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to decide case arising under the Constitution, so in a practical way the decision is theirs and not yours

"Theirs" meaning SCOTUS, right? If they determine what is right or wrong, how is this not infallibility? Jefferson had some famous quotes about his, as did other contemporaries, and subsequent legal minds, because the question is valid. It's a fatal flaw in the whole concept of stare decisis inherited from English Law, but sadly necessary when it is so difficult to modify our core governing documents. "Bad law" can transmute into "accepted law" after a long enough time, and there are endless ways for those who seek it to delay its reversal as long as possible.

What courts do is in the public eye, and judges function in a fish bowl. They must justify their decisions, and those justifications are subject to public scrutiny and criticism. The decisions of trial court judges are subject to review on appeal. The decisions of appellate courts are made by a majority of a multi-judge panel.

1) Secret FISA courts
2) Ruth Bader Ginsberg/etc. Judges make up stuff on the fly in the lower courts constantly, it just usually is reversed or replaced by legitimate arguments later on. Further, through interpretation of interpretation of interpretation, there is sufficient freedom to 'argue' both for and against any legal issue, using the same supporting precedent, in practically all cases. I understand this is actually a common exercise in legal education, similar to practicing debate by arguing both sides.

There is such a thing as [professional] conscience, and in the real world that is a constraint.

It's a weak constraint in practice, though, since terrible things have always been justifiable by those in power. But yes, it is possible for kind kings as well as cruel kings (though the latter is arguably far, far, far more common in history). One thing conscience relies upon is morality, though, and morality relies ultimately on stable cultural norms that currently in flux. At this time, a judge can feel increasingly vindicated in abusing someone undesirable to his (overwhelmingly liberal) colleagues. Personal morality does not provide a convincing restraint on human action.

the vast majority of doctors try very hard to be honest and diligent in their professional lives and to properly and competently practice their profession. The same can be said of lawyers and judges.

But only because the ones who aren't are diligently punished, I'd reckon. Which is why doctors (and politicians) with good intentions can still perpetrate terrible injustices to those in their care. At the end of the day, accountability vs. unaccountability is the practical reality, since abuses will occur. Intentions are meaningless in reality, and do not provide a convincing restraint on human action.

Back to the thread topic; is the systematic cataloging of improper personal data the result of a few bad apples like the IRS scandal, or merely an isolated incident of official Bureau policy going awry like Waco?

Perhaps the clearest, and most unhappy, example is the income tax

My favorite example is Prohibition, which resulted in amendment, then unamendment that still retained the regulatory & enforcement structure that was unjustifiable prior (I have a theory that the number of objectively useful amendments should rapidly, exponentially decline over time, and that subsequent changes past a certain early point will tend to have more unintended negative consequences than beneficial ones). Basically, even if we reject the Income Tax through amendment one day, we'll never be rid of the IRS

I agree that the passage of law/passage of amendment (same thing, really; legislative & executive collaboration) is the only real check on judicial exercise, aside from simply ignoring their directives (which I feel is more destructive to the whole system than a legitimate balance of power). That is why the flexible, expansive, legally-innovative rulings we seem to see on display of late are so worrisome. It no longer matters what laws & amendments are passed to restrict congress, the executive, or the courts if they choose to rule broadly enough, and with sufficient encouragement from these branches or the citizenry, they will suffer no personal or professional consequences either.

It's the core of Washington's worries about partisanship, though it goes beyond that; our system is fundamentally unable to deal with branches that collude with each other to free themselves of their constitutional bindings. The people are supposed to be replacing the figures responsible with regularity, but this requires the people to not be in collusion to free themselves from restraint as well.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

What about the opinion of what color hair looks most attractive on a woman?

What if I make a logical argument supported by experimental data?

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

....If they determine what is right or wrong, how is this not infallibility?...

But we're talking about the law here, not what is cosmically right and wrong. Concepts of right and wrong are something of a chimera anyway.

It's like a conversation in Shaw's Major Barbara between Andrew Undershaft (the maker of cannon) and his son:

... STEPHEN [rising and looking at him steadily] I know the difference between right and wrong.

UNDERSHAFT [hugely tickled] You don't say so! What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers, muddled all the men of business, and ruined most of the artists: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you're a genius, master of masters, a god! At twenty-four, too!...

Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justified self defense. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but many would assert that it would be unjust to punish a man for stealing bread to feed his starving child.

But while people everywhere are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life.

Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.

...Jefferson had some famous quotes...

Jefferson wasn't the only Founding Father and didn't speak for all of them. See, for example, Hamilton's view as set out in Federalist #78.

...The people are supposed to be replacing the figures responsible with regularity, but this requires the people to not be in collusion to free themselves from restraint as well....

It's an imperfect world. Any world run by humans will necessarily be imperfect. Human beings will behave as human beings -- sometimes non-rationally and influenced in varying degrees by emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs. And each person's spectrum of emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs will be in some ways more or less different from that of everyone else.

That's the way that real life in the real world is. We can accept that, try to understand it as best we can, and look for ways to deal with reality. Or we can be frustrated when things don't work out the way we'd like them to because the world isn't constituted the way we think it should be.

And there will never be any permanent, or even semi-permanent, antidote to any problem associated with the human conditions -- too many variables and unknowns are in more or less constant flux changing things in ways never completely predictable.

 

[barnbwt]

But we're talking about the law here, not what is cosmically right and wrong. Concepts of right and wrong are something of a chimera anyway.

So now we're back to moral relativism. Maybe tell that to Kennedy and his appeals to human dignity & whatnot. Or rather, since he wrote a majority opinion based on such ideas for Obergefell, the court does now rule on and determine what is cosmically right and wrong?

Has nothing to do with 'knowing' right from wrong as in your quote, but rather having faith that they exist to be known.

Jefferson wasn't the only Founding Father and didn't speak for all of them. See, for example, Hamilton's view as set out in Federalist #78.

Jefferson was not the only one, nor was Hamilton. I said it was a point of contention since the beginning because it is a valid question.

Or we can be frustrated when things don't work out the way we'd like them to because the world isn't constituted the way we think it should be.

Clearly. Which is why we work towards those things, and try to stay as grounded to principles as we can so we aren't chasing a moving target from a moving vantage.

TCB

 

[Spats McGee]

"Theirs" meaning SCOTUS, right? If they determine what is right or wrong, how is this not infallibility? . . . .

Not to go sticking my nose where it doesn't belong . . . ok, maybe a little.

I just want to address this one point, and do so with an anecdote, rather than evidence. One of the Supreme Court Justices (I know not which one) is reputed to have said, "We're not final because we're infallible. We're infallible because we're final."

Even when we don't like a SCOTUS ruling, it's the last stop in challenging a law. Whoever wins and whoever loses there, the case is over. That doesn't mean that Congress, or a state legislature can't legislate around the SCOTUS ruling, though. See Frank's comments about Kelo.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So now we're back to moral relativism....

But it's not really about moral relativism:

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.....

Courts decide things on the basis of law -- not morality.

...Has nothing to do with 'knowing' right from wrong as in your quote, but rather having faith that they exist to be known...

But which "right and wrong"? Whose "right and wrong"?

It may be one thing to postulate some universal standard of "right and wrong." But it is another to, as a political or legal matter impose, our mutually agreed idea of what that is, on a population that doesn't share our understanding.

But who decides what standard of right and wrong applies? What if everyone can't agree on what that standard should be? Of course the notion of a fixed standard works fine in a tyranny, where the tyrant decides -- and as long as you and the tyrant agree. But of course if the tyrant and you disagree, you are likely to think things are far less than satisfactory. Although you'll have your fixed standard, it won't be one that you'd care for.

Folks who talk about such things as fixed standards of right and wrong seem to believe that the standard chosen will be the one they favor. But that's far from a foregone conclusion.

This isn't really a matter of moral relativism, i. e., a belief that there is no objective and/or universal moral truth. It's rather a recognition of the political reality that whether or not there is an objective and/or universal moral truth, there is a disagreement as to what that is; and acquiescence to a single standard can only, as a practical matter, be achieved by force.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Frank: I think the head of the FBI has now put into law the concept that if you "didn't intend to break a law" and you are a special person you won't be prosecuted. BUT, that does not mean that if you are an ordinary citizen you can expect the same treatment. How does that match up with your concept of "proven law"?

 

[barnbwt]

But it's not really about moral relativism:

Well, you say that, but then immediately say this;

But which "right and wrong"? Whose "right and wrong"?

It may be one thing to postulate some universal standard of "right and wrong." But it is another to, as a political or legal matter impose, our mutually agreed idea of what that is, on a population that doesn't share our understanding.

A pragmatic observation that is intrinsic to relativism.

I think I get what you're saying; that legal precedent is NOT the vehicle toward attaining nirvana in governance. I suppose I can accept that as a principle, flawed human motives being what they are. I still say moral, logical, and even legal arguments can get us closer to that point if given fair review in the courts.

on a population that doesn't share our understanding.

It's funny you bring this up, since it suggests that a less diversified public voice, or less diverse set of issues, lends itself to a less contentious legal battlefield. I realized about ten years ago that the office of President has become imbued with so many powers, that it is literally impossible for any one man to wield them responsibly. I am coming around to believe the same is increasingly the case for both legislative and legal duties. Mountains of regulations and self-conflicting legal statute piled upon itself with broad and unexplored powers, centuries of shifting legal precedent and interpretative concept mixed into a mish-mash black box whose results change depending on who does the research. How can any person operate in such conditions, without ignoring or evading previous barriers at times as the only way to reach any conclusion? None of these conflicts would exist to divide the public, were the government staying out of these issues as they had originally.

The Vikings had a very interesting law system that, if I remember right, had all laws expire whenever a new king was crowned, his re-stating them to bring them back into effect put a fundamental upper limit on the system of laws. I believe one of the Chinese dynasties likewise imposed a fixed number of laws on the books (I want to say it was like 2000 rules, or something). Completely in opposition to the principles of English Common Law and its love of precedent, but considering how well the sunset of the AWB and Patriot Act worked (by which I mean the expiration forced real debate over whether to continue the policies after reviewing their performance) I have to say I'm intrigued by the concept.

"We're not final because we're infallible. We're infallible because we're final."

Exactly my point. And the principle is definitely useful in 'ending' disputes so we can all move on with our lives, even if it spurs legislative movement that obviates the whole effort. I get that. That pragmatic effect has nothing to do with morality, truth, or justice, though. Legalese for 'might makes right'

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Frank: I think the head of the FBI has now put into law the concept that if you "didn't intend to break a law" and you are a special person you won't be prosecuted. BUT, that does not mean that if you are an ordinary citizen you can expect the same treatment. How does that match up with your concept of "proven law"?

Yeah, I have to say that an awful lot of people convicted of making machineguns or other NFA items, or doing business without a license, or making a straw purchase clearly had no criminal intent, and often no knowledge of admittedly confusing law in these areas, yet they go to prison or are disenfranchised for life. Clinton was basically excused on the basis that she didn't intend to harm national security, even though this was clearly the direct and likely result of her direct actions.

As far as 'proven law,' we shall see, since there are apparently already a number of Espionage Act convictions challenging their cases on Equal Protection grounds as a result of Comey's findings about Hillary. I personally am not super broke up about the rich & powerful getting away with crimes, since that will happen regardless; it does seem like the gap in enforcement is getting about as wide as it was in the robber-baron days, though (granted we have a lot more knowledge of these things due to the net)

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think the head of the FBI has now put into law the concept that if you "didn't intend to break a law" and you are a special person you won't be prosecuted. BUT, that does not mean that if you are an ordinary citizen you can expect the same treatment. How does that match up with your concept of "proven law"?

What a preposterous way to describe the Hilary debacle.

It's political theater, and nothing new. The FBI Director merely pitched an unsatisfying, and I think unsatisfactory, conclusion based on the FBI investigation. It has nothing to do with the law.

...It's funny you bring this up, since it suggests that a less diversified public voice, or less diverse set of issues, lends itself to a less contentious legal battlefield....

Of course it does. More homogeneous societies tend to function much more smoothly because there is much greater commonality of core beliefs and values. Internal governance in many small band or tribal societies is often not contentious all. Not only is the social organization small, so that decision can be made by the group as a whole, but the population is often interrelated -- so everything is a family matter.

...I have to say I'm intrigued by the concept.....

Some of these concepts work only in groups of certain sizes. In his recent book, The World Until Yesterday, Jared Diamond takes a facinating looks at how the ways in which primitive societies deal with various common issues, like legal liability, necessarily relates to the size of the sociopolitical group.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I have to say that an awful lot of people convicted of making machineguns or other NFA items, or doing business without a license, or making a straw purchase clearly had no criminal intent, and often no knowledge of admittedly confusing law in these areas, yet they go to prison or are disenfranchised for life.....

And I don't accept that as true. Show us the cases.

 

[barnbwt]

What a preposterous way to describe the Hilary debacle.

Right? After all, it's Lynch who declined to prosecute Clinton, not Comey

Some of these concepts work only in groups of certain sizes

Yup, "scalability" as it's called in engineering circles. It's funny, you could actually think of governing systems like physics equations, becoming progressively more complex through the course of history & development, each new concept (Greek Democracy, Absolutist Monarchy, US Republicanism, French Populism, Soviet Communism, Italian Fascism, Pan-European Socialism) promising to be the "Grand Unified Theory of Governance." To a one, they actually work pretty well in certain specific scenarios or scales of population (smaller the better, generally), but some are definitely more adaptable than others, though.

Quote from a favorite old video game; "A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions...if only we lived in one"

I think we've probably reached the practical limits of Enlightenment Republican government, if we continue to try imposing it across the whole nation as one body. The problem has actually been exacerbated by efforts to transfer local and state authority to the federal over the last 150 years or so; the Swiss have been able to maintain fairly independent, diverse Cantons for centuries, and have had far fewer issues with unchecked power blossoming at the federal level to be fought over by the member districts.

TCB