Post by legonimis on Jun 13, 2020 9:07:04 GMT -5
Amicus Curiae Brief, presented by Legonimis, citizen of Spiritus
Regarding the question of the potential conflict between various articles of our constitution that enumerate and explicate the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government, I would argue that these articles are not in direct conflict and that later articles and amendments do not supersede prior articles unless they explicitly repeal or impose a limit upon them.
Instead, it is my suggestion that any such conflict represents an attempt to assign to or conserve for each portion of government (the citizenry included as the primary body of agents within government) a clear and effective role. Any instances of supposed conflict are, at best, due to linguistic inexactitude rather than intent to remove completely any previously enumerated power.
In the specific case of the citizenry retaining ultimate legislative and judicial power (and the implied case of executive power), there are multiple distinct interpretations of the apparent conflict between the articles of the constitution.
The first interpretation is simply a sort of “weak democratic principle”, meaning that the agencies of government serve only at the behest of the citizenry but are given broad license to govern on the behalf of the government. In this case, citizens retain the power but it is delegated to the branches of government for practical purposes.
The second is a “strong democratic principle”, meaning that the citizens not only retain all powers of government but also that they may act in parallel to the established agencies of government. Although the processes by which they may do so are not explicated, examples would include the ability to petition, to create law by referendum, and to remove by means of recall any members of government to which the citizenry no longer wishes to delegate power.
This is, of course, an interpretation outside of strict legal history regarding references and principles. However, by use of metaphor and of commonly understood terms, I hope to have illustrated my points adequately.
Thank you for your time.