>> it does give on pause to wonder about the >> situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy >> is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid >> Constitutional rule.
> I'm not sure how rigid constitutional rule would be able to stop a determined > leader with control of the military and the support of even 25% of the people. Obviously no guarantee is given, but the idea is the one employed in the U.S - directing loyalty to the country and constitution rather than government or executive. As history demonstrates it doesn't always work but does provide a rallying point for resistance and a structure within which to work for the re-establishment of subverted authority. I don't claim it's THE answer, but it does have an argument for being a positive preparation to the danger of electing the undemocratically minded. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
