First of all, there is a check and balance, second of all, I'm almost sure that oligarchy implies no representation. NT

First of all, there is a check and balance, second of all, I'm almost sure that oligarchy implies no representation. NT:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]

Posted by thinker on October 24, 2000 at 04:35:37:

In Reply to: I'm looking at the Dictionary definition, not Platos, and that is the fact that a group let's call them the Senate and the House of Reps control the government. It's definately not the people. n/t posted by *ORB* on October 24, 2000 at 00:43:59:

> > Now the Soviet union is beging to look like one.
> >
> > And CF rules and stuff.
> >
> > Pro
> > FTA/NRA

Follow Ups:

Some would say the Supreme Court IS a de facto Judicial Oligarchy, Judicial mandates are edicts, no way to overturn one save by a constitutional amendment which THEY then interperate, serve for life, ect.NT Quintius 10:07:35 10/24/2000 (2)
- Damn, this is OT, but... Imbrogno(VIP) 14:23:31 10/24/2000 (1)
  - Dito + Eric Prothero 15:55:02 10/24/2000 (0)
Some would say the Supreme Court IS a de facto Judicial Oligarchy, Judicial mandates are edicts, no way to overturn one save by a constitutional amendment which THEY then interperate, serve for life, ect.NT Quintius 10:07:28 10/24/2000 (0)
Yes I meant we are literally an Ogilgarchy, that's it. *Sigh* n/t *ORB* give me ambiguity or give me something else 05:18:00 10/24/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > > Now the Soviet union is beging to look like one. > > > > > > And CF rules and stuff. > > > > > > Pro > > > FTA/NRA