positive politics.

[someinstant]

(Apologies to those who might have seen this already on carol83.)

I'm playing a little game over in my non-fandom journal right now, and I thought the more people play along, the better. Here's the explanation:

Sarah Vowell was on the Daily Show [last night]-- fantastic interview. (I love, love, love her contributions of This American Life. She's just

Comments

[someinstant]

::laughs uncontrollably::

You, my dear, have just won. I'm not sure what, but you are unquestionably the victor. Seriously, this is fantastic-- we should make this into a personality quiz. Which Harry Potter character is the U.S. Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? The 1965 Voting Rights Act?

(Plessy v. Ferguson is Delores Umbridge, I think.)

However, now my academic gremlin wants to play around in this delightful metaphor you have so thoughtfully constructed. This could be amusing.

Potential Implications of Highlander Constitutional Theory

I. Highlanderism presumably states there can be only one. But this raises the critical question: one what? One system of government? One political philosophy? One Constitution? Is there a contradiction between the duality of the state-federal system under Highlanderism? That is, do individual state constitutions constitute a violation of the Only One principle?

II. What is the role of the Second Amendment under Highlanderism? Clearly, the right to bear arms is upheld-- but as the most desirable weaponry would not be any form of explosive projectile, what would this mean for gun control laws? Additionally, consider the legal implications of concealed carry laws-- I'm not certain what the federal strictures on carrying concealed broadswords in public are, but it would make for an interesting court decision.

III. With regards to the executive branch, the Highlander Theory is particularly fascinating. The Only One principle is admirably present in the President's veto power, but can potentially be reversed by a strong enough opposition by Congress, thus complicating the initially simple, unitary nature of the veto. The role of the Vice-President is similarly contradictory: while they may ascend to the presidency following the death or incapacitation of the President (in accordance with the Only One principle), it is generally frowned upon for a Vice-President to actively seek this end.

...no, really. I love this metaphor. I want to play around with it all day.

[arresi]

I win? *blinks* Huh. Cool. Thanks!

Dumbledore's the U.S. Constitution, I think, for much the same reason Methos is. Harry (or the Trio/Sextet/DA) could be the Amendments: faithful to the prior's legacy, but more liberal (if the Trio/Sextet/DA, Harry is the Bill of Rights).

The Warren Court could be Snape: wears cool black robes, and ends up supporting the liberals, despite being initially chosen by the conservatives. (Also, for this line: "Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for.")

Oh, hell. *I'm* going to be messing around with this all day now.

Cont. from Potential Implications of Highlander Constitutional Theory:

V. And what should we make of the legislature under Highlanderism? Does its multiplicity constitute a violation of the Only One principle? Or should we instead regard it as a metaphor for the absorption of Quickening energy - the recurring subsuming of individuals from all areas and times under one aegis, whose decisions are presumed to be guided by this broad understanding or humanity and the public interest? (And what of events such as the government shut-down under the Gingrich Republicans? A Dark Quickening, perhaps?)

VI. If we adopt the above metaphorical approach to the legislature, the judiciary would theoretically appear to follow a similar approach. On its own, it does appear to be extraordinarily committed to the Only One principle, from Marbury v. Madison (with its assumption of final authority), to the lifelong involvement of the justices.

VII. What, then, are we to make of the balance of power between the branches of government? Does the Only One principle imply that two branches must fall? Or is there somehow suggested an way in which the Gathering may be eluded or mitigated? (By, for instance, somehow connecting the Quickening energies of a small group so they are One in some mystical sense, as some commentators have suggested.)

(Duncan MacLeod as representative of the American public? Yes/No?)