First, how can the entities of government and state be independent, i. e., their functions completely isolated and not affiliated with one another? Without one, how does the other function? You previously defined the state as the three branches of the United States government. You subsequently stated that the government is something different but did not specify how it is different.
From the context, it seems that you make the distinction along the lines of elected and non-elected people. If that is what you intend, how can you have the non-elected act independently of the elected?
Thus my first problem with your argument is how you can have two separate entities whose purpose is the same end (but each providing a specific portion of the effort) which are independent, i. e., without affiliation. To perform the required end, they MUST OF NECESSITY have very close affiliation. Otherwise, each entity is pursuing its own ends independent of the other with the result being chaos, i. e., the legislature enacting laws that are not enforced, the executive branch enforcing laws that are not legislatively enacted, and a judiciary deciding cases brought before them based on arbitrary decisions not constrained by enacted legislation.
Your latest post speaks of separation of powers which I interpret to mean checks and balances established by assigning specific responsibilities and authorities to each branch of government. The system of checks and balances does not subordinate one branch of government to another. It merely empowers each branch to hold the others accountable and constrain their authority within the limits prescribed and established by the Constitution. The government is an abstract entity and thus in itself cannot violate a law. The violations become a potential when men are empowered to enforce laws and it is the men in authority for whom oversight and restraint must be maintained, e. g. Clinton, Gore, Quackenbush, Nixon, etc.
This system of checks and balances is the mechanism designed by the framers of our Constitution. It is my judgement that when they constructed this Constitution, they realized that government must of necessity be constrained lest it become abusive, a la, King George, against whom the American Revolutionary War was essentially waged.
They understood the purpose of government and understood the abusive potential when there was not a mechanism to keep in check the use of force (which is the only proper function of a legitimate government). Their effort to create the mechanism of restriction was the Constitution of the United States of America. Their initial creation was subsequently modified by the addition of the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments.
These amendments were an attempt to institute a specific definition of individual rights which had not been defined in the original writing. These men lacked a concise, specific philosophical definition of the principles which they intuitively understood. Lacking the full specificity of a fully coherent definition of their conceptually formed societal organization, they did not have the means at their disposal to construct the specificity of prohibitions within the framework of the Constitution to more completely protect America from the last century's onslaught of collectivism which is slowly but surely destroying the greatness of America.
What I offer is the clarification of the prohibition necessary to preclude abuses to the extent practiced by Slick Willie Clinton and the vast majority of the Democrats and many of the Republicans in elected office.
A fairly conscientious adherence to the rule of law would have curtailed Clinton's criminal behaviors while in office and subsequently have removed him from office and placed him in prison where he properly belongs. However, his political partisans espoused contempt for the rule of law and subverted justice to keep the criminal thug in office even though has actions were repugnant, offensive, disgraceful and blatantly criminal. I say this because the Senate refused to hear most of the evidence choosing to pass judgement inanely and improperly on Clinton's actions by casting his behavior as misdefined abhorrent personal shortcomings, i. e., adultery and infidelity, rather than properly as criminal behavior, i. e. perjury and obstruction of justice.
I submit that what we have instituted in America in the form of laws over the past century is no longer a result of lack of knowledge specific enough to achieve a legitimacy of government but a willful and malicious effort to subvert and eliminate a government that is constrained to the role of protector and replace it with an institution that is a ruling authority whose power is not restricted by any rational constraints.
And finally, I do not accept the idea of democracy (or even a democratic republic as in the US) as an ideal (or even a good) form of government. Democracy strictly defined is an attempt to give a pseudo-civilized guise to the philosophy of mob rule, i. e., if you can get a majority to vote with you, you have the right to do as you please. A democratic republic is much the same except you have elected representatives casting a much smaller number of votes to achieve the same ends.
With either system, a majority vote may negate the rights of the minority, the individuals that make up the society. This is in essence a system that says some people are entitled to what they want at the expense of others and that is not a valid concept if the idea of individual rights has any weight.
Bill, I get the feeling that we may be going around in a circle. So as to avoid repepitition, let me only introduce detail not already canvassed. There are two issues that I wish to address:
You say that I defined the state with reference to the three branches of government. No I didn't. The government does not have an executive, nor a legislature, nor a judiciary. Those are organs of the state. If they were organs of government then every time a government changed hands (from one political party to another) then all the old civil servants would lose their jobs. Obviously that doesn't happen. It is also equally obvious that that they don't all change to a different political party. That surely must be enough to convince you that the three organs mentioned earlier are not government organs but state organs. This is the very problem that South Africa had when the old oppressive Apartheid regime handed power over to Mandela's new legitimate ANC government. You still had, and still do have, civil servants (in other words people working in the aforementioned three organs) who are racist and right wing despite the new government. That creates problems especially when one considers that it was only a few years ago that those same lilly-white policemen were enforcing a policy that oppressed black people - now they are fighting to uphold the very rights that they fought to oppress just a short while ago. I am not talking about the police force generally, I am talking about the individual policeman specifically. They did not lose their jobs when the ANC took over from the old regime because they were not themselves the old regime - they were a part of the state function, not the cabinet (government).
Perhaps you need to tell me what your understanding of what a state official is. Can the government dictate to the legislature? Can the government dictate to judges? Remember that I am not (I made it clear last time I posted) talking about the criminal minority who act ultra vires.
The second point you make is absurd to me. You equate democracy to "mob rule" and claim that just because a majority come to power and I quote you to the effect that "they are entitled to what they want at the expense of others". That baffles me. Only a paragraph above that quote you spoke of the purpose of the constitution. Have you forgotten how the Bill of Rights does offer protection to all people, even minority groups (in fact that is it's purpose). Differently stated, the purpose is to disallow the majority to do what they want at the expense of others - to paraphrase your terminology.
Perhaps you need to tell me how it is that the constitution falls short in this regard.
