Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Six (Session One) Balance Of Power In Democratic Models- Chief Justice Of Main State Appellate Courts

Representative Democratic Model- Selectable Offices Part Thirty-Six (Session One)
Balance Of Power In Democratic Models- Chief Justice Of Main State Appellate Courts

The Founding Fathers never wanted an government entity to be purely based on one democratic model. They believed in counterweights and they incorporated that in the US Constitution. For example, the two Chief Justices in the State Appellate Courts have the same roles in managing their respective judicial bodies. 

The Chief Justice of the State Appellate Court which deals with criminal cases per law should have its selection originate from the members of the state legislative lower house.

Criminal cases per law are supposed to be handled by a judicial body most insulated from the People. Yet the members of the House Of Delegates/Assembly, who are most closely connected to the People than their non-member and non-voting Speaker, should choose the three candidates that the Vice-Governor nominates for CJ of the Appellate Court which deals with criminal cases. This appears to be contradictory but the Founding Fathers wanted those checks and balances in each judicial appellate body. 

The same counterweight principle also has application for civil (dispute resolution) cases per equity. Civil cases are supposed to be handled by a judicial body more closely connected to the People. Yet the Speaker of the State House Of Delegates/Assembly, who is less closely connected to the People than the members of the same legislative body that he/she manages, should choose the three candidates that the Vice-Governor nominates for CJ of the Appellate Court which deals with civil cases.

This appears to be contradictory as well but the Founding Fathers wanted those checks and balances in each judicial appellate body. 

Cliff Notes Version: Government entity should not be purely based on one democratic model. Counterweights are needed.

Criminal cases should be handled by courts most insulated from the People. Yet House Of Delegates/Assembly members, more closely connected to the People than their Speaker, should choose candidates that the Vice-Governor nominates for CJ of the Appellate Court which deals with criminal cases.

Civil cases should be handled by courts more closely connected to the People. Yet the state house speaker, less closely connected to the People than the lower house members, should choose candidates that the Vice-Governor nominates for CJ of the Appellate Court which deals with civil cases.

This appears to be contradictory as well but the Founding Fathers wanted those checks and balances in each judicial appellate body.