By: B.G. Smith

B.G. Smith — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:19:28 +0000

Good points Dave. Yes, the movie’s points were more focused around the government implications of “power to the people”…I guess I took some creative liberty in applying it to business.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:24:02 +0000

I haven’t seen this in quite some time, but I believe you only picked up on half the point of the movie. Joe Pesci also gave a soliloquy in class that described the Constitution as a living document, maleable and subject to change…hence the genius of the document. In part, I agree. The document should be subject to change according to the dictates of the people, and this is provided for in the text of the document. However, the notion that the Constitution is somehow “living” is somewhat more controversial, and, dare I say it, liberal (note how I refuse to call liberals “progressive”, since the notion of oligarchical monopolization of the democratic process should be the very definition of a lack of progress). A “living” Constitution allows for a single branch (such as the Executive with its signing statements to legislation which essentially purport to allow the Executive branch to ignore certain provisions within the legislation; or the judiciary with its comments on the social pulse without having been elected to their position or subject to social pressures (refer to the most recent decision on indecency standards where the court determined what was normal and common usage of profanity…or cases in which the courts looked to public opinion for popularity of the death penalty)) to unilaterally take power from the other branches, thus upsetting the delicate balance of powers. From a communications perspective, Monte had it right…putting power in the hands of the people restores the balance of powers between the three branches and the electorate. However, Joe Pesci’s speech almost seemed to contravene, in part, the idea of vesting power in the masses.

Comments on: All-Access Media: Who’s in?

By: B.G. Smith

By: Dave