America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[thereisnospoon]

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

And there is a difference between "democracy" and "a democracy", but you're too busy insulting people to think of that.

.

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

Can't think of any.

You're the one who made the point, not me.

.

So then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about......do you.

Hye genius, you brought it up,....Now support your statements....As to the US being a democracy.
Your response "I never said it was"..
Don't bother. You believe the US IS a democracy...Now support it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

And there is a difference between "democracy" and "a democracy", but you're too busy insulting people to think of that.

.

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

I did ...Read post on last page

Those little anecdotes don't really qualify as historic examples of anything.

They are not anecdotes. They are facts.
Facts which answered your query.
You don't like the idea of having your bluff called. So you dismiss the facts.
I have your number, pal.
You don't ever win this debate.

 

[Discombobulated]

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

And there is a difference between "democracy" and "a democracy", but you're too busy insulting people to think of that.

.

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

Can't think of any.

You're the one who made the point, not me.

.

So then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about......do you.

Hye genius, you brought it up,....Now support your statements....As to the US being a democracy.
Your response "I never said it was"..
Don't bother. You believe the US IS a democracy...Now support it.

Never said anything even remotely like that. Why do you have to lie and mischaracterize all the time? I said from the very beginning that the premise in the video is dogshit, democracy and constitutional republic are not mutually exclusive or equivalent. Democracy can be one component of a constitutional republic. Any other questions.....or can you do your own home work now?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Constitutional republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms no matter what some crackpot tries to tell you.

There is a difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, but both are democracies.

No a representative deomocracy is just that....Has no resemblance to a democracy. The two are mutually exclusive.
This is pointless.
As hard as you wish, your side will not succeed in remaking this country into the socialist utopia you wish it to be.
Your side has had 6 years in which to transform this country into some kind of socialist progressive welfare state....Your side has done enough damage, but fortunately not irreparable.

 

[Discombobulated]

Perhaps you're just a little too slow to understand that democracy is one component of a constitutional republic......they are not mutually exclusive.

And there is a difference between "democracy" and "a democracy", but you're too busy insulting people to think of that.

.

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

I did ...Read post on last page

Those little anecdotes don't really qualify as historic examples of anything.

They are not anecdotes. They are facts.
Facts which answered your query.
You don't like the idea of having your bluff called. So you dismiss the facts.
I have your number, pal.
You don't ever win this debate.

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

Of course not. A true democracy is inconsistent and incompatible with the concepts of God given rights, freedom and liberty

 

[thereisnospoon]

It is not surprising that conservatives want so badly for us not to be a democracy.

What's surprising to me is that people consider themselves conservatives and at the same time don't want their senators popularly elected.

I'd like to see Senate terms shortened to 4 years. But keep the popular election.
In fact, Senators should be elected by county. Not the by statewide vote count.
Same with the President. Electoral votes should be apportioned by countywide vote counts. Not the winner take all system.
The winner take all system disenfranchises non urban voters.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good luck. Our Public School System is a joke at this point. All the kids get now is 'How to be a good Communist Democrat' indoctrination. Most Americans are completely clueless on issues like this. But hey, nice try. Thanks.

Because all your opinions are viewed through ideology you have no opinions that really matter.

And you opinions aren't..
Hello pot? This is kettle...You're black.
Or are you just a ridiculous person who is trying to be outrageous?

You don't even begin to know what you're talking about.

I am far more informed than you.
All you have done is obfuscate and argue.
I made factual statements for which you have not presented any substantive rebuttal.
You have no argument.
You do have your ideological beliefs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And there is a difference between "democracy" and "a democracy", but you're too busy insulting people to think of that.

.

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

Can't think of any.

You're the one who made the point, not me.

.

So then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about......do you.

Hye genius, you brought it up,....Now support your statements....As to the US being a democracy.
Your response "I never said it was"..
Don't bother. You believe the US IS a democracy...Now support it.

Never said anything even remotely like that. Why do you have to lie and mischaracterize all the time? I said from the very beginning that the premise in the video is dogshit, democracy and constitutional republic are not mutually exclusive or equivalent. Democracy can be one component of a constitutional republic. Any other questions.....or can you do your own home work now?

Dude..I already covered this for you. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.
Your attempts to misrepresent the type of government we have here in the US are noted.
I have the facts going for me. You are arguing just to argue.
You may now have the last word.
Go ahead. You cannot resist. All libs have the undying need to have the last word.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And there is a difference between "democracy" and "a democracy", but you're too busy insulting people to think of that.

.

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

I did ...Read post on last page

Those little anecdotes don't really qualify as historic examples of anything.

They are not anecdotes. They are facts.
Facts which answered your query.
You don't like the idea of having your bluff called. So you dismiss the facts.
I have your number, pal.
You don't ever win this debate.

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

Definitions of what?

 

[Discombobulated]

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

Can't think of any.

You're the one who made the point, not me.

.

So then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about......do you.

Hye genius, you brought it up,....Now support your statements....As to the US being a democracy.
Your response "I never said it was"..
Don't bother. You believe the US IS a democracy...Now support it.

Never said anything even remotely like that. Why do you have to lie and mischaracterize all the time? I said from the very beginning that the premise in the video is dogshit, democracy and constitutional republic are not mutually exclusive or equivalent. Democracy can be one component of a constitutional republic. Any other questions.....or can you do your own home work now?

Dude..I already covered this for you. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.
Your attempts to misrepresent the type of government we have here in the US are noted.
I have the facts going for me. You are arguing just to argue.
You may now have the last word.
Go ahead. You cannot resist. All libs have the undying need to have the last word.

You actually have nothing but half wit opinions to substantiate your narrow view.

 

[Discombobulated]

Feel free to provide historic examples of "a democracy".

I did ...Read post on last page

Those little anecdotes don't really qualify as historic examples of anything.

They are not anecdotes. They are facts.
Facts which answered your query.
You don't like the idea of having your bluff called. So you dismiss the facts.
I have your number, pal.
You don't ever win this debate.

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

Definitions of what?

You have yet to identify any historic examples of " a democracy'.

 

[Discombobulated]

Good luck. Our Public School System is a joke at this point. All the kids get now is 'How to be a good Communist Democrat' indoctrination. Most Americans are completely clueless on issues like this. But hey, nice try. Thanks.

Because all your opinions are viewed through ideology you have no opinions that really matter.

And you opinions aren't..
Hello pot? This is kettle...You're black.
Or are you just a ridiculous person who is trying to be outrageous?

You don't even begin to know what you're talking about.

I am far more informed than you.
All you have done is obfuscate and argue.
I made factual statements for which you have not presented any substantive rebuttal.
You have no argument.
You do have your ideological beliefs.

Ideology is for weak minded fools who need others to do their thinking for them.

 

[Skylar]

quote:

Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights

Um, you do realize that your quote has exactly nothing to do with anything we're discussing.

You say that the Bill of Rights did apply to the States. Your quote doesn't say that. It doesn't even address the topic of our discussion. And the USSC explicitly contradicted you, finding that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States nor limit State action. And left the USSC with no recourse when the States violated the rights of individuals.

Would you care to address the topic we're actually discussing? Or offer up more quotes that have nothing to do with it.

You misread and misrepresent so much it is incredible.

Laughing.....just highlight the part of your quote that indicates that the Bill of Rights applied to the States.
Show us where your quote affirms your claim that the Bill of Rights applied to the States. Or refutes my claim (and the USSC's findings) that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

Nothing, huh? I'll lower the bar for you. You'll barely have to hop to get over it. Show us anywhere in your quote where the application of the Bill of Rights to the States is even mentioned.

That's what I thought.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need strawmen and red herrings to support them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar The amendments at issue forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights. The 14th empowered the national government to force the states to respect what they were supposed to in the first place. Battles between Harlan and Holmes and Taney and others aside, there were court decisions and dissents all over the place.

You make it seem like the Constitution of today is a new constitution. This is like saying if the framers had met and amended the Articles of Confederation instead of creating a whole new constitution, you would have considered the amended Articles a new Articles.

Many of the people who fought to end slavery and extend the franchise and more were closer to the founders' and framers' times than to ours, yet you play a game of acting as if we - "we" in our era, created a whole new constitution the framers would not have recognized. We changed and amended the constitution, we did not create a new one.

While I find little to like about Jefferson and a few others, I do not exhibit this imbecilic attitude you have of us being so much better than them. We are not so different than the framers and founders and your hubris and smugness expose much about you

 

[Skylar]

Skylar The amendments at issue forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights. The 14th empowered the national government to force the states to respect what they were supposed to in the first place. Battles between Harlan and Holmes and Taney and others aside, there were court decisions and dissents all over the place.

Show us your quote saying that. Here it is:

Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights

Highlight where it says that the amendments at issue forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights. You'll find you're not quoting the Bill of Rights Institute. You're quoting yourself. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The question was directly asked and answered by the USSC about a dozen years shy of 2 centuries ago. And they explicitly contradict your assertion that the Bill of Rights limited the States:

We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [32 U.S. 243, 251] government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states

Barron V. Baltimore 1833

FindLaw Cases and Codes

And it wasn't just the 5th amendment. It was the entire Bill of Rights that the USSC found to be inapplicable to the States:

These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Barron V. Baltimore 1833

FindLaw Cases and Codes

They couldn't be clearer. The States were free to violate the Bill of Rights if they saw fit and the Federal Government had no jurisdiction to stop them. Congressman John Bingham, one of the primary architects of the 14th amendment actually read many of these passages from Barron v. Baltimore when arguing in congress for the need of a 14th amendment.

Bingham was of the opinion that had the Federal Government had the authority to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the States, that the civil war never would have happened. While recognizing that the constitution as the founders wrote it didn't provide that authority. Offering yet another voice in the chorus of the founder's lack having dire consequences.

And yet another example of why our constitution is so utterly, obviously, and inescapably better than that of the founders. As we corrected the fundamental flaws of their constitution by changing it. And empowering the US constitution with the authority that per Congressman Bingham, standing in the ashes of the Civil War, could have prevented hundreds of thousands of American deaths had the founders the foresight or capacity to enact it within their constitution.

 

[eagle1462010]

To the issue of Slavery during the Founders time..............It was normal during that time............As time changes, people change and correct what is wrong............which has happened over our history.

It was. It was also deeply hypocritical and unjust. 'All men are created equal' and slavery are concepts that are diametrically and inescapably opposed, standing as mutually exclusive mirrors of each other.

But, you must look at it in the context of the time period................During that time people were simply different and believed in some things we don't believe in today..................Slavery is BS in my book, but I choose to look at history objectively.

I'm quite aware of the context of the era. The constitution was among the best compromises the founders could manage with the situation that they had. Slavery was not only institutionalized, it was the backbone of the economies of many of the States that were to vote on the constitution. Abolishment of slavery was a political and practical impossibility for the founders. Due to context, institutions of their age, moral cowardice, personal greed, hypocricy or political reality.

They couldn't do it.

We could. We've corrected the flaws they never could. We've abolished slavery. We've extended the Bill of Rights to the States. We've extended universal suffrage. We've recognized and protected more rights for more people than the founders ever could.

Which is why I say our constitution is better than theirs.

They created it, and under that creation they left ways to change it over time. As people evolve, so does the ideals of the people. They understood that times would change or evolve which is exactly why they compromised and put in the methods used to change it.

That doesn't mean every change is correct. I don't agree with the State Legislatures loosing the old ways of selecting Senators. Senators would be less inclined to go against the will of the people if they know they would be recalled for doing so............That doesn't mean it had it's problems............in divided states many were recalled as power shifted...........No system is perfect...........but this was a check on Gov't that should have never been changed.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]. Each state gets two senators so that heavily populated states can’t drown out the interests of those with smaller populations. That’s one of those safeguards against the “tyranny of the majority” our Founding Fathers saw fit to provide.

Our Founding Fathers wanted a republic not a democracy TheUnion.com

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS Library of Congress
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

 

[Skylar]

They created it, and under that creation they left ways to change it over time.

They made it wrong. Their conception of rights was fundamentally and inescapably flawed. You don't even disagree with me. You seem to rightly recognize that 'all men are created equal' and slavery cannot coexist rationally, morally, or or anything but practically. They are mutually exclusive positions that contradict one another.

They are the philosophical foundation upon which our nation was built by the founders. Which is a hypocritical, inconsistent and unsustainable house of cards that must fall.

And did. It was called the Civil War. The survivors of which recognizes that had the constitution included the authority for the Federal government to protect the rights of citizens against State intrusion, that the Civil War never would have happened. With the survivors equally recognizing that such authority didn't exist in the constitution as the founders wrote it.

And that it must be added.

I agree with you completely that the founders were dealing with the context of their age. That they didn't invent the institution of slavery, they merely acted within the system as it existed. But they knew of the fundamental inconsistencies of their position. Washington freed his slaves. Jefferson wrestled with the hypocrisy most of his life. And Hamilton flat out refused to ever own a slave as if found it morally reprehensible. And it was well understood that this issue would eventually come to a head, as it was unsustainable.

There was a clear moral awareness of how wrong it was. How flawed it was. How astonishingly inconsistent it was. And how it could not last as it was.

As people evolve, so does the ideals of the people.

I agree that people evolve. And we are more evolved in our understanding of rights, freedom and who should wield the sword of suffrage than the founders ever were. Our constitution and caselaw reflects that evolution, reflects that vastly superior application of freedom, the vastly greater moral and philosophical consistency, the significantly more viable and sustainable system that is profoundly more just.

Which is why I say our constitution is better. A lot better. We rock!