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

[Toro]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

 

[Contumacious]

which pretty much gutted state rights

How so?

it took the states say out of it

and made it another popular vote

so now we have two peoples houses

lol, statist.

The People of each state get to pick their senators. What is undemocratic about that?

i dont know what is so funny about that

the senate was for the voice of the state chosen by the state

actually there is no need for a senate at this point since we already

elect reps by popular vote

Wrong. The purpose of the senate is to give equal representation to each state regardless of the state's population.

That doesn't change whether the senators are directly or indirectly elected.

Wrong.


Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
By Thomas DiLorenzo

May 17, 2005

Rossum also quotes Hamilton as saying that the election of senators by state legislatures would be an "absolute safeguard" against federal tyranny. George Mason believed that the appointment of senators by state legislatures would give the citizens of the states "some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the National Government.

 

[peach174]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

 

[Contumacious]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Relax.

It has been changed.


Why do you think we have a gargantuan federal government which controls everything?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Toro]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

If you mean to limit democracy, take a shot. You'll find out how irrelevant you are to the American public.

Again, its a logical fallacy to presume that the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[peach174]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Relax.

It has been changed.


Why do you think we have a gargantuan federal government which controls everything?!?!?!?!?!?

.

I am relaxed.
Corruption and progressive ideology is what changed it illegally and that can be remedied.
People on all sides right, left and in between are getting fed up with it.
All for different reasons but still fed up with it.

 

[peach174]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

If you mean to limit democracy, take a shot. You'll find out how irrelevant you are to the American public.

Again, its a logical fallacy to presume that the two are mutually exclusive.

I mean changing us from a Representative Republic form of government, which is what is happing.
We are turning into a Social Democracy like Europe and that is taking our rights away from all of us.

 

[Toro]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

If you mean to limit democracy, take a shot. You'll find out how irrelevant you are to the American public.

Again, its a logical fallacy to presume that the two are mutually exclusive.

I mean changing us from a Representative Republic form of government, which is what is happing.
We are turning into a Social Democracy like Europe and that is taking our rights away from all of us.

Perhaps. But governance must have legitimacy amongst the governed, otherwise it will eventually fail. If most people reject your ideology on government, you can't impose it. And there is no broad movement to fundamentally reduce democracy in this country.

If you want your ideology to be the framework for the governing structure, you must persuade most people that you are right. Most people don't think you're right on reducing democracy.

 

[peach174]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

If you mean to limit democracy, take a shot. You'll find out how irrelevant you are to the American public.

Again, its a logical fallacy to presume that the two are mutually exclusive.

I mean changing us from a Representative Republic form of government, which is what is happing.
We are turning into a Social Democracy like Europe and that is taking our rights away from all of us.

Perhaps. But governance must have legitimacy amongst the governed, otherwise it will eventually fail. If most people reject your ideology on government, you can't impose it. And there is no broad movement to fundamentally reduce democracy in this country.

If you want your ideology to be the framework for the governing structure, you must persuade most people that you are right. Most people don't think you're right on reducing democracy.

I am not for or against reducing democracy.
This last election says people are fed up with the extreme far left ideology.
That's why most Democrats stayed home, while the Republicans and Independents came out in large numbers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What part of 'one involves the federal government and the other doesn't' makes you think I don't understand the processes involved?

He is trying to make some gotcha point about it having to be a super majority.
Dante loves word games.

really? You're wrong again. Facts matter as do distinctions for without each, we get more dolts like you

I agree with facts and distinctions that is what I have done.
I am not the only one here that has not been taught by a lefty history professor, like you have that twists our history.
And you have a real problem with anyone who has a different point of view other than your own.
I put up part of an actual letter from Ben Franklin from 1766 in more of it's context since you said it was taken out of context and then you insult.
So who is really the dolt?

Crazy people always think they are the only ones who _____(fill in the blank)_____.

I actually caused quite a sensation and scandal in a Lefty history class when I told minorities they should fear popular democracy more than I should. You are a class A dolt if you think studying and spouting right wing versions of history is any different than lefties with a progressive axe to grind.

I wasn't referring to the context of THE LETTER. geeze, how can one not insult you at times?

I have seen your attempts to present facts as opposed to opinion and have enjoyed it, but you stray into partisanship with it while accusing others of same

I bring in progressivism which is changing our government into collectivism from individualism and being a republic into a social democracy. Freedom is a very precious thing to have and progressives think that they need to change that and rule Americans because they know what's best for us. Arrogance like that never wins. History has proven it.

One example of many things that is happening with progressive ideology is -

1) Gays should have their rights and freedoms because of our constitution, but gays should not impose their lifestyle onto others like they are trying to do.

2) Gays would have gotten their rights & freedom much sooner if they had not tried to force their lifestyle onto the majority of Americans.

3) Example - gays have the constitutional right to form their own boy scouts, not force themselves into straight boy scouts.

4) Gays have the right to open their own bakeries for wedding cakes. Not forcing straight bakeries to bake their cake's That is totally opposite of freedom.

5) This is what progressivism is doing to this country.
It's turning us into what we fought the Revolutionary War over where the elites ruled over the majority.

5) 'Progressivism?' Huh? The American Revolution was started by an elite group of Rebels. Your understanding of the American Revolution presented here is as ridiculous as it is sad and confusing.

Now onto your anti-gay rant(s):

1) To impose a lifestyle onto another is a concept you fail to grasp. Using a bumper sticker slogan is what you are doing. No one can impose a lifestyle onto another without the consent of the other. Just look up the definition of lifestyle. If gays want to live a certain way, how does that directly affect you or anyone not gay?

If you mean acceptance of the gay lifestyle (whatever that loaded phrase subjectively means ) instead of imposition -- or are you trying to say gays are imposing acceptance of their lifestyle on others? If the latter is the case you are so very wrong. It is the law and the US Constitution that is demanding others respect the rights and freedoms you claim to worship

2) Are you saying gays are being denied their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms out of anger and spite? It sure does sound that way.

3) There is a constitutional right to form Boy Scout troops? Where do you find this right in the constitution?

I was unaware the Boy Scouts were a 'straight' organization. Maybe we should read their charter and tax filings?

4) There are gay and straight bakeries? Nuts! The public accommodation laws -- do you disagree with them? Would you have supported separate but equal? You know, bathrooms and water fountains for blacks only and whites only?

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I can't decide if it's funny or if it's heartbreaking that so many people have absolutely no clue what these terms mean.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

- Ronald Reagan

I'm guessing your boy Ron wasn't referring to the Greeks.

By all means, RWnuts, entertain us. Throw Reagan under the bus to keep your myth alive.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

too funny

 

[bendog]

"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."

- Ronald Reagan

I'm guessing your boy Ron wasn't referring to the Greeks.

By all means, RWnuts, entertain us. Throw Reagan under the bus to keep your myth alive.

And then hijacked by the repeal the 17th folks.

P.S., not making any comment as to the 17th affecting federalism.

 

[peach174]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

BTW the United States is by far and away the greatest democracy in the world. It's not even close. So to say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, is a logical fallacy.

Then we should change the Constitution that guarantees us a Republican form of government.

Democracy and Republic are interchangeable, if their structure warrants it. You are very confused on this issue,

as you are on most.

You are confusing ideology with how the two different governments are set up and run.
Our Founders did not want our government set up as a Democracy.

Then they screwed up royally because they set us up as a democracy (with a subset as a democratic republic).

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

 

[dcraelin]

So what? Democratic principles and rights are enshrined in our Republic. At first the electorate was mostly white male property owners. Now it's every citizen over 18 mostly .

That's different, the majority of the people voting for the Representatives did not change the way the three branches operate. That was a good thing
Changing the vote from the State legislators to the people changed the way that the House, Senate and Presidency works.

It did not change the function of the senate. If you want to see power taken from individuals, you are not a conservative.

Yes it did.
By States electing them they would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.
Now they have the pressure of the populace not the States interests. They became the same as the House.
The House is the peoples voice, the Senate is not.

The pressure of what populace?....the states populace....and the staes populace should have the interst of the state as a whole in mind....

senators elected by state legislators were susiptable to corruption..that is what direct election was meant to cure....I think it did help a little.

Now, the Santae of rome was officially advisory only...

Ben Frnaklin wanted a one-house legislature....

perhaps taking some power away from the seante would be good....term limits...and or shorter terms also an idea worth considering.

 

[dcraelin]

Peach's statement about Senators representing a state and not the state's people is inane.

Senators were more or less appointed in order to keep them from cow-towing to the mob-ocracy. Think of it in terms of having elected judges versus appointed ones. The bicameral congress was modeled at that time on the British Parliament and House of Lords

To a large extent, that's true. One thing to remember is that in the Founder's era, 'democracy' was very nearly a pejorative. It was analogous to the tyranny of the majority. Because of the German revival of Greek classics, democracy was known as the system of government that killed Socrates. And was generally considered untenable.

The nation was created as a grand experiment, with even its most enthusiastic supporters expecting to last no more than 20 years or so. It was philosophically based on the power of the people, the rights of the people. But in practice, the founders kept governance thoroughly separated from the people. Of all branches of government, the people voted only for members of the House. All others were done through representatives.

The 800 pound gorilla in the era of the founders...were the State legislatures. They could amend the constitution, assign electors, appoint senators, call constitutional conventions. They dominated all aspects of the federal government save one:

The purse.

certain types of 'democracy' are anathema today -- and to Dante

interesting factoid: The state legislatures did not get to ratify the constitution.

Yes, but.

The state legislatures elected the state convention participants in a manner very similar to how electors are selected. The State Conventions for the ratification of the constitution were for all intents and purposes analogous to the Electoral College which elects presidents. And that is a process that the founders intended the State legislatures to dominate.

I think you are wrong on how you think the ratifying delegates were chosen....I know for certain you are wrong regarding Rhode Island...It took more than one vote ...but some of them were by staewide popular vote....

I think the rest of the states were by district....probably the same districts that the state legislatures came from.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Corruption is a lot easier when you only have to buy off a few influential state legislators. Rigging an entire election is much more difficult.