America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a 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.

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?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

 

[dcraelin]

And courts are included in the constitutin, to protect us from a hateful majority. Not perfect, just the best so far. Too bad greedy idiot Pubs are perverting our country with big money, and a giant bs propaganda machine, hater dupes.

I agree with you alot franco...but I'd the courts are there to inforce the words of the Constitution which represent a greater nationwide majority.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Peach - all due respect - I didn't ask you for an uncited cut and paste. But I'll assume you believe the two are mutually exclusive because of what this writer (whoever they may be) told you to think. Feel free to provide something to the contrary if you have it.

A democratic republic is a democracy. It's not PURE democracy and there has never been a PURE democracy on the planet.

 

[dcraelin]

... and for those who really don't understand why, here is a little quick education on the matter...

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

They absolutely ARE..
A true democracy is governed by 50% plus one. Also, it is absent of remedy for those in opposition.
California and New Jersey are about the closest resemblance to democracies.
California is a "Proposition" state. Where voters can through petitioning of the State legislature or by public petition place a question on a local or statewide ballot that would be binding.
New Jersey is a "binding referendum state"..The process is similar to California in one way. The state government or local government can place a question on a voting ballot.
The decision of the voters is final.

The outcome of Prop 8 says otherwise.

The outcome of prop8 says states cannot take away rights protected by the US Constitution.

In Massachusetts, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall basically said laws singling out individuals who are gay form entering into a marriage contract before the state were against the state constitution. She wrote people could remedy that by amending the state constitution to deny gays this right. This was beautiful in that if it had happened a suit in federal court would have ensued: a state law denying gays the marriage contract right would violate the federal constitution.

True popular democracy is an evil

the Prop 8 SC case decided nothing of the sort, it just made some lame irrational decision on standing....a dangerously dumb decisioon at that.

True popular democracy is not evil....it would in most cases be an improvement on the corruption we have now.

See my pic-quotes in gallery for more on the subject, especially the one with Jefferson who says the will of the majority is the only sure guardian of the rights of man"

 

[peach174]

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.

I agree we should have term limits.
Do we all call our Senators today to influence their votes?
Do the people from all over the country call them, e-mail them and use twitter? This is what is a Democracy. Not a Republic.
That is what has been changed.
We the people call both the House and the Senate both chambers are now the same.

 

[peach174]

Peach - all due respect - I didn't ask you for an uncited cut and paste. But I'll assume you believe the two are mutually exclusive because of what this writer (whoever they may be) told you to think. Feel free to provide something to the contrary if you have it.

A democratic republic is a democracy. It's not PURE democracy and there has never been a PURE democracy on the planet.

I was taught that in school, same as the writer was.
Something the schools are not teaching today.
The Schools have been teaching that we are a democratic republic for the last 50 yeas and that's wrong.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Peach - all due respect - I didn't ask you for an uncited cut and paste. But I'll assume you believe the two are mutually exclusive because of what this writer (whoever they may be) told you to think. Feel free to provide something to the contrary if you have it.

A democratic republic is a democracy. It's not PURE democracy and there has never been a PURE democracy on the planet.

I was taught that in school,same as the writer was.
Something the schools are not teaching today.

Ok, well thank you for your reply.

Personally, I'm very glad that is not taught anymore - kinda like the world is flat stuff. It's just flat wrong. I can't imagine anyone with a college degree trying to foist that off on kids.

No disrespect intended.

Could you provide a link please?

 

[bendog]

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.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Brannon Howse (from my old hometown of Collierville, TN) is a Christian conspiracy theorist. If anyone wants to subscribe to his theories, that's obviously their choice. But I don't and I don't agree with his definitions of democracy and republic.

 

[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.

I agree we should have term limits.
Do we all call our Senators today to influence their votes?
Do the people from all over the country call them, e-mail them and use twitter? This is what is a Democracy. Not a Republic.
That is what has been changed.
We the people call both the House and the Senate both chambers are now the same.

well, we agreee on term limits anyway...Seantors do still represent more area tha most representatives...And i think that what little influence most indidviduals have on them as opposed to donots...it is a good thing.

 

[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.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

I do like the idea of recall......
perhaps we should limit the money Senators take for -election to that from people residents of their states....and no outside money can advertise for them either.

 

[Kosh]

The far left does care about the Constitution or do they care if this a republic or a democracy, they only care about forcing their religion on everyone and being the ruling party by enslaving the masses..

 

[dcraelin]

Why would anyone who supports the principle of democratic government want a Senate that is NOT the voice of the People?

We are not a democratic government, we are a republic and the Senate was originally set up for representing the interests of their States not the people .Balance in power.

lol, another conservative endorses undemocratic government.

You know why the right wants undemocratic government? Because they know their pathetic minority can never inspire enough popular support to be in the majority in a democratic government.

just like progressives, conservatives want more democracy when they think they have the majority. The Bill of Rights exists in many ways as to protect a minority from the majority

Conservatives want to push authority down to smaller balkanized state governments mainly so they can dodge the rights protected by the Constitution.

In essence, yes.

And many on the right attempt to hide their unwarranted fear of diversity and dissent behind the facade of 'states' rights,' where in fact our Constitutional Republic protects the rights of all citizens residing within the states, where one's status as an American citizen is paramount, as the states are subordinate to those rights of National citizenship, where one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and where the majority of a given state or jurisdiction lacks the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: they can't decry a Federal court striking down a state's measure violating the 14th Amendment right of gay Americans to marry as 'ignoring' the 'will of the people,' yet at the same time seek to have a Federal court invalidate a state measure prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, also reflecting the 'will of the people.'

Can you have it both ways?

 

[dcraelin]

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

No it's not. Quite the opposite. You can't be free if you can't chose who governs you.

in a democracy the mob determines who is going to govern you

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[bendog]

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.

What Peach is getting at is the notion that states themselves had representation. That is, supposing a senator supported legislation not supported by the state legislature ... he could be "recalled" under the original constitution. Without going into all of the abuses of power caused by the original concept, I think we have to agree with Peach to some extent that direct election of senators does affect Federalism.

The Campaign to Restore Federalism Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The blogger with an agenda raises the issue of education. Would the federal govt be so ingrained in K-12 education without the 17th? Arguably not. Of course the blogger's agenda really is govt spending.

" Consider recent studies showing that 52% of the U.S. population receives a significant portion of their personal income from government programs. At present, it is in the majority of citizens’ own short-term self-interest to see this flow of money grow larger and faster. Without checks on our own self-interest, we the citizens of the United States will continue to vote ourselves payments from the U.S. Treasury until our national government is financially and philosophically bankrupt."

Soc Sec and Medicare being the biggest cost drivers, and of course if the cap on Soc Sec taxes were lifted, the program would magically be balanced not just over the long term but the short term as well.

To be fair, Peach is honest in saying the issue is America becoming a "social democracy" like Europe. That's an over simplification, given the reality in places like Sweden and Poland, but still it's an honest position, and most likely the Founders never considered a progressive income tax, let alone Soc Sec. Of course, today we simply don't have an option of putting all our goods, and slaves, in a wagon and driving out to Tennessee to kick Indians off some land and start a farm. A super majority of Americans want to keep Soc Sec., so the only way to do away with it is to get rid of direct elections, and let the elites like the Koch Bros determine who is in the senate.

I do like the idea of recall......
perhaps we should limit the money Senators take for -election to that from people residents of their states....and no outside money can advertise for them either.

I believe the five republicans on the Supreme Court have said we may not do that with our own elections.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stupid premise.....as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive.

If only you had finished third grade, these things would be so much more clear to you.....

 

[dcraelin]

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?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[peach174]

Peach - all due respect - I didn't ask you for an uncited cut and paste. But I'll assume you believe the two are mutually exclusive because of what this writer (whoever they may be) told you to think. Feel free to provide something to the contrary if you have it.

A democratic republic is a democracy. It's not PURE democracy and there has never been a PURE democracy on the planet.

I was taught that in school,same as the writer was.
Something the schools are not teaching today.

Ok, well thank you for your reply.

Personally, I'm very glad that is not taught anymore - kinda like the world is flat stuff. It's just flat wrong. I can't imagine anyone with a college degree trying to foist that off on kids.

No disrespect intended.

Could you provide a link please?

A link to what?

And that is exactly why we are in the mess that we have right now.
Hillsdale College is as well as many other conservative colleges are still teaching it.
I could never see it in a liberal college, because they don't tolerate any conservative views.
One thing that I do like seeing, is conservative college students fighting back on that intolerance in Liberal Colleges.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Some of the delegates at the state conventions were legislators and some were not. Maybe this caused confusion in the Skylar?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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?

WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”[1]
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”[2]
“A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.”[3]
These are hardly the sentiments today’s average American would expect from the pens of our Founding Fathers. Yet, the men who established our great nation understood a critical facet of political philosophy that is all but lost on 21st century Americans. They did not set out to establish a democracy but rather, a constitutional republic.

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The link didn't work on my screen, but I understand the relationship.

I attended a small, very conservative Baptist college for two years and a larger state university for two years. In my experience the state school was far more tolerant and expansive in their review of all sorts of points of view.

I found the Baptist school to be extremely intolerant of points of view that did not match their own.