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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

I also do not like Jefferson, his believes were somewhat closer to some the elites that we have in both parties today, far from honorable or admirable.

Attention Shoppers -- Hell has frozen over in aisle 666

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

 

[NYcarbineer]

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..

You don't have to worry about being enslaved - people are enslaved to get work out of them.

 

[peach174]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Types of democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I win, Corky.

 

[peach174]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Types of democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I win, Corky.

Republic Define Republic at Dictionary.com

 

[bendog]

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.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Types of democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I win, Corky.

Republic Define Republic at Dictionary.com

You already lost now shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

From YOUR OWN LINK:

A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

peach174 what about representative democracies. how does the usa in your opinion not fit the criteria?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

It's a false choice you put forward. In critiquing her opinion you have exposed an equally abhorrent (to me and others) opinion -- in the words of Clinton and others who demagogue a point "The American people always get it right in the end."

Direct elections of Senators got rid of one set of problems in exchange for another set of problems. While we can disagree or agree over which set of problems is more desirable, direct democracy is still an ugly red headed step child

I didn't intend the post to be an apology for direct election. Peach's view is, imo, correct in that essentially the original scheme was states themselves had representation in the national legislature. Without the 17th, would we have the same federal involvement in K-12 education ... or even interstate highways? Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?

I think Reagan was correct when he opined that once people get a program or benefit of sorts .... govt cannot kill the beast of its own creation.

But, direct election was simply an invitation to graft. I don't see how the Founders could have envisioned a post-Civil War federal govt and the problems of graft. We have the 17th, and it's not going anywhere. Practically speaking, there isn't much chance of amending the constitution, which is one irony of Justice Roberts and Citizens United, but that's another issue.

It might be possible to put term limits on senators, and that arguably would make them less interested in reelection than governing.

"Without the 17th...Would LBJ have had the senate votes for Medicare?"

We are back to that. That was and is the opinion of critics of the 17th. State legislatures are better off sticking to state issues and not national ones. They actually function better that way.

Reagan was a doddering old fool in many ways. If people want a program -- keep your ideology off their programs. What Reagan wanted was for government to interfere with what people wanted

Graft was horrific before direct elections. Who cares what the framers envisioned about this -- they left in place an amendment process because THEY KNEW they couldn't possibly envision everything

IMNSHO, practically "there isn't much chance of amending the constitution" not because of Citizens United, but because we have demagogues were we need leaders. None of us trust enough people to get their hands on amendments or redoing the Constitution.

Term limits invites it's own set of problems, where the remedy might just be worse than the dis-ease. It sux in California where I am now -- as does the imbecilic ballot initiative.

Money doesn't BUY elections, it persuades stupid people too dumb to get informed on issues (yet who know sports stats and celebrity gossip like experts) to vote or not vote one way or the other and even to vote or stay home.

People are the problem, not government

I didn't assert that CI impaired amending the constitution. The Irony was that Roberts said he just wanted to be a fair umpire and call balls and strikes. The 17th didn't end graft, but it did ultimately (or perhaps until CI) allow us to demand those buying influence identify themselves.

I think Reagan wanted a return to pre-civil rights laws America, and I don't mean to imply he was racist.

People have always been the problem. To that, there's no answer.

What Roberts did is classic -- he took the principled stance of bending over backward in order to respect Congress' role. It has been the philosophy of most all the Justices for ages

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

peach174

The United States is not a Democracy. It is more of a Republic, with representatives for the people, such as Senators and Congressmen.
The reason that some Americans think that USA is a Democracy is because it holds some of the most important essences of the ideology: The Five Freedoms: Religious Liberty · Speech · Press · Assembly · Petition.
Just because it has those essences does not make us a Democracy.
You are seeing how we are a Republic right now, by how the Conservatives in the House is not letting full lefty ideology take over.
It happened under Wilson, F.D.R., Carter, Clinton and now Obama.

You have yet top show people HOW the USA is NOT a democracy. Try this: Democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What in the wiki page does not apply to the USA?

Peach?

peach174

 

[JWBooth]

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” — H. L. Mencken, July 26, 1920

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the long list of definitions of 'democracy' and see how many of them support the OP's crackpot assertion:

Google

please -- peach174

List of countries by system of government - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Types of democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I win, Corky.

Republic Define Republic at Dictionary.com

Using your own reference:

constitutional democracy
noun
a system of government based on popular sovereignty in which the structures, powers, and limits of government are set forth in a constitution

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” — H. L. Mencken, July 26, 1920

In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. - H. L. Mencken

 

[dcraelin]

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"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

I also do not like Jefferson, his believes were somewhat closer to some the elites that we have in both parties today, far from honorable or admirable.

your both wrong on Jefferson. without him and Madison turning our nation away fromt he corrupt federalists, we would have lost our independence and probably would have been reabsorbed into the british empire....he also expanded our country tremendously and ushered in what I think someone on here called the era of good feelings.

The prop 8 decision was tremendously dumb and dangerous....it basically said 7 million people dont have standing in federal court. It gave states atorney generals power to ignore their duty to theri constituents.

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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"

I was speaking generally of the effect on the case. The standing decision was neither lame nor dumb

True popular democracy is evil. I remember being at Occupy meetings where that nonsense ruled. What they got was mayhem and disorder bordering on collective anarchy. Our framers were wise to steer clear of such imbecilic notions of direct and popular democracy. Nature abhors a vacuum and a vacuum is what demagogues and others step into when popular democracy reigns -- see Adolf Hitler and Nazi party

Jefferson is my least favorite founder and all I can say is thank our lucky stars he had little to do with framing the Constitution. I've read too much on Jefferson to think him an admirable and honorable man

I also do not like Jefferson, his believes were somewhat closer to some the elites that we have in both parties today, far from honorable or admirable.

your both wrong on Jefferson. without him and Madison turning our nation away fromt he corrupt federalists, we would have lost our independence and probably would have been reabsorbed into the british empire....he also expanded our country tremendously and ushered in what I think someone on here called the era of good feelings.

The prop 8 decision was tremendously dumb and dangerous....it basically said 7 million people dont have standing in federal court. It gave states atorney generals power to ignore their duty to theri constituents.

Good gawd man!

Jefferson was not a framer of the US Constitution. Jefferson's hypocrisy allowed him to expand the nation's territorially. Jefferson, the man who was vicious and effete in battle with his opponents - using proxies and going behind backs -- held others to principles he himself could never and never did himself, hold to.

Your presentation and analysis of the Prop8 court decision(s) is based wholly on partisan nitwittery and not the facts of the case.

We could always debate this Prop8 nonsense elsewhere

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Jefferson was a radical lunatic who had a lifelong fantasy of a world that never existed in Saxon England and he supported the worst excesses of the French evolution .

He also kept his own children in slavery. Contempt is too light a felling for this feline of man

 

[dcraelin]

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.

they shoudl ahve looked on it from more of a states rights vieew...I thin it is more i line with the founders intent..than their "reasoning"

We have the framer's views on recall -- it's called elections.

States rights view of what? Senators were supposed to be above the recall of the mobocracy

But they were supposed to represent their states.....and someone said they could be easily recalled by state legislatures....

limiting contributions to in-state residences would be a way to focus on states interests

I'd have to look up the recall thing, but if it's factual I'd bet it was a high bar to pass, like a super majority.

Representing a state or it's people doesn't mean not voting your own conscience. If that were so we would have a government run by plebiscite and referendum. think Hitler and Nazi party

I see you on here defended the idea that we are a democracy...then you turn around and say that!!!....Hitler hated democracy....

he cetainly never used referendum or plebisite.....

 

[dcraelin]

it is folks that didnt trust democracy that ushered in the nazis and hitler, he was appointed under anti-democratic "emergency rules"

It were the framers of the US Constitution that didn't trust democracy. Especially one you reference: Madison

Madison hedged his widely refered to opinion in the federalist...and lhe was using a definition no one before had used..on top of that I think, and historians do too, that he changed his mind basically...turning on the federalists.... with his helping create the first republican party

 

[regent]

The framers didn't trust democracy but did believe the people should be involved in government. It was the Age of Enlightenment The states did the democracy bit deciding who should be allowed to vote for House members. Over the years with education and the fear of democracy lessening states allowed more people to vote, amendments were passed and America became more democratic. Some state Constitutions allow even more democracy with the initiative, referendum and recall.
I think most political scientists label America a democratic-republic.
Incidentally "republic" has more than one definition and early on one meant, not a monarchy, and when Mrs. Powell asked Franklin the big question, she was asking, did the framers give us a king?