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

[dcraelin]

Uncensored2008 dcraelin

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

"The term originates as the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various western European languages)" - wikipedia entry

the dead giveaway is that when the framers gave us a republic, the French were still a monarchy.

• French First Republic (1792–1804)

I think this is wrong also, but have less of a problem with it

 

[Skylar]

The amendments at issue (after 1868) that forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights include the 14th.

Our discussion of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States was part of our discussion of the failures and flaws of the founders in writing the constitution. With one of the great flaws of their constitution being that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

You insisted the Bill of Rights did apply. You were obviously wrong. As you so elegantly demonstrated by your sudden and awkward shift from the Founders writing the constitution in 1787.....to the era after the 14th amendment after 1868. 80 years later.

Um, Dante......the founders were all dead when the 14th amendment passed. Their children were dead. The founders didn't write the 14th. The Founders lacked the foresight or ability to do so when they wrote their deeply and fundamentally flawed constitution. The 14th amendment was an attempt to correct the huge and horrendous flaw in the Founder's constitution.

As Congressman Bingham made so clear when arguing for the need of the 14th amendment, insisting that had the Federal Government the power to enforce and protect the rights of citizens in the States, the Civil War would never have happened. And that such power did not exist in the constitution as the founders wrote it.

Which is exactly my point. A point you just conceded by jumping to 1869. Which obviously has nothing to do with the founders who were all food for worms at that point.

Before that the courts ruled protections in the Bill of Rights limited only the actions of the federal government.

And finally, you get it. Exactly as I've said, over and over again, the constitution as the founders wrote it did NOT apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And the is one of the many gross and horrendous flaws in the constitution that the founders created that we had to fix. The Bill of Rights not applying to the States, it did not limit State action, and the States were free to ignore whatever part of the Bill of Rights they saw fit.

That was a truck sized flaw. A flaw so severe that Congressman Bingham argued that had it not existed, the Civil War never would have happened when introducing the 14th amendment. That's hundreds of thousands of American lives lost because the founders couldn't create a constitution without such a hideous flaw. And that flaw was one among many.

We've done better than the founders. Our constitution contains no such flaw. The Bill of Rights DOES limit state action under our constitution. And rights are better protected because of it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.
check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

no your making a fool of yourself...I agree ,mostly, with your outline of republic ...the thing public...the same basic meaning as democracy..which you get wrong..it means litereally public power....

public power...the public thing....really the same thing

I think point of OP is that people are stupid so we have a Republic rather than a democracy. But now we suffer from more democracy than out genius founders wanted and the only cure is voter qualification tests.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The amendments at issue (after 1868) that forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights include the 14th.

Our discussion of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States was part of our discussion of the failures and flaws of the founders in writing the constitution. With one of the great flaws of their constitution being that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

You insisted the Bill of Rights did apply. You were obviously wrong.

...

and I thought I admitted that and apologized and explained. Maybe you missed that part in the flood of posts?

 

[dcraelin]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.
check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

no your making a fool of yourself...I agree ,mostly, with your outline of republic ...the thing public...the same basic meaning as democracy..which you get wrong..it means litereally public power....

public power...the public thing....really the same thing

I think point of OP is that people are stupid so we have a Republic rather than a democracy. But now we suffer from more democracy than out genius founders wanted and the only cure is voter qualification tests.

qualification tests would be dangerous....for instance if asked whether we are a democracy or not the OP would get it wrong and not be able to vote....now perhaps that would improve election results in my opinion...but it would be unfair.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The amendments at issue (after 1868) that forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights include the 14th.

Our discussion of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States was part of our discussion of the failures and flaws of the founders in writing the constitution. With one of the great flaws of their constitution being that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

You insisted the Bill of Rights did apply. You were obviously wrong. As you so elegantly demonstrated by your sudden and awkward shift from the Founders writing the constitution in 1787.....to the era after the 14th amendment after 1868. 80 years later.

Um, Dante......the founders were all dead when the 14th amendment passed. Their children were dead. The founders didn't write the 14th. The Founders lacked the foresight or ability to do so when they wrote their deeply and fundamentally flawed constitution. The 14th amendment was an attempt to correct the huge and horrendous flaw in the Founder's constitution.

As Congressman Bingham made so clear when arguing for the need of the 14th amendment, insisting that had the Federal Government the power to enforce and protect the rights of citizens in the States, the Civil War would never have happened. And that such power did not exist in the constitution as the founders wrote it.

Which is exactly my point. A point you just conceded by jumping to 1869. Which obviously has nothing to do with the founders who were all food for worms at that point.

Before that the courts ruled protections in the Bill of Rights limited only the actions of the federal government.

And finally, you get it. Exactly as I've said, over and over again, the constitution as the founders wrote it did NOT apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

And the is one of the many gross and horrendous flaws in the constitution that the founders created that we had to fix. The Bill of Rights not applying to the States, it did not limit State action, and the States were free to ignore whatever part of the Bill of Rights they saw fit.

That was a truck sized flaw. A flaw so severe that Congressman Bingham argued that had it not existed, the Civil War never would have happened when introducing the 14th amendment. That's hundreds of thousands of American lives lost because the founders couldn't create a constitution without such a hideous flaw. And that flaw was one among many.

We've done better than the founders. Our constitution contains no such flaw. The Bill of Rights DOES limit state action under our constitution. And rights are better protected because of it.

I can see the flaw having been not so obvious to some of the framers. Some were idealists who didn't even think they needed such a bill. A flaw today that was not so obvious back then is nothing to condemn and jump up and down and shout about while trying to prove somehow you or I or we are more enlightened.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.
check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

no your making a fool of yourself...I agree ,mostly, with your outline of republic ...the thing public...the same basic meaning as democracy..which you get wrong..it means litereally public power....

public power...the public thing....really the same thing

I think point of OP is that people are stupid so we have a Republic rather than a democracy. But now we suffer from more democracy than out genius founders wanted and the only cure is voter qualification tests.

qualification tests would be dangerous....for instance if asked whether we are a democracy or not the OP would get it wrong and not be able to vote....now perhaps that would improve election results in my opinion...but it would be unfair.

that question would be too hard and all Americans would be disqualified. A basic question like who is president and vice president would disqualify about 40%.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

The Majority of the people do not want the new AHCA.
They did not like it when it passed and they still don't like it now.
It had nothing to do with a popular President
The bill is very unpopular and it is a rotten bill.
Any bill that harms the majority to help the minority is not a good bill.

Uncensored2008 dcraelin

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

"The term originates as the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various western European languages)" - wikipedia entry

the dead giveaway is that when the framers gave us a republic, the French were still a monarchy.

• French First Republic (1792–1804)

I think this is wrong also, but have less of a problem with it

French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
First Known Use: 1604

Republic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Our republic was founded before the French Republic. Madison was reading up on the past -- most likely in latin and greek

 

[dcraelin]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.
check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

no your making a fool of yourself...I agree ,mostly, with your outline of republic ...the thing public...the same basic meaning as democracy..which you get wrong..it means litereally public power....

public power...the public thing....really the same thing

I think point of OP is that people are stupid so we have a Republic rather than a democracy. But now we suffer from more democracy than out genius founders wanted and the only cure is voter qualification tests.

qualification tests would be dangerous....for instance if asked whether we are a democracy or not the OP would get it wrong and not be able to vote....now perhaps that would improve election results in my opinion...but it would be unfair.

that question would be too hard and all Americans would be disqualified. A basic question like who is president and vice president would disqualify about 40%.

once read, forget where, that those most suseptable to propaganda are those who are imersed in the media......those so -called low-info voteres?...they may just be saving us

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And that such power did not exist in the constitution as the founders wrote it.

1) the bill of righs was not in the Constitution as the founders wrote it out of fear that if the central govt controlled rights it would restict them rather than protect them.

2) central govt should not have power over states since this limits freedom of states.

3) and since this make a federal mistake a national mistake

 

[Skylar]

I can see the flaw having been not so obvious to some of the framers.

Is this in relation to your quote of the Bill of Rights Institutes debate on the 9th amendment? You were never able to show us a single passage from the Bill of Rights, or the Bill of Rights Institute that said the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

And in fact abandoned the topic entirely. If you'd like to raise that rhetorical zombie, feel free. But you'll still need that quote stating that the Bill of Rights applied to the States in order to keep that shambling mound ambulatory.

And you don't have such a quote. You've even admitted that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States until after the 14th amendment. Which pretty much puts a bullet through the fetid brain of your entire failed argument on the Bill of Rights applying to the States according to the Founders.

A flaw today that was not so obvious back then is nothing to condemn and jump up and down and shout about while trying to prove somehow you or I or we are more enlightened.

The overwhelming majority of the debate over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was over enumeration. That if you enumerated rights, some might argue that only enumerated rights existed. That's the entire reason the 9th amendment was added, to alleviate those justified fears by articulating the existence of reserve rights.

There's one mention, a grand total of one mention of the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With the delegate who brought it up saying that the States were the defenders of the rights of the people.

The assumption that a state government wouldn't violate rights is absurdly naive. We have a vastly superior understanding of rights, their nature, their application, and what is necessary to protect them than the founders ever did.

Our constitution is better. It protects more rights from violation by larger numbers of government entities, including more people, and is more viable. As we've corrected the litany of mistakes made by the founders. Including the absurd flaw that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, the abomination of slavery, restrictions of voting for women, voting for non-land owners, and voting for blacks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.
check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

no your making a fool of yourself...I agree ,mostly, with your outline of republic ...the thing public...the same basic meaning as democracy..which you get wrong..it means litereally public power....

public power...the public thing....really the same thing

I think point of OP is that people are stupid so we have a Republic rather than a democracy. But now we suffer from more democracy than out genius founders wanted and the only cure is voter qualification tests.

With an automatic fail for anyone who claims we are not a democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can see the flaw having been not so obvious to some of the framers.

Is this in relation to your quote of the Bill of Rights Institutes debate on the 9th amendment? You were never able to show us a single passage from the Bill of Rights, or the Bill of Rights Institute that said the Bill of Rights applied to the States.

And in fact abandoned the topic entirely. If you'd like to raise that rhetorical zombie, feel free. But you'll still need that quote stating that the Bill of Rights applied to the States in order to keep that shambling mound ambulatory.

And you don't have such a quote. You've even admitted that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States until after the 14th amendment. Which pretty much puts a bullet through the fetid brain of your entire failed argument on the Bill of Rights applying to the States according to the Founders.

A flaw today that was not so obvious back then is nothing to condemn and jump up and down and shout about while trying to prove somehow you or I or we are more enlightened.

The overwhelming majority of the debate over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights was over enumeration. That if you enumerated rights, some might argue that only enumerated rights existed. That's the entire reason the 9th amendment was added, to alleviate those justified fears by articulating the existence of reserve rights.

There's one mention, a grand total of one mention of the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. With the delegate who brought it up saying that the States were the defenders of the rights of the people.

The assumption that a state government wouldn't violate rights is absurdly naive. We have a vastly superior understanding of rights, their nature, their application, and what is necessary to protect them than the founders ever did.

Our constitution is better. It protects more rights from violation by larger numbers of government entities, including more people, and is more viable. As we've corrected the litany of mistakes made by the founders. Including the absurd flaw that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, the abomination of slavery, restrictions of voting for women, voting for non-land owners, and voting for blacks.

The roots of the Bill of Rights go back to the 17th century:

Liberties

 

[Skylar]

1) the bill of righs was not in the Constitution as the founders wrote it out of fear that if the central govt controlled rights it would restict them rather than protect them.

The founders did write the Bill of Rights, with Congress passing it the same year the Constitution was ratified. With the Bill of Rights being ratified 2 years later. The man who was the primary author of the Bill of Rights was also the primary author of the Constitution. The passage of the constitution was predicated on the writing of a Bill of Rights as a condition of support by many States.

The founders own the Constitution as the wrote it and the Bill of Rights that amended it 2 years later.

They also own the colossal mistake of not applying that Bill of Rights to the States. A flaw that the primary writer of the 14th amendment attributed as integral to the outbreak of the Civil War.

2) central govt should not have power over states since this limits freedom of states.

The central government should absolutely have the power to prevent the rights of its citizens from being abused by, well....anyone. Including state governments. The idea that State governments wouldn't abuse rights is laughably absurd. As history demonstrates.

3) and since this make a federal mistake a national mistake

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that such power did not exist in the constitution as the founders wrote it.

1) the bill of righs was not in the Constitution as the founders wrote it out of fear that if the central govt controlled rights it would restict them rather than protect them.

2) central govt should not have power over states since this limits freedom of states.

3) and since this make a federal mistake a national mistake

The central government does control rights. Try passing a state law that restricts gun rights to the point of violating the 2nd amendment and see which government wins, state or federal.

 

[Skylar]

The amendments at issue (after 1868) that forced the states to respect the Bill of Rights include the 14th.

Our discussion of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States was part of our discussion of the failures and flaws of the founders in writing the constitution. With one of the great flaws of their constitution being that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

You insisted the Bill of Rights did apply. You were obviously wrong.

...

and I thought I admitted that and apologized and explained. Maybe you missed that part in the flood of posts?

Maybe I did. This thread is 50 pages long, after all.

As long as we're on the same page as far as the application of the Bill of Rights.

 

[pvsi]

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

America is a nation full of dingbats who post idiotic videos and form idiotic movements without any understanding of reality. I managed to watch two minutes of the garbage video in OP just out of respect and understanding that learning is a never ending process, but then it became clear after the first minute, that the guy in the video is full of BS, the only solution to America is what it says in my signature

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) the bill of righs was not in the Constitution as the founders wrote it out of fear that if the central govt controlled rights it would restict them rather than protect them.

The founders did write the Bill of Rights, with Congress passing it the same year the Constitution was ratified. With the Bill of Rights being ratified 2 years later. The man who was the primary author of the Bill of Rights was also the primary author of the Constitution. The passage of the constitution was predicated on the writing of a Bill of Rights as a condition of support by many States.

The founders own the Constitution as the wrote it and the Bill of Rights that amended it 2 years later.

2) central govt should not have power over states since this limits freedom of states.

The central government should absolutely have the power to prevent the rights of its citizens from being abused by, well....anyone. Including state governments. The idea that State governments wouldn't abuse rights is laughably absurd. As history demonstrates.

3) and since this make a federal mistake a national mistake

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

When are conservatives fighting for states' rights?

1. When they claim that abortion rights should be left up to the states, because they want a way around the current constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

2. when they claim that marriage rights should be left up to the states, because they fear that the federal government via the Constitution will make same sex marriage a right.

etc....

Conservatives more often than not want states rights for the purpose of restricting rights, not expanding them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When are conservatives fighting for states' rights?

1. When they claim that abortion rights should be left up to the states, because they want a way around the current constitutional protection of the right to an abortion.

2. when they claim that marriage rights should be left up to the states, because they fear that the federal government via the Constitution will make same sex marriage a right.

etc....

Conservatives more often than not want states rights for the purpose of restricting rights, not expanding them.

of course America was a far better, stronger, and right track nation when we had love rather than abortion and traditional marriage rather than family destruction.

What a crime it would be if some states had the freedom to be superior and if the rest of us could move there rather than being forced under the libcommie central govt.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

America is a nation full of dingbats who post idiotic videos and form idiotic movements without any understanding of reality. I managed to watch two minutes of the garbage video in OP just out of respect and understanding that learning is a never ending process, but then it became clear after the first minute, that the guy in the video is full of BS, the only solution to America is what it says in my signature

and the biggest imbeciles constantly post photos of their ugly mutts