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

[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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

 

[kaz]

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

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

I wouldn't think this is an concept out of the reach of anyone who made it through 8th grade. But apparently it is still just a little too "tricky" for some.

Amazing.

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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

True, but odd coming from someone supporting mob rule.

 

[bendog]

screw you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

 

[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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

yeah, I agree. I just think Cromwell was one of the more loathsome folks. I'm not sure the founders were in favor of beheading a king so much as being left alone to pursue commerce.

But imo the pt is that if you're arguing against the direct election of senators, at the basic, you're against expanding the franchise, and prefer to have a monied few decide the govt. And that is exactly what the Founders were not about. They didn't like the elite in England affecting their trade. Arguing that direct elections are swayed by money is at best a false equivalency because the reform came about because people were actually SELLING senate seats. Moreover, if you can't trust fellow citizens to do the right thing .... you're a democrat.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bendog - Thanks, yes. I agree (again - almost 100%) with your last post. But it has been my experience that Republicans are no better at trusting their fellow citizens than Democrats. The big difference is WHAT they trust their fellow citizens to decide.

 

[bendog]

Bendog - Thanks, yes. I agree (again - almost 100%) with your last post. But it has been my experience that Republicans are no better at trusting their fellow citizens than Democrats. The big difference is WHAT they trust their fellow citizens to decide.

yeah. Reagan left nearly 20 years ago. And, I was never really a fan of his economics.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bendog - Thanks, yes. I agree (again - almost 100%) with your last post. But it has been my experience that Republicans are no better at trusting their fellow citizens than Democrats. The big difference is WHAT they trust their fellow citizens to decide.

yeah. Reagan left nearly 20 years ago. And, I was never really a fan of his economics.

FINALLY - 100% agreement!!!!!
I knew we could do it ; )

 

[frigidweirdo]

yeah, I agree. I just think Cromwell was one of the more loathsome folks. I'm not sure the founders were in favor of beheading a king so much as being left alone to pursue commerce.

But imo the pt is that if you're arguing against the direct election of senators, at the basic, you're against expanding the franchise, and prefer to have a monied few decide the govt. And that is exactly what the Founders were not about. They didn't like the elite in England affecting their trade. Arguing that direct elections are swayed by money is at best a false equivalency because the reform came about because people were actually SELLING senate seats. Moreover, if you can't trust fellow citizens to do the right thing .... you're a democrat.

Back then very few people could really have been politicians in any sense, they couldn't read or write and didn't have much in the way of education. Things have changed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

 

[bendog]

It was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

 

[Staidhup]

You can always tell when someone loses an argument or discussion they result to name calling and branding. Ignorance is bliss when one reads from the script and lets others do the thinking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

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.

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

 

[bendog]

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

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.

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

I was gonna let it go, but Peach's position is a false comparison. Whether a pol is selling influence to those seeking a senator's power to those who directly hand him cash, or selling it to those who influence opinion, there's no difference in the senator being pressured by special interest. However, with popular vote, there is always the opportunity for individual citizens to base their vote on their own interests.

If we were really talking about making govt open and responsive, then we'd be talking more about bringing decision making out of Washington and closer to the actual voters.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It was a good change, imo.

We usually say America is traditionally a right of center culture. And it is. The Founders knew the English constitutional monarchy was throttling our growth. And the govt refused to accommodate their needs. They feared a king, but feared mob rule as well. And the French Revolution bore that out. I assume their fears were motivated by the English Civil War.

If we look to what amendments have been made to the constitution, center right has been about expanding the franchise. We had 12 amendments up to the civil war, and they were all sort of technical adjustments or adding protections and rights of the BOR to apply to the fed govt. After that, the maj of amendments have been about expanding the franchise. The Founders feared a tyranny by the mob, while experience taught that the real danger of tyranny came from the few. That is the Founders basic notion was to trust reason and intellect of individuals, but their social background and mores didn't include universal sufferage, yet as time went on be expanded their democratic experiment.

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

So you're saying that you don't believe that protecting the rights of minorities is problematic in a pure democracy?

How come so many votes go against gay marriage then?
Is it the ballot box or the courts that is defending the marriage rights of gays these days?

 

[peach174]

I agree with this almost 100%. Minor exception taken to what I felt was an "underplay" of the tyranny of the masses. I think the religious purges that were so common in England, prompted folks here to support the basic rights of religious minorities. And I think that was a pretty big deal for them.

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

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.

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.

 

[peach174]

Protecting religious rights is not incompatible with democracy.

I think protecting the rights of any minorities is problematic in a pure democracy.

That's the myth that the rightwing oligarchs and tenthers want you to believe.

I think their myth is more about how the First and secular govt is not NOW protecting their rights.

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.

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

I was gonna let it go, but Peach's position is a false comparison. Whether a pol is selling influence to those seeking a senator's power to those who directly hand him cash, or selling it to those who influence opinion, there's no difference in the senator being pressured by special interest. However, with popular vote, there is always the opportunity for individual citizens to base their vote on their own interests.

If we were really talking about making govt open and responsive, then we'd be talking more about bringing decision making out of Washington and closer to the actual voters.

I was not making a position, I am explaining our history.
I agree with you on special interests.
To change that, they need to change the House and Senate rules and change our taxes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do the terms: Representative Democracy and Constitutional Republic ring a bell?

The video speaks of a political spectrum. A political spectrum is NOT a form of government.

The video is an example of extreme ignorance in the hands of self educated fools. I'd be willing to bet the poster/author of the video carries around a pocket Constitution