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

[Skylar]

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.

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

[
Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

 

[peach174]

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.

Oh, absolutely. Many modern conservatives lament about 'government overreach'. But what they really mean is FEDERAL government overreach. If its the State government, game on.

Take.....Ron Paul. He wants the USSC forbidden from ruling on issues of abortion, for federal protections protecting the right to choose stripped from all American women. Then he wants the issues sent to the States, where he wants it criminalized.

No thank you.

Conservatives demand an 'activist court' too when it suits their purposes
Witness the legal wrangling over the PPACA/Obamacare: demanding the Court throw out a duly enacted law because they do not like it

There is a lot more than just Conservatives who don't like the law.

 

[whitehall]

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

America certainly is a democracy but it is also a Constitutional Republic.

 

[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.

Do you believe the state conventions had the authority of the people of their respective states as opposed to the authority of the state legislatures? The sovereignty of the people and not the sovereignty of states?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Oh, absolutely. Many modern conservatives lament about 'government overreach'. But what they really mean is FEDERAL government overreach. If its the State government, game on.

Take.....Ron Paul. He wants the USSC forbidden from ruling on issues of abortion, for federal protections protecting the right to choose stripped from all American women. Then he wants the issues sent to the States, where he wants it criminalized.

No thank you.

Conservatives demand an 'activist court' too when it suits their purposes
Witness the legal wrangling over the PPACA/Obamacare: demanding the Court throw out a duly enacted law because they do not like it

There is a lot more than just Conservatives who don't like the law.

only a fool would disagree there
but in recent times it has been the Conservatives who have used the 'activist court' weapon -- it just exposes the hypocrisy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

America certainly is a democracy but it is also a Constitutional Republic.

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

 

[Skylar]

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.

Do you believe the state conventions had the authority of the people of their respective states as opposed to the authority of the state legislatures? The sovereignty of the people and not the sovereignty of states?

That's kind of a 'if the Hulk can lift Thor and Thor can lift the hammer, then the Hulk can lift the hammer' scenario. Ultimately its all the people's authority. But the people don't weild that authority directly. They gotta pick up Thor first.

 

[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.

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

[
Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

 

[Skylar]

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.

Like I said earlier. The Senate and House need to change their rules and get that money out of their committees as well as the lobbyists. Tax reform would get rid of a lot of the lobbyists. The money influence in the committees needs to change and that has to be done by how they run the House and Senate.
That is the problem, money from out of state isn't if the people themselves are informed about the issues. It seems that might be changing slowly.

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

[
Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

Nodding....one involves the Federal Government. The other doesn't. But the numbers are still the same: 2/3rds.

 

[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.

Do you believe the state conventions had the authority of the people of their respective states as opposed to the authority of the state legislatures? The sovereignty of the people and not the sovereignty of states?

That's kind of a 'if the Hulk can lift Thor and Thor can lift the hammer, then the Hulk can lift the hammer' scenario. Ultimately its all the people's authority. But the people don't weild that authority directly. They gotta pick up Thor first.

The distinction deserves much more than you give credit for. The reasoning behind the why this was the process the framers chose for ratification makes for interesting reading and makes your Hulk/Thor/Hammer analogy fall flat

 

[Agit8r]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

[
Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

Nodding....one involves the Federal Government. The other doesn't. But the numbers are still the same: 2/3rds.

yep, the numbers in themselves are the same, but it is not really about the actual number(s). It is about what the numbers represent. Step back and maybe you will see the forest ... (forest for the trees?)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

nope. wrong.

fail

 

[Skylar]

You'd need a constitutional amendment since Citizens United. There was never a ruling more caustic to our republic than that one.

[
Good luck with that one.
I don't think that 2/3rds will happen.

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

Nodding....one involves the Federal Government. The other doesn't. But the numbers are still the same: 2/3rds.

yep, the numbers in themselves are the same, but it is not really about the actual number(s). It is about what the numbers represent. Step back and maybe you will see the forest ... (forest for the trees?)

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

Nodding....one involves the Federal Government. The other doesn't. But the numbers are still the same: 2/3rds.

yep, the numbers in themselves are the same, but it is not really about the actual number(s). It is about what the numbers represent. Step back and maybe you will see the forest ... (forest for the trees?)

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

you kept at the 2/3

never mind

 

[Skylar]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

There is no 'better' in the context of then versus now. In many ways they got the BEST they could.

and Superior to what? Was it superior before the Civil War? Did it change after the Civil War?

 

[Agit8r]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

And when that provision is enforced, so-called "Republicans" call it tyranny. Go figure...

 

[Agit8r]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

nope. wrong.

fail

You obviously need to look up what the word means.

 

[peach174]

there are more than one way to amend the US Constitution .. hmm...

The numbers are still the same. 2/3rds.

Both a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures are two separate animals. Granted a CC has never been called to amend - yet, so far

Nodding....one involves the Federal Government. The other doesn't. But the numbers are still the same: 2/3rds.

yep, the numbers in themselves are the same, but it is not really about the actual number(s). It is about what the numbers represent. Step back and maybe you will see the forest ... (forest for the trees?)

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

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

 

[Agit8r]

A proper republic would ensure equality before the law, even to those not in the majority. y'know, minorities.

A better republic than the founders were ever able to produce would. Theirs lasted about 85 years before descending into civil war to resolve many of the fatal flaws in the founder's constitution.

We've vastly improved on their flaws. And we're pushing 150 years without a civil war using our superior constitution. Which includes the very provisions you cited.

A 'proper republic' needs defining and agreement

A 'better republic' -- our 'superior constitution'?????

There is no 'better' in the context of then versus now. In many ways they got the BEST they could.

and Superior to what? Was it superior before the Civil War? Did it change after the Civil War?

It did change after the Civil War. Most principally, the 14th Amendment enforces the Bill of Rights against the states. So now the Federal Gov't can actually assure to each state a republican form of government.